All LUG, No Nuts? The Lesbian Fad
	found on NY Observer written by OneWingedAngel, edited by Humberto (Plastic) [ read unedited ] posted Tue 17 Dec 10:01am
		"I'm not about straight and gay," said Anna, "I think that if you see something special in a person, that's all that matters. I've generally found those special things in guys, but Sophie and I were utterly and completely dependent on each other, and I really loved her." "In the guise of open-mindedness and having new experiences, a growing number of heterosexual college women are experiementing sexually with each other," writes OneWingedAngel. "Fueled by the freedom of college and a greater awareness of lesbianism and female sexuality, these LUGs, Lesbians Until Graduation, have become a new element of the college landscape. These LUGs usually retain a heterosexual or bisexual identity (they still like boys), and revert back to heterosexuality once their college career is over. But while the life of a LUG ends at college graduation, it is starting to begin much earlier, as LUGism is spreading to high school girls. While LUGs generally see themselves as experimental free-thinkers who want to explore their sexuality, and sometimes think they're really lesbians, others think of them as posers that do a disservice to real lesbians. Some see them as bored coeds taking too many Womens Studies courses. One former LUG that emerged from her sapphic bliss noted how insane it was to think that she was a real lesbian. Others point out that many LUGs are just being fashionable, noting the Lesbian Chic thread in pop culture that has popped up in movies like Chasing Amy, Bound, and Cruel Intentions. Even the music industry is capitalizing on the fad, as Tatu, a pair of Russian teenage Britney Spears clones that sings about sapphic love and kisses each other in their videos, is hitting the American pop charts."

	" In the meantime, Rebecca Romijn-Stamos reports she is getting annoyed by all those women that hit on her. But now that LUGism is spreading to the underaged set (with their own music idols to boot), what are we to make of it? Is education about female sexuality being filtered downward or is Lesbian Chic really that popular? Does the male gaze young women use on themselves teach them to desire one another? Are boys becoming too much like Tom Green to tolerate? Or, in the words of my favorite homosexual male (and yours), Dan Savage, are women just "fucking nuts?""

[ more plastic... ]    

show almost all: 158 commentsmost: 24 commentsbest: 8 comments by oldest first (ignore threads) newest first highest scores first oldest first newest first (ignore threads)

1.  I'm in favour of it.   by 2trew       at Tue 17 Dec 10:09am score of 3 compelling     See, the way I look at it, it's good to check these things out early on. That way, if you decide (figure out, whatever) that you're a lesbian you can just get on with that. It'll save you some trouble down the road. My opinion may be somewhat influenced by the fact that my wife recently came out of the closet, down the hallway, and right out the front door, though. Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy. Benjamin Franklin   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

52.  Like all necesities, it's a hard thing to do well   by JearBear16       at Tue 17 Dec 12:28pm score of 1   in reply to comment 1     So true, so true. The problem is in many colleges (especially small liberal artsy colleges) one cannot explore their sexuality without it becoming a proclamation. While you may be into a little sumptin' sumptin' on the side, there's always that fear of someone else hearing about it, and then you get plugged into the larger rubric of gay culture on campus. And in many places, that implies a myriad of assumptions about who one is and what they should be like. That, and once you get plugged into that scene even in a small way, its hard to fight the tide to go where one of the above authors explicitly said was the wrong place to go when exploring your sexuality What's NOT okay, however, is rushing into it--coming out to everyone you know, marching in the Pride parade, listening to a lot of Ani DiFranco, loudly insisting on how here 'n' queer you are--before you really know what team you're playing for. A lot of gay folk (male and female) on campuses just want to go on about their lives, date who they want to date, live how they want to live, just like everyone else out there. But its hard to be gay or even experiment with your sexuality without getting sucked into the existing institutions of "gay culture" as that's where so many LUGS, FUGS, or folk who have already decided have positioned themselves to try out this "new lifestyle" that they did not have entre to in their old hometown. man + hydrodynamic forces = me   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   104.  One more recruit and I get the toaster oven!   by Squeaky wheel       at Tue 17 Dec 3:30pm score of 1   in reply to comment 1     Throughout this thread, I can't find the criteria for being a lesbian. Do I have to sleep with 12 women? With women from now own? If I have a one-night stand with a guy do I get disqualified? What if I didn't enjoy it? (These are some issues Go Fish addresses.) LUGs may still be defining where they fall on the spectrum of sexuality. It's a continuum, I think, and they might be closer to gay, or closer to straight, or fall somewhere in the bisexual middle. LUGs are experimenting not only with the sex, but also with the lifestyle of loving women. What will Mommy and Daddy say when your "closest friend, Lisa" wants to be your fiancee? I think LUGs are just trying to get comfortable in their own skins. Are they genuinely attracted to women? I think most are, and I don't think that attraction fades after graduation. But to what extent do they want to embrace the lesbian lifestyle, which might mean the challenges of committing to a same-sex partner, having children, et al? Some will choose to marry Sean or Jeff ; others will marry Sue or Joan; their hearts and their families' expectations will help them make this decision. But not all LUGs date and marry men just to appease their families. I think many LUGs leave college and either don't meet a lot of lesbian/bisexual women to date, or they fall in love with a man and stop seeking other partners, male or female. BTW: The headline on this comment referrs to an Ellen episode; a must for any babydyke. to expose your ass on paper terrifies some... and well it should   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   120.  Re: One more recruit and I get the toaster oven!   by Screename2000       at Tue 17 Dec 6:53pm score of 1 disingenuous   in reply to comment 104     Sexuality is fluid and, IMO, dominated by psychology, though I also believe there is a genetic factor involved. The LUG phenomenon, along with its pseudo-corollary of consensual homosexual activity between heterosexual male prisoners, shows that circumstances and tastes can easily drive sexual desire and that most individuals open-minded enough can probably enjoy sexual relationships with any gender. And so, I think it's essential for us as a society to be open to all forms of sexual diversity. However, I believe these young women engaging in "parttime" lesbian activity is unhealthy. I think experimentation is a good thing (though I'd emphasize self-reflection more than licking some coochie to see if you think it tastes good), but I don't think most of these women are experimenting. They admit that they are enjoying lesbianism for the time being with the intent on entering a heterosexual relationship when they want to get "serious." I think the primary reasons behind their short affair with homosexuality is, as an anonymous not-so-idiot stated, "in addition to the [1] 'guys thinking you're hot' factor (which is true enough),... [2] it's fun to mess with other girls. They smell nice, they're soft, [3] they understand you in ways that men do not, they have more similar interests.... when the "passion" fades, you have a great friend for life." Women in a lesbian relationship for reason number 3 above are the healthiest of the unhealthy. Though they assert that they will eventually be with a male partner, these women know that it's easier to engage in an intimate, caring, loving relationship with other women who have a similarly superior feminine perspective on relationships (especially when we talk about relationships in college and the average college male's perspective on love and sex). So I'm sympathetic to their desire to have something special for the time being that's more fulfilling than what they can find with a male, even if they know the the sexual and intimate part of the relationship is destined to be temporary. However, I think it's ideally healthy to be in a relationship with a person whom you haven't written off completely due to gender. The only caveat being that these women should at NO cost get involved with a woman who may be unsure whether she eventually wants to be with a man and could possibly want something long-term. (I'd say the same rationale and caveat hold true for women's apparently greater sexual attraction toward gay men.) As for reasons 1 and 2, they are both the result of two combined social forces. Youth and popular media's everlasting quest to be shocking, on the edge and revolutionary has introduced nontraditional sexual relationships to a younger audience via the advertising, fashion, enternmainment industries. With the idea of nonconformist sexual relationships now becoming widespread within teen culture, high schoolers today have expeditiously received the sexual experimentation diplomas of yesteryear's college students, and instead use the freedom afforded by college to adopt lifestyles that allow for a more diverse sexual life, rather than to simply experiment. But why does the "shoe not fit the other foot" (Ernest), why is there that big difference that coquito convincingly outlines? Why don't men openly engage in lifestyles of temporary homosexuality during their college years or rub their buttocks together to attract women (coquito)? I believe the reason is that the culture of sexual nonconformity is working with a second social force: society's pervasive, and still strong, perception of a woman as primarily a sexual being. So while Elvis_x is correct in stating, "What's happening, slowly, is a blurring of sexuality definitions," one must go further and note that sexuality is being redefined by the patriarchy, and female sexuality (including lesbianism) is still subject to sexist connotations of it being ultimately directed toward male pleasure. Thus, women are more subject to the increasing popularity of sexual diversity. Two women, considered predominantly sexual beings by men and women alike (who grace the covers of most men's magazines? Sexy women; covers of women's magazines? Sexy women), doing a 69 punani eat-out are more readily accepted as erotic than Gunther and Derrick's game of stunted leap-frog. And it's this sexist application of the fashion of sexual nonconformity that is leading women to have sex with each other during the immature years of college for reasons 1 and 2 above. Of course, there are times when these social forces act independently, e.g., the movement of sexual nonconformity acting alone does lead to an indulgence in gay eroticism by men and women (a very natural occurrence given the early assumption that all sexuality is fluid), but I believe the LUG phenomenon to be unparalleled within the male population due to our sexist acceptance of women as primarily sexual beings. Should this activity be outlawed? No. Do I think it's immature? Yes, but more than that. Indulging in lesbian sex for reasons 1 and 2 reinforces the ingrained, harmful belief (of both most men and read the entire comment...   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   135.  Definition of a Lesbian, circa 1971   by evilhenchdyke       at Tue 17 Dec 9:51pm score of 1   in reply to comment 104     "A lesbian is a woman whose primary social, emotional, spiritual and sexual intrest is in other women, whether or not that intrest is overtly expressed." _Lesbian/Woman_ Del Martin/ Phyllis Lyon. It's Out of print, but you can still buy it through Amazon.com, used.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   136.  Re: One more recruit and I get the toaster oven!   by bigeyes       at Tue 17 Dec 10:01pm score of 1   in reply to comment 120     Ok, forgive me if I repeat something someone else has already said, my plastic time is sooo limited lately! Why do we all feel the need to proclaim our sexual preferences to the world? I understand the need for homosexuals and lesbians to come out and not live a lie, but the other variations don't seem to be that big of a deal to me. So, you had a threesome in college...big deal. Maybe you weren't sure if you were totally straight and you had an encounter or 10 with a friend. Am I the only one who thinks this is not a huge deal? It is a problem if you marry and then decide you're gay after you've made a commitment to someone, but is that any worse than leaving for another person of the opposite sex? Is this really a fad, or are more people just admitting to it than before?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   174.  Oh yeah, we control everything   by Anonymous Idiot       at Thu 19 Dec 5:23am score of 0.5 brilliant   in reply to comment 120     So lemme understand this: college girls are messing around with each other because the patriarchy thinks it's hot? Look, the "patriarchy" (that's just code for men, right?) thinks women are hot no matter what they're doing; they could be changing their spark plugs, picking their noses, or telling us to fuck off. Two women = twice the hotness. If the patriarchy really controlled female sexuality, we'd be skipping all the other stuff and getting right to the blowjobs. Consider this: maybe, just maybe, they're doing it because they want to, without any kind of political agenda. Which I kinda thought was the whole point of the gay rights movement, people being free to do what they want to do. You ascribe too much power to the patriarchy. Fashion and sexuality are individual choices, not imposed from above. People are pretty much free to do what they want now. Lots of them do dumb things like get into unhealthy relationships. And you complain about too much acceptance? This is one area where women actually have more freedom than men, and you'd rather give it back to feel less frivolous? Welcome to the mainstream.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   175.  Re: Oh yeah, we control everything   by alaffin       at Thu 19 Dec 8:08am score of 1   in reply to comment 174     If the patriarchy really controlled female sexuality, we'd be skipping all the other stuff and getting right to the blowjobs God help me but that might just be the most insightful comment I've read all day. I mean, sure, it's early yet but who among us (and by us I mean members of the patriarchy) wouldn't like to skip all the other stuff and get right to the blowjobs? satire   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

2.  Get 'em while they're fresh   by ksu93       at Tue 17 Dec 10:11am score of 2 astute     I guess the lesson here is that any guys wanting to get in on some hot girl-on-girl action had better take advantage of any opportunities that present themselves during college, because those opportunities will dry up after graduation. Sadly, this sort of thing wasn't en vogue while I was in college. Why is it that all the really cool stuff like the sexual revolution and now this came before or after I was in college? All I got was the freakin' Gulf War and Waco. "War is God's way of teaching Americans geography." -Ambrose Bierce   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

3.  LUGs?   by sglover910       at Tue 17 Dec 10:13am score of 2 brilliant     Every Linux User Group I've seen looked like an all-male affair. But now I see that I overlooked just how well they transcended restrictive gender roles..... Bad jokes aside, it's seemed to me for a while now that many young women (or at least those in affluent yet quasi-neo-hippy Montgomery County Maryland) go through this experimental phase. Unfortunately, to date none of them has offered to go through it with me as a sort of coach/observer. Oops, I promised to leave the bad jokes aside.... An argument isn't merely nay-sayings and contradictions! M. Python   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

10.  Here's your LUG!   by uberleet       at Tue 17 Dec 10:38am score of 3 succinct   in reply to comment 3     Every Linux User Group I've seen looked like an all-male affair. But now I see that I overlooked just how well they transcended restrictive gender roles..... This says it all.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   20.  Yikes!   by sglover910       at Tue 17 Dec 11:27am score of 1   in reply to comment 10     It's like some archetype of geekdom! Plato, Jung, et al would be impressed. But that will still leave those guys interfacing with silicon only... An argument isn't merely nay-sayings and contradictions! M. Python   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   30.  Re: Here's your LUG!   by Ahnaka       at Tue 17 Dec 11:48am score of 1   in reply to comment 10     That picture is officially the scariest thing I've ever seen... because it looks like my friend's roomate is in it. I knew there was something weird about him! You don't by any chance know when that was taken do you? "The difference between being stupid and being dumb is that when you are stupid, you should know better."-Holtzman   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   33.  Re: Here's your LUG!   by Minister of Inferior       at Tue 17 Dec 12:01pm score of 1   in reply to comment 10     This says it all. No it doesn't. There's much more to be said. someone you trust is one of us   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   46.  Re: Here's your LUG!   by jimray       at Tue 17 Dec 12:22pm score of 1   in reply to comment 10     More photos of folks that love linux. Probably not safe for work (no, I'm not kidding). Surprisingly on-topic, though... "You're not thinking, you're just being logical" Bohr to Einstein during a debate on quantum mechanics   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   87.  Re: Here's your LUG!   by Zi       at Tue 17 Dec 2:04pm score of 1   in reply to comment 10     Be careful, a similar looking group of people went on to moderate success. You may be working for those guys some day. So it goes. - Kurt Vonnegut   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   90.  There's more where they came from.   by zeda       at Tue 17 Dec 2:15pm score of 1   in reply to comment 10     a lwn.net link   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   35.  Re: Here's your LUG!   by uberleet       at Tue 17 Dec 12:03pm score of 1   in reply to comment 30     Yipes! It was taken at the Linux World Expo 2000 (February 4, 2000). Here's a link with more pictures (not for the weak-hearted!)   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   51.  Brilliant   by uberleet       at Tue 17 Dec 12:25pm score of 1   in reply to comment 33     I haven't laughed that hard in a long time.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   97.  Re: There's more where they came from.   by uberleet       at Tue 17 Dec 2:37pm score of 1   in reply to comment 90     I think ESR is drawin' his gun on some varmints!   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   98.  Re: Here's your LUG!   by uberleet       at Tue 17 Dec 2:41pm score of 1   in reply to comment 87     Heh. I've got to point out, though, that everybody looked like that in the 70's. I'd like to hear what beany-boy's excuse is...   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

4.  kiss me, dahling   by warble       at Tue 17 Dec 10:25am score of 2 compelling     It seems to me that maybe one reason for young women to experiment with lesbianism is to be more attractive to men. If you can get guys to notice you by kissing another girl, or by telling a guy you dabble in girls as well he will think you're hot and attractive and a sexual woman - well, there's an attraction. I'm not saying that's the only reason, it just seems as though some of these women have got to be playing out what they've been taught are the fantasies of men, for attention.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

12.  Re: kiss me, dahling   by LeighBCD       at Tue 17 Dec 10:41am score of 1   in reply to comment 4     If a young woman is naive enough to believe that the only way she can find a man is by being a LUG, then she either has two heads and suffers from halitosis or she is a social misfit. There are much simpler ways to get a guy, believe me. To rose-lipt maidens and lightfoot lads   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   15.  Re: kiss me, dahling   by tlon_uqbar       at Tue 17 Dec 10:54am score of 3.5 brilliant   in reply to comment 12     There are much simpler ways to get a guy, believe me. Shhh...we've got a good thing going here. -- gh   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   170.  Re: kiss me, dahling   by TargetDemographic       at Wed 18 Dec 5:40pm score of 1   in reply to comment 12     There are much simpler ways to get a guy, believe me. Oh, I believe ya. Any college girl can get guys to look her way without doing ANYTHING! Let's be honest here: Guys DO go to college hoping to hook up and enjoy as much debauchery as is possible, and there's always plenty of alcohol etc. to keep that testosterone flowing. There is no reason why any girl in college should ever have to go to such lengths to get guys to notice them, all a gal needs is a pulse to get attention on a college campus. I don't even know that too many guys would really want a girl with lesbian tendencies! Of course, young women DO have a history of misinterpreting what boys want. Remember that whole thing about Kate Moss being the ideal of feminine perfection? What the fuck was that all about?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   17.  Re: kiss me, dahling   by Ernest333       at Tue 17 Dec 11:09am score of 1   in reply to comment 4     It seems to me that maybe one reason for young women to experiment with lesbianism is to be more attractive to men. If you can get guys to notice you by kissing another girl, or by telling a guy you dabble in girls as well he will think you're hot and attractive and a sexual woman - well, there's an attraction. It isn't just that. This explanation alone doesn't pass the "shoe on the other foot" test. No, and I mean NO straight guy I know would engage in homosexual sex acts to impress a girl, even presuming it'd work (which is highly doubtful). There has to be somthing more basic at play (perhaps cultural, but probably instinctive) that makes bisexuality more appealing/less repugnant for hetero females than for hetero males. government + religion = taliban   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   24.  Re: kiss me, dahling   by shadarr       at Tue 17 Dec 11:39am score of 1   in reply to comment 17     If you didn't read the Dan Savage column, do, if for nothing more than this quote: "Please note: You might meet guys in college who claim to be "confused" or "exploring," "questioning," "bisexual," "not into labels," etc. These guys aren't confused, they're liars--big, fat, gay liars who haven't worked up the nerve to come out yet."   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   25.  Re: kiss me, dahling   by Anonymous Idiot       at Tue 17 Dec 11:39am score of 1 intriguing   in reply to comment 17     "No, and I mean NO straight guy I know would engage in homosexual sex acts to impress a girl, even presuming it'd work (which is highly doubtful)." I know with absolute certainty of at least 2 situations where exactly that occurred, Ernest. In the one case it was two guys, lots (and lots of alcohol), maybe another substance or two thrown into the mix, and one painfully attractive and rather mysterious woman (who had the reputation for being "trouble"). The guys were best friends, and both wanted to sleep with this woman. They (and a close friend of mine) were in her apartment, drinking, talking, flirting, etc. Neither of the two were making much progress, and the other guy had more or less passed out (not unconscious, but pretty much unable to move) but as the night progressed, with everyone becoming extraordinarily sloppy, sitting in a rather tight and intimate circle (I'm pretty sure the two guys were hoping for a threesome at this point), and said woman encouraged the two guys to kiss, subtly hinting that it might help their cause. They kissed, briefly, and she proceeded to mock them for such a lame kiss. She badgered them some more, egging them on, and they eventually made out for an extended time. Shortly thereafter, she announced that she wanted to go to bed. Alone. The three guys left her apartment, all rather drunk, and all rather confused. It was pretty clearly a rather strange power play on the woman's part. Strangely enough, this woman is now my wife. We started dating less than a year after this episode. She has mellowed considerable, and has never urged me to do anything with any other men, but life with her has certainly always been very interesting. Posting anonymously for obvious reasons.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   66.  Re: kiss me, dahling   by Field Marshall Stack       at Tue 17 Dec 12:55pm score of 1   in reply to comment 17     It isn't just that. This explanation alone doesn't pass the "shoe on the other foot" test. No, and I mean NO straight guy I know would engage in homosexual sex acts to impress a girl, even presuming it'd work (which is highly doubtful). I beg to differ. "Nobody ever lends money to a man with a sense of humor." -Peter Tork   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   61.  Re: kiss me, dahling   by creedha       at Tue 17 Dec 12:49pm score of 1   in reply to comment 25     This sounds close to the plot of Y Tu Mama Tambien!! I am now old enough to make common cause with my predecessors against my successors. - Mason Cooley   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   77.  Re: kiss me, dahling   by Lemmy Caution       at Tue 17 Dec 1:13pm score of 1   in reply to comment 24     That's simply wrong. (I trust Savage for advice - just about any advice - only a little less than I would take investment advice from the guy on the corner of my block who is now unconscious and bathing in his own urine [at least I think it's his own urine]). I've done my collegiate "experimenting" etc., back in the day, and I'm straight. Barely-bi, maybe, but I'm in a committed monogamous relationship. Savage's rant is something I've heard before from others (almost always otherwise-apolitical my-identity-uber-alles upper-middle-class my-gayness-makes-me-subaltern gay men), and it's just a self-serving fiction. Ultimately, I dropped the "bi-" label from myself and stuck to "straight," because it seemed like a lot of people with sexual histories like mine were exploiting the hip-factor of a non-traditional sexual identity without really walking the walk.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   101.  Re: kiss me, dahling   by Dr_MOTH       at Tue 17 Dec 3:19pm score of 1   in reply to comment 77     Hmm. I've been a non-closeted bisexual man my whole life, yet most people are very surprised that I'm bi if it comes up in conversation. The past couple of years, I've primarily dated women, so most of my newer friends assume I'm straight. But I've never lost my acknowledgement of my attraction to MOTSS. I just keep meeting cooler women to date.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   102.  Re: kiss me, dahling   by Lemmy Caution       at Tue 17 Dec 3:28pm score of 1   in reply to comment 101     I think the fact that women are probabilistically more likely to be seen as "cooler" to you suggests that you definitely have a tilt in the Kinsey scale. The way I look at it, Kinsey 0-1 is straight, and I'm a Kinsey 1. Kinsey 5-6 is gay. If others want to see Kinsey 1-5 as bi- and include me as bi- in the process, that's fine by me too, I just don't think that categories should work that way. Savage's logic would make anyone who isn't a Kinsey 0 either totally gay or tragically closeted. It's bunk logic.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   159.  Re: kiss me, dahling   by Dr_MOTH       at Wed 18 Dec 12:35pm score of 1   in reply to comment 102     Eh. The Kinsey Scale, while on the right track, seems a bit narrow for me. I'm 36 years old and since (pre?)puberty I've had different periods of time where I've dated (or been attracted to) women more than men, men more than women, and of course there's also been the occasional "fuggit, they're both intolerable and I'm just gonna sit and watch Casablanca over and over again for a few months" phase. (My BogaBergmasexual phase.) And, while I really like the Savage Love column, I thing he's pretty much full of shit a lot of the time.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   165.  Re: kiss me, dahling   by jonathanjo       at Wed 18 Dec 4:30pm score of 1   in reply to comment 25     I know with absolute certainty of at least 2 situations where exactly that occurred, Ernest. ... Strangely enough, this woman is now my wife. Wow, Anonymous, you've made me really curious about the other situation where "exactly that occurred"!   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   121.  Re: kiss me, dahling   by evie       at Tue 17 Dec 7:04pm score of 1   in reply to comment 4     If you can get guys to notice you by kissing another girl, or by telling a guy you dabble in girls as well he will think you're hot and attractive and a sexual woman - well, there's an attraction. Its amazing that when women decide to experiment sexually by leaving men out of the equation, people will still interpret it as doing it because men find it attractive. Perhaps the reason so many women experience lesbian sex while at uni is because its the first place they feel they are able to express themselves not a reflection of other peoples opinions. Some people (men and women) enjoy rebelling against the ideas and attitudes they were brought up with. For women, the sexual subservience to men is an idea permeated throughout our culture. Perhaps some women enjoy getting away from that, at least until they learn enough about their sexuality to meet men on an equal footing. Uni is also a time when people are free to experiment sexually - as in as much as they can. Why should they no try having sex with other women. Of course once they do they find they get caught up in all the Gay and Lesbian lifestyle stuff. But, hey its fun, and who doesn't get carried away to begin with at Uni? The thing that bothers me most about this, is that too many people are still refusing to accept the idea of bisexuality. Why are these women only seen as being straight women pretending to be lesbian? Why can't they be bisexual women? Your comment scores 100 on the Flesch scale of reading ease, making it comparable to selections from Dr. Seuss.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

5.  Bisexual or just horny?   by derch       at Tue 17 Dec 10:25am score of 1.5 interesting     I'm a guy, 27, and have dated quite a few bi women. In the last year, several female friends have decided they're bisexual. My straight girlfriend and I have talked about this wave of outings. We've noticed that all of them qualify their sexuality with a phrases like "but I could never fall in love with a woman" or "I can only love a man." I have one female friend who I definitely consider bisexual. She's had several long term love filled relationships with both sexes. The rest, though, are they really bi? They're looking at other women as a safe and convenient way to get jollies. In a strict definition of "bisexual" they are, but they definitely aren't bisexual in the same sense someone would be a gay or straight, i.e. gays and straights form long term emotional, spiritual, and physical bonds.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

9.  Re: Bisexual or just horny?   by musiquestar       at Tue 17 Dec 10:38am score of 1.5 interesting   in reply to comment 5     Savage love link Personally, I've known several girls who have admitted to kissing a friend while drunk or bored, but haven't seen or heard many full-fledged lesbians changing to heterosexuality. Maybe I'm just not in the loop. I think generally, as you mentioned, there are few truly "bi" people. The rest are those who do experiment need to justify the experimentation, or just want to keep their options open (a la Chasing Amy). I think, even in the most liberal environment, it's still not in your best interest to consciously pretend to be something that comes with an overwhelming load of stereotypes and subculture... although, hey, maybe it's easier to go to gay pride rallies for a sense of community than to join the school newspaper. Your fantasies are unlikely, but beautiful.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   34.  yeah, but it happens   by profpeach       at Tue 17 Dec 12:01pm score of 1   in reply to comment 9     Jan Clausen was a particularly notorious case, because she was such a high profile member of the lesbian community. Another was Jo Ann Loulan, author of "Lesbian Sex", which is a nice ironic touch.   I'm not sure whether female sexuality is more fluid than male, but female sub-cultures certainly aren't considering the savaging Clausen went through went she chose a male partner. Although what happened was ugly, the marginalization of sexual (and other) sub-cultures encourage a herd mentality, for good and ill. I say to them, "Tell that to the lizard people, pal." - rantor   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   105.  Re: Bisexual or just horny?   by Lemmy Caution       at Tue 17 Dec 3:56pm score of 1   in reply to comment 9     Two of my ex-es were just that - full-fledged lesbians who got into long-term (one year+) monogamous heterosexual relationships with me. One of them refused to change her identity, too, describing herself as a "lesbian who just happened to be going out with a boy."   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

6.  Good for them   by dasc       at Tue 17 Dec 10:31am score of 1 succinct     I don't ask to participate. I just want to watch. You pooped in the refrigerator and you ate a whole wheel of cheese How'd you do that I'm not even mad Thats amazing   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

7.  Lesbian "experimentation" is not a new phenomenon   by funpaul       at Tue 17 Dec 10:36am score of 3.5 informative     In the early 1900's it was called smashing. I will also note that this same discussion was happening when I was in school in 1987. Young people experiment with their sexuality. College is particularly well-suited to this pursuit. The popularity of Women's and Gay studies may have brought these expressions more above ground than in this past. All of which seems like a good thing to me. Why would the gay/lesbian community want to denounce these bi-curious people as posers? Seems to me we should be embracing them as natural allies, even if they decide to be mostly straight later on in their life. The only lesbians I can imagine thinking otherwise are those who want lesbianism to be an exclusive club, either as a fashion statement or as a political, "lesbian separatist" statement. If fashion statement, then those who accuse the "LUG" of being a poser, should really accuse themselves. As for lesbian serpartism, I just think it's a mistaken political strategy, because we should be coalition building. Also: love the one your with.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

16.  Re: Lesbian "experimentation" is not a new   by Maayan       at Tue 17 Dec 11:01am score of 3.5 astute   in reply to comment 7     The only lesbians I can imagine thinking otherwise are those who want lesbianism to be an exclusive club, either as a fashion statement or as a political, "lesbian separatist" statement. Or maybe lesbians who are sick of being told that they are "going through a phase", are just trying to be rebels, or will "grow out of it and settle down". Every college "lesbian" that graduates, marries a (male) accountant, and moves to the suburbs to have babies provides just one more example for people who try to claim that homosexuality is a "lifestyle choice" instead of a way you are born. For what it's worth, I personally believe in a more flexible range of human sexuality than the simple gay/straight/bisexual boxes. Sexual experimentation is normal and healthy, and it's certainly possible to be attracted to members of both genders at different times in your life. However, to have one college fling with a woman and then proceed to call yourself a lesbian because it's "trendy" seems presumptuous, and I'm not surprised that real lesbians take offense.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   56.  Well, what if it is a choice?   by funpaul       at Tue 17 Dec 12:39pm score of 1.5 brilliant   in reply to comment 16     Every college "lesbian" that graduates, marries a (male) accountant, and moves to the suburbs to have babies provides just one more example for people who try to claim that homosexuality is a "lifestyle choice" instead of a way you are born. Well, if it provides ammunition to those who would claim it's a "lifestyle choice", so what? The official position of the gay movement that "we have no choice, we were born this way" has always seemed to me to be rather weak. I want to say: "I choose to be gay, and I deserve civil rights regardless of what my choice is." In reality, I think who we are sexually is not entirely (or even mostly) inborn, nor entirely consciously chosen. Why paint ourselves into a corner where our claim to equal rights is based on a dubious claim that homosexuality is somehow genetic? A lot of young women (and men) go through a brief experimentation with same-sex love. If they choose to call themselves a lesbian or gay man or bisexual, too, then I think we should regard this as a positive act of visibility, and political solidarity on the part of our only slightly gay sisters, who after all could just keep their mouths shut, be ashamed, and become vocally anti-gay as was much more common in the past, I'm sure. Why all this gayer than thou stuff?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   59.  Vegetarian "experimentation" is not new...   by MiceHead       at Tue 17 Dec 12:46pm score of 1.5 compelling   in reply to comment 7     Why would the gay/lesbian community want to denounce these bi-curious people as posers? Seems to me we should be embracing them as natural allies, even if they decide to be mostly straight later on in their life. There is a tendency for some to "flitter" from thing to thing because it's fashionable. Someone who doesn't want homosexuality to be considered a fad might denounce the type of person who'd wear "lesbian" as a (removable) badge. Consider that someone might "try" vegetarianism for a while because a few of her friends are vegetarians, and because it's terribly trendy. She'll stick with it for a few years, showing it off like a badge, then drop it when it becomes old news. From her, people get the impression that vegetarianism is a silly thing that college kids try out and outgrow, like dyed hair or consumer nanoproducts. Someone who feels deeply about not killing and eating animals might believe that this is a "bad thing". Experiment with sexuality. But don't do it to be fashionable. =MiceHead - The Stock Market for the Next 100 Years   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   70.  Re: Vegetarian "experimentation" is not new...   by funpaul       at Tue 17 Dec 1:00pm score of 1.5 interesting   in reply to comment 59     In other words: "I wish I could thank you for not eating meat, but I'm afraid you're motives are not pure enough." If even 10% more of the population "went veggie" for only a few years of their life, wouldn't that lead to more widespread availability of vegetarian choices in restaurants, supermarkets, etc.? ... people get the impression that vegetarianism is a silly thing ... I think in fact the opposite is happening right now. More people are just trying it, and at the same time, it is being taken more seriously by society at large. The veggies who slag off other veggies for not being committed enough, they are the cliquish in-group followers of fashion, if you ask me. Which is parallel to my point above. Or, to put it in brief: it's all beautiful, man.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   183.  Re: Vegetarian "experimentation" is not new...   by Lady Aviendha       at Thu 19 Dec 7:27pm score of 1   in reply to comment 59     Someone who feels deeply about not killing and eating animals might believe that this is a "bad thing". No, someone who feels deeply about not killing and eating animals will think that vegetarianism becoming a fad is a GOOD thing because, regardless of the rep vegetarians get, less animals will have been killed and eaten in the process. As for the college girls & experimenting goes.. well maybe that is just a side effect of the whole momentum of social bonding in college, plus some people who may 'try' things or who may honestly be attracted to men and women but will eventually decide one or another because they want to be monogamous. Odd how much this hits me as ironic.. I found a wonderful girl my senior year of high school. When I got to college I was hit by the fast-track classes and thick books.. and sure there were partiers and that but I don't see how the people who come to college just to party will be in college for that long. As for why I was with a girl not long ago, it was because I was attracted to her, just like guys I've dated. We got along well and I thought she was sexy. I don't find gender important. I've found men and women can be sexy to me, and I realized women were hot at the same age I realized men were.. around middle school years. But everyone's different and while I've said my reasoning.. the next girls' reasons may differ extremely. God is a comedian playing to an audience too afraid to laugh.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   94.  Re: Vegetarian "explosionism" is not food...   by MiceHead       at Tue 17 Dec 2:22pm score of 1   in reply to comment 70     In other words: "I wish I could thank you for not eating meat, but I'm afraid you're motives are not pure enough." I don't think that's what's going on here. More along the lines of, "you're making vegetarianism sound like a fad". More people are just trying it, and at the same time, it is being taken more seriously by society at large. Likely, there are positive and negative aspects to this, (I would consider tofu-based hotdogs to be squarely in the latter category). But (on homosexuality), I can understand why someone who's put up with a great deal of crap for being homosexual might harbor a dislike for someone who's a "part-time lesbian" because they think it's "in". =MiceHead - The Stock Market for the Next 100 Years   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   112.  Re: Vegetarian "experimentation" is not new...   by dave78981       at Tue 17 Dec 5:17pm score of 1   in reply to comment 70     I love to eat meat! I mean I never eat meat! I'm so confused... are we talking about food or sex here??? "Your comment scores 81 on the Flesch scale of reading ease, making it comparable to selections from Seventeen." Well, as I always say, a family of freaks is better than no family at all.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   162.  Re: Vegetarian "experimentation" is not new...   by MiceHead       at Wed 18 Dec 2:00pm score of 1   in reply to comment 112     I'm so confused... are we talking about food or sex here??? For some, there is no difference. I nearly lost my lunch when I read that. =MiceHead - The Stock Market for the Next 100 Years   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   167.  Re: Vegetarian "experimentation" is not new...   by profpeach       at Wed 18 Dec 4:49pm score of 1   in reply to comment 162     Jesus Christ!   Now that I've got my eyebrows down out of my hairline, the thing that shocks me the most about this is inviting the meal over for dinner. And that the entree accepted in full knowledge, and from what I can tell, anticipation.   I think humans have reached the outer limits of depravity, then someone comes up with a new shocker. I say to them, "Tell that to the lizard people, pal." - rantor   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   181.  Re: Vegetarian "experimentation" is not new...   by KJames199       at Thu 19 Dec 4:43pm score of 1   in reply to comment 162     Holy crap. That's like the talking cow in The Restaurant At The End Of The Universe that specifically wants you to eat it. Except it would eat itself too. And also you get to hump it after it's dead. Okay, it's very little like the talking cow in The Restaurant At The End Of The Universe. JK   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

8.  S'all good   by eminem enterprises       at Tue 17 Dec 10:37am score of 1     To address the "Tom Green" sub-question in the write-up, I've a few conversations with women lately with the theme that younger guys tend to be complete dorks/assholes/emotionally unavailable, leading them to look elsewhere for love. It may not be the Hollywood bullshit fantasy of hot young women going for guys in their 60's and 70's, but there's something goin' on. (Disclaimer - I have a personal interest in whether women of reproductive age are attracted to older guys.) I seem to recall that early lesbianism is a part of south Asian culture. If so, this phenomenon may be universal truth, and not just a function of taking a women's studies course or two. It makes perfect sense - women get their rocks off without the risk of pregnancy, while guys indulge and exorcize their drunken fratboy selves before they're ready to get serious about relationships. Everybody has a share   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

29.  Re: S'all good   by sglover910       at Tue 17 Dec 11:45am score of 1   in reply to comment 8     I've a few conversations with women lately with the theme that younger guys tend to be complete dorks/assholes/emotionally unavailable What, this is a recent development?!?!? Anyway, in the interests of equal-opportunity bashing, it's not like college-age females have exactly cornered the markets for gravitas, judgement or emotional stability themselves. Remember Monica Lewinsky? An argument isn't merely nay-sayings and contradictions! M. Python   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

11.  What kind of crap is this writeup?   by zyxwvutsr       at Tue 17 Dec 10:40am score of 3 funny     OneWingedAngel gives us a well written and well researched writeup with a ton of links, yet only one crappy photo of a close-mouthed kiss?!! What a ripoff. I expected better from the webs smartest readers.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

13.  Re: What kind of crap is this writeup?   by Propella Mermaid       at Tue 17 Dec 10:44am score of 1 succinct   in reply to comment 11     Yes, it is a good write-up. It is too bad that the subject for discussion is so lame.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

14.  yippie   by alaffin       at Tue 17 Dec 10:48am score of 2 astute     So either these kids are feeling less pressure from predefined gender roles and can therefore more freely explore their sexuality or they're doing it because guys think it's hot. I mean, I'm sure there's some in column A and some in column B but those are the two flavors that we're looking at right? Overall I'd say that the first one is undeniably positive. The more freedom people have to explore who they are the better. The second one, well, it's sort of troubling in a way but I can't really pin down exactly what bothers me about it. I guess it sort of strikes me as emotionally dishonest or something. Like, say you have one girl who genuinely digs a second but the second is a "just for how" bisexual. That would suck a whole lot especially considering how badly the whole polyamorous thing tends to work out. Overall though I have to think that anything that allows a broader range of experience without causing any real harm is bound to be positive. satire   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

54.  Re: yippie   by Norman108       at Tue 17 Dec 12:34pm score of 1   in reply to comment 14     "So either these kids are feeling less pressure from predefined gender roles and can therefore more freely explore their sexuality..." Less pressure perhaps, but this kind of exploration is as old as the hills. I remember a lot of straight women of all ages back in the 70's, experimenting extensively with this, even going as far as becoming radical separatist lesbians for a time, as part of learning Feminism. Some straight guys did (and do) the same. The anthropologist Margaret Mead explored this extensively, and is still a great resource on the subject of gender and sex role fluidity. Somewhat off topic, but one of the most interesting expressions of sex role fluidity I've encountered is with Female to Male Transsexuals (FTMs.) Some lesbian identified women, upon embarking on the change, find themselves becoming attracted to men as their bodies turn male. In other words, they stay homosexual as they make the change, but staying homosexual ends up meaning they change their sexual orientation from lesbian to gay. I find this facinating. The human psyche is wonderfully fluid, when given a chance. In man's stone-dark heart there burns a fire, That burns all veils to their root and foundation. Jelauddin Rumi   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

18.  Just like Chef says   by Prairieman       at Tue 17 Dec 11:18am score of 2 scholarly     "Children, there's a time and a place for everything and that time and place is college." As many posters have pointed out, this is not necessarily anything new, it just comes and goes out of fashion more than starting and stopping completely. The same applies to the guys side as well. I also agree with the idea that the Gay/Lesbian community needs to learn to embrace the idea that for some, sexuality is fluid, and not treat these folks as simply tourists or interlopers on the sexual continent. In the end it's cool. As long as you enter into the idea with a clear head, open mind and light baggage, you find out more about yourself, which is what this trip through life should teach you more than anything else. "News is what somebody somewhere wants to suppress. Everything else is publicity." --Lord Northcliffe.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

31.  Re: Just like Chef says   by Ernest333       at Tue 17 Dec 11:49am score of 1   in reply to comment 18     The same applies to the guys side as well Huh? Not to say there aren't bisexual guys out there, but there certainly is nothing that remotely resembles the same 'lesbian chic' on the male side. In fact quite the opposite. The general perception in American culture is analogous to the "one-drop" logic used to classify all multiracial people as black years ago. i.e. if a guy kisses another guy even once, he's gay. While that is a stereotype, I think there is some truth to it. Hetro men are far lkess likely to "experiment" this way. How many straight men will playfully dance/make-out with each other at clubs and bars. I've never seen it. Yet women can be seen doing this all the time at straight bars. Over the years, I've known many straight women who went through a bisexual "phase" or will occasionally dabble in it a little on the side, but the few men I've ever known to do so all eventually realized/decided they were gay. government + religion = taliban   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   40.  got no plans tonight...   by coquito       at Tue 17 Dec 12:09pm score of 1   in reply to comment 31     Yet women can be seen doing this [make-out with each other] all the time at straight bars. i want to know which straight bars you're frequenting, man. In Hindu, you have not one God, but many, many, many, many, many gods -- learned Hindu scholar   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   44.  Re: Just like Chef says   by JearBear16       at Tue 17 Dec 12:18pm score of 1   in reply to comment 31     It's true - being a gay, or even bi, male seems to be much more of a Statement (note capital s) even if you just want to do it casually. I mean, come on, have we ever heard of GUGs or FUGS, or somesuch - not really! I mean, to some extent this goes to the same issue as why men seem to enjoy lesbian porn - its acceptable to them because they do not find it as much of a threat. Seeing two men going at it, however, is an affront to their masculinity! And giving that we are emerging from a patriarchal society, it'll be a while until someone can be a FUG or BUG or whatever with no strings attached. man + hydrodynamic forces = me   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   53.  Re: Just like Chef says   by gbv23       at Tue 17 Dec 12:33pm score of 1   in reply to comment 31     I agree that its always been easier for women to touch each other or to appreciate or comment on the beauty of another woman etc and probably to fool around as well. However I've known several men who, like me were fairly gay or bi at one time and are now living the hetero lifestyle. Yes, for some there is an element of choice involved. For me it was more of a fantasy and I'm just not focusing on the gay thing anymore. You could still say I'm bi in orientation but I don't choose to identify that way as people might assume that I'm looking for both or that I'm slutty or whatever.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   58.  Re: Just like Chef says   by stet       at Tue 17 Dec 12:43pm score of 1   in reply to comment 31     Not to say there aren't bisexual guys out there, but there certainly is nothing that remotely resembles the same 'lesbian chic' on the male side. In fact quite the opposite. The general perception in American culture is analogous to the "one-drop" logic used to classify all multiracial people as black years ago. i.e. if a guy kisses another guy even once, he's gay. I'd certainly agree with you in terms of overt male bisexuality or experimentation or whatever, but I'd also consider all of those athletic/frat-boyish male bonding activities that seem to involve a suspicious amount of pants-dropping and paddling. I've personally never been a team member, frat boy, or boy scout, but those who have tell me tales that have a distinct homoerotic tinge to them. Perhaps the jocular male bonding of college years can be understood as a tenetive flirting with homosexuality analogous to the LUG phenomenon. And besides, don't them frat boys dress up a women a little more often than is entirely seemly? "All of the juice had been sucked out/ Before Mel Bay taught us children to play"   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   69.  Re: Just like Chef says   by Lulu Lotus-Eater       at Tue 17 Dec 1:00pm score of 1   in reply to comment 31     Sayeth Ernest333: >Hetro men are far [less] likely to "experiment" this way. This assertion is, of course, contradicted by every sexologist since Kinsey. On the general numbers, same-sex contacts are quite a bit more common among (mostly heterosexual) men than among (mostly heterosexual) women. The other part about their not being a "gay chic" is... well, almost unbelievably strange. Has Ernest333 never turned on a TV, seen a movie, listened to music, read a book, etc? Let's just say that gay chic is a very common cultural trend in the USA.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   122.  Re: Just like Chef says   by TheMCP       at Tue 17 Dec 7:08pm score of 1   in reply to comment 31     Hetro men are far lkess likely to "experiment" this way. How many straight men will playfully dance/make-out with each other at clubs and bars. I've never seen it. Yet women can be seen doing this all the time at straight bars. I think the difference is that when women do it, it is accepted and they know they can change their mind later and the only serious consequences will be some hurt feelings. When men do it, they're labeled as perverts and the other guys will never treat them normally again. Men do experiment with homosexuality. They just do it more discreetly. Maybe they find a gay guy and imply that they really wish they had a girlfriend to give them a blowjob, and harp on the subject until the gay guy gets the hint. Or maybe they get a really close friend and let it be known that they don't think having sex with guys makes a guy gay as long as they don't kiss, or as long as they don't have anal sex. Or they rationalize between friends that guys "taking care of each other" isn't really sex because after all they're not gay, right? I had "straight" guys try to use me in that manner when I was in college. It didn't offend me, but I generally declined because I could see that the guys were ashamed of what they were asking for and I was not going to be a part of sex that wasn't driven by a sense of fun and/or love and/or warm friendship, and I insist on things like kissing and foreplay that the guys weren't comfortable with because then they'd have to confront the fact of what they were doing. I did agree to do it with one guy who was a close friend, because he both turned me on and seemed to understand that he was asking me for sex and agreed to my stipulation that if we did it we were going to really do it... but then he changed his mind at the last minute. Oh well. I believe he really is straight. We're still friends because he was honest with me about his feelings and he was nice about it. The ones I feel bad for are the ones who really are gay, can't admit it to themselves, and consequently go through a series of unfulfilling, loveless sexual relationships with men, always shrouded in excuses and euphemisms. They get married, they have kids, and then they realize they can't stand it any more but it's too late, they're stuck with a wife they don't want and kids to support. Or worse, they just go through life in a haze of misery, never being able to admit to themselves what's wrong. End of line.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   55.  Re: Just like Chef says   by Ernest333       at Tue 17 Dec 12:35pm score of 1   in reply to comment 44     I mean, to some extent this goes to the same issue as why men seem to enjoy lesbian porn - its acceptable to them because they do not find it as much of a threat. Seeing two men going at it, however, is an affront to their masculinity! The more obvious explanation would be that straight men are visually attracted to women and not men, thus would prefer to see two naked women on screen than two naked men. It's not that I feel threatened, I just have no interest in it. It's like seeing two dogs have sex does not threaten my sense of humanity, but I still won't rent a video of it! But the more interesting question is: While lesbian porn is a turn on for men, almost no women would say the same about gay male porn? Any women want to explain that discrepancy? government + religion = taliban   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   65.  Re: Just like Chef says   by Ahnaka       at Tue 17 Dec 12:53pm score of 1   in reply to comment 55     While lesbian porn is a turn on for men, almost no women would say the same about gay male porn? Any women want to explain that discrepancy? Here're some of my ideas on the subject. I have no idea how may would agree with me, but here they are. I think it may have something to do with differences in the way women and men enjoy porn. Most men I've known get turned on by what they see... just watching it is more than enough. Most women however, seem to need to live vicariously through the movie to really enjoy it. Seeing a woman being touched, they can imagine themselves in her place and sort of enjoy what they would be feeling if they were her. As a woman, you can't really cast yourself into a gey male porn. I think this is also why most women don't enjoy porn designed for men (aside from it's humor value). The sex is all about what the viewer can see, and not about how the participants would feel. The women in these movies aren't touched, they are simply there for the pleasure of the men watching. "The difference between being stupid and being dumb is that when you are stupid, you should know better."-Holtzman   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   78.  Re: Just like Chef says   by Mighty Ponygirl       at Tue 17 Dec 1:18pm score of 2 astute   in reply to comment 55     ...Maybe it has something to do with the fact that in girl-on-girl flicks the two women going at it are just getting their appetites up for a man to come and diddle them both? "Lesbian porn" isn't. It's more like "two girls who play with each other but really want a guy." So yeah, I can see how guys are turned on by that, because they are, ultimately, desired. I doubt many guys would be turned on by two unshaven bull-dykes going at it without a fellow to be seen. Women on a whole are more respectful of the gay male. Most of us appreciate that his lifestyle is not something we can participate in. It gets back to the old adage of Men want sex, Women want love. A bisexual male threatens a woman's sense of being his "one and only" because it's hard enough competing with all the other women out there... she isn't even equipped to compete with men.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   79.  Are you kidding?   by jmunni       at Tue 17 Dec 1:20pm score of 1   in reply to comment 55     I thought that was common knowledge. Even Sex and the City did an episode with the gals sitting around watching and enjoying gay porn. I've got a video of boy-boy action myself, hidden behind some dusty copies of "Escape From New York" and "Fists of Legend" (no, no, the Jet Li action film). I used to have a well-thumbed book of Tom of Finland art, too (where the hell did I put that?). Trust me, many straight women find it a turn on, at least in fantasy although probably not in real life.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   80.  Re: Just like Chef says   by Ernest333       at Tue 17 Dec 1:21pm score of 1   in reply to comment 58     Perhaps the jocular male bonding of college years can be understood as a tenetive flirting with homosexuality analogous to the LUG phenomenon. And saying as much to one of those frat boys or jocks is about the best way to get your ass kicked! (chalk it up to denial perhaps) government + religion = taliban   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   81.  Re: Just like Chef says   by Ernest333       at Tue 17 Dec 1:25pm score of 1   in reply to comment 69     Has Ernest333 never turned on a TV, seen a movie, listened to music, read a book, etc? Let's just say that gay chic is a very common cultural trend in the USA. I don't watch much TV. I was basing my judgement on my personal observations, so I probably have a little regional bias living in this blue collar midwestern community. government + religion = taliban   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   85.  Re: Just like Chef says   by Normal_Guy       at Tue 17 Dec 1:52pm score of 1   in reply to comment 58     I was able to experience this first hand. My new fratboy roommate stumbled home with some friends after some drinking. His bud proceeded to pass out on the couch. After unzipping his friend's fly, he put a water bottle in it and started laughing. After awhile, the passed out guy woke up enough to be angry, removed the bottle, and passed out again. When a friend and myself (both non-fratboy) asked why he thought this was so funny, he laughed and said 'Oh, that's nothing...one time he passed out in the tub so we pulled down his pants and shoved a hot dog in his ass.' I shit you not. It's all fun and games until you wake up with sausage in your ass. 007 373 5963 - Punchout!   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   123.  Re: Just like Chef says   by evie       at Tue 17 Dec 7:22pm score of 1.5 informative   in reply to comment 55     But the more interesting question is: While lesbian porn is a turn on for men, almost no women would say the same about gay male porn? Any women want to explain that discrepancy? Actually you're wrong. For a lot of women gay male porn is a turn on, while straight porn isn't. Why? In Gay porn the men are attractive, in straight porn you have people like Ron Jeremy starring In gay porn the men seem like they are enjoying themselves, which is an attractive thing, in straight porn most of the men look angry like they don't like what is happening, or they don't like the women In gay porn you don't have to see the really demeaning attitude in straight porn, you know where women are called dumb cunts or such Lots of women do find two men together a turn-on, because they like looking at attractive male bodies, and because they like to watch men together. You've heard the term faghag? Women do like male-to-male sex I remember coming across a men's magazine that listed the various positions that could be used in a threesome/moresome. It included positions for more than one male, but rated them according to how far away the men were from each other and how unlikely they were to accidentally touch each other. I found it quite depressing that even in the world of group sex those dull inhibitions still hold true Your comment scores 100 on the Flesch scale of reading ease, making it comparable to selections from Dr. Seuss.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   128.  Re: Just like Chef says   by TheMCP       at Tue 17 Dec 7:46pm score of 1   in reply to comment 78     It gets back to the old adage of Men want sex, Women want love. Which, of course, is totally wrong. I think a more accurate phrase would be something more like "Men need sex and want love, women want love." (I might not be saying enough about women there, but as I'm not a woman I can't speak for women on this one.) Men not having any sex get grumpy, irritable, and eventually depressed. Sexual frustration can lead to erections which can actually become physically painful. Love may be just as important for men as it is for women, but society puts a lot of pressure on men not to admit it. For some reason a man who wants love is perceived as un-manly. (I believe this is much less true of gay men, who basically have to tell society to fuck off just to live our lives anyway, so we tend to more openly look for love or sex as desired at the moment.) A bisexual male threatens a woman's sense of being his "one and only" because it's hard enough competing with all the other women out there... she isn't even equipped to compete with men. Either that or she doesn't feel the need to because it's just an utterly different activity to them. Some wives of bisexual men seem to feel it's part of their duty as a wife to find nice men for their husband to have sex with. End of line.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   137.  Re: Are you kidding?   by dogslife       at Tue 17 Dec 10:38pm score of 1.5 funny   in reply to comment 79     In high school my girlfriend would try to hook me up with my best friend--he's gay. I'm easily flattered. The boy-boy thing really turned her crank. Now that I look back, what a missed opportunity! Gay experimentation WITH a hetero-safety net! It would have been like getting a toaster oven just for test driving a Kia. Except with gay sex. And nowhere to toast a bagel. Mottos are for losers.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   143.  Re: Are you kidding?   by stankow       at Wed 18 Dec 6:51am score of 1.5 funny   in reply to comment 137     And nowhere to toast a bagel. Obviously, you're doing it wrong.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   154.  Re: Just like Chef says   by Thunder Bumper       at Wed 18 Dec 10:22am score of 1.5 astute   in reply to comment 85     Yeah, the homoeroticism of fratboys and jocks can't be ignored in the this discussion. I once witnessed four jocks (Canadian major junior hockey players of course) playing 'bobsled' in an empty bathtub at a party. All of them drunk, all of them naked, all of them with trophy girlfriends passed out in the next room. Same thing goes for back-of-the-bus antics after the team wins the 'big game' and has some drinks in the locker room. Not to mention the hazing rituals of many major junior or college sports teams which always smack of homosexual tendencies.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   166.  women would say the same about gay male porn   by AMpants       at Wed 18 Dec 4:45pm score of 1   in reply to comment 55     um, have you ever heard of slash fiction? Where women write very explicit stories involving two male characters from a well-known story (e.g. Kirk/Spock) getting it on?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

19.  I say do whatever the hell you want.   by sulli       at Tue 17 Dec 11:26am score of 1.5 succinct     Whenever the hell you want. Why get offended with someone else's sexual experiments? (Non-abusive of course.) If it's in college, great. Out of college, great too! No harm, no foul. Tout abus sera puni   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

27.  Except....   by sglover910       at Tue 17 Dec 11:41am score of 1.5 funny   in reply to comment 19     ...it makes compiling statistics difficult. How am I gonna make nice histograms if people insist on checking 'hetero' this week and 'homo' the next? This really plays hell with marketing strategies, hence is a threat to our economic health, hence is a threat to our national security. Therefore, as always, the correct solution to this problem of modern life is, lock 'em up! Conform or deform! An argument isn't merely nay-sayings and contradictions! M. Python   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

23.  See LUG girls live!   by VesuviusDC       at Tue 17 Dec 11:38am score of 2 nuanced     Visit my friends and I at www.collegelugs.com! See us horny for you guys and each other! Remember, we are retaining the right to revert to heterosexuality at any time, which is good for you old perverts! Good for lonely college guys! Threesome chances for dorky freshmen on the rise by 30% a year! Nevermind the ramifications of real relationships, and all that baloney. We just want to have fun in some girl-girl action! All your schoolboy fantasies come true at last in a pseudo-scientific "trend" article! See us now, only $19.95 per month, at www.fantasycometruevialesbianchicidiocy.com!   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

28.  queer in a year or your money back   by cocoonmadtension       at Tue 17 Dec 11:45am score of 1.5 astute     it seems that while this is a phenomenon in the everyday state universities, you may be surprised (or not) to find that small liberal arts colleges have been seething with temporary bisexuality for decades. i think it is bound to happen when you go to a school where the male population only accumulates to 25%.. and of course this does lead to slim pickins, and before long your room mate starts to look.. well really really good. It also goes back to the whole idea of situational homsexuality which has existed in single sex environments since the beginning of time. it's in boarding schools, jails.. and most of the time it is only temporary. It's totally normal to be attracted to someone of the same sex and not particularly be gay, or bi. I feel that the only time this would fall under the category of poser is if one becomes a clit tease (brags that they want girls but then can't put out because its "icky"), or can't see beyond the fact that their infatuation or relationship was due to that one particular individual.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

32.  "a disservice to real lesbians"?   by kingraoul3       at Tue 17 Dec 11:52am score of 1     pardon me waiter, there's a fly in my soup!   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

39.  A smoldering powderkeg of female hormones   by Azathoth       at Tue 17 Dec 12:07pm score of 1     That's one way to describe the Catholic girls' high school I taught at for one year. With few male outlets for their adolescent urges, the girls became a little queer, in both senses of the word. During one assembly, an all-male band came and sang ethnic folksongs. The twenty-something lead singer was within a hairsbreadth of having his clothes torn off and devoured by five hundred overexcited maenads. But that was a rare opportunity in a place where I was one of the half dozen males regularly on campus. Old and busted as I am, I even noticed a few dreamy stares directed at me from time to time. I'm positive that many of the girls got their boy-craziness satisfied outside of school, but packing them together in such a close-knit, touchy-feel-y community made 'inappropriate relationships' [in the words of the school handbook's code of conduct] inevitable. The school is old enough that many staff members are alumnae, and my gaydar twitched at a number of them as well, though I'm not sure I believe the scandalous rumors I heard concerning the nuns. Then again, inmates of the convent don't have the potential release offered by the backseat of a ricerocket. We live on a placid island of ignorance in the midst of black seas of infinity   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

41.  What?   by Anonymous Idiot       at Tue 17 Dec 12:10pm score of 0.5 brilliant     others think of them as posers that do a disservice to real lesbians. What the fuck is a "real lesbian"? This is the most absurd thing I've read in weeks.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

113.  Re: What?   by McDLT       at Tue 17 Dec 5:21pm score of 1 obnoxious   in reply to comment 41     You know: plaid sleeveless shirt, mullet, no make-up, pickup truck with a rainbow sticker and a Xena bobble-head. That kinda thing... My dandy voice makes the most anti-choice granny's panties moist   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

47.  statistics be damned.   by Ahnaka       at Tue 17 Dec 12:23pm score of 2 interesting     I'm all for the sexual experimentation thing, I mean, if it feels good, go for it. Everyone goes through some confusion about their sexuality, even if it only lasts a minute. So what if some girls decide to run with it for a few years? It's the labeling thing that drives me crazy though. There is such a push to fit yourself into the boxes of 'gay' or 'straight' that everything in between is kind of ignored. If I've learned nothing else from going to college in NYC, it's been that gender and sexuality are fluid, and there are infinite variations on the basic gay/straight/bi themes. Sadly, a lot of people (both here and in the rest of the world) still think in clear cut, census type terms. As a bisexual female in the (self proclaimed)gayest university ever, I basically get attacked from both sides. To the straight people I'm too gay; to the gays I'm a sellout. (before I get attacked, I will admit this is a generalization, and there are tons of people who don't have a problem with it either way) The amount of LUGs and people who claim to be gay because it's trendy or whatever, seem to make people think that if your sexuality doesn't fit into the black and white classifications of hetero or homo, you aren't genuine. While the experimentation is not a problem, societies forcing these girls to label themselves is. Even the term 'LUG' wouldn't be nessecary if we didn't force these girls to choose a label for their orientation. What annoys me the most is that, since there are so many people claiming to be lesbians/bisexuals who revert to heterosexuality after college, a lot of people have the idea that most, if not all of us, are simply confused straight girls with too much time on our hands. If one more person tells me "it's just a phase", "oh no, you're really straight" or "I really like you and was going to ask you out, but I only date lesbians" I will scream. "The difference between being stupid and being dumb is that when you are stupid, you should know better."-Holtzman   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

73.  Re: identity be damned.   by Elvis_x       at Tue 17 Dec 1:04pm score of 1   in reply to comment 47     I think you've really hit a nail on the head here. What's happening, slowly, is a blurring of sexuality definitions, both to the individual, and over time - the LUG phenom as indicative of this. In the future, perhaps, it will be a acceptable norm for some individuals to have a fluid sexual identity: Lesbian in college, bi after graduation, hetro post-marriage (or whatever).   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

50.  subtopic   by coquito       at Tue 17 Dec 12:24pm score of 3 intriguing     one of things i find interesting about this is the disparity between the hoopla surrounding "girl on girl" and the stigma surrounding "man on man". i don't mean this as a totally broad observation, but it does seem incontrovertible that: A) the LUG phenomenon doesn't have a sizable male counterpart and B) there's no comparison between the percentage of men who find lesbian sex hot (huge!) and the percentage of women who find man on man sex hot (teensy). why the big diff? why is "experimenting in college" not anywhere near as popular for guys as for girls? and why is it cool and sexy (from a male standpoint) for a girl to have had sex with another girl but probably not cool or sexy (from a woman's view) for her man to have had previous experience with other men? as a guy, i can pull out the easy tropes like, "guys just aren't attractive like women" but if that were so true, women wouldn't want us either. it seems obvious to me that other women would like women, cause i do too, but that doesn't really explain anything at all. ladies: why is it not hot for brad pitt to be in bed with sean connery? (if jennifer aniston were in bed with catherine zeta jones, men and women would salivate across the nation) men: if your drinkin buddy mentioned he sucked some schlong in college, but it was just a phase, would you think "cool"? (like you almost certainly would if your wife mentioned she used to love licking other girls nipples). In Hindu, you have not one God, but many, many, many, many, many gods -- learned Hindu scholar   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

67.  Re: subtopic   by nackums       at Tue 17 Dec 12:55pm score of 1   in reply to comment 50     "if your drinkin buddy mentioned he sucked some schlong in college, but it was just a phase, would you think "cool"? (like you almost certainly would if your wife mentioned she used to love licking other girls nipples)." Personally, I wouldn't think it was especially "cool," but my reaction would be more or less a mental shrug, if that makes sense. We don't really talk about it explicitly, but one of my best (male) friends has definitely experimented, and he's a more or less straight guy. Passionately loves women (especially Chinese women), straight porn, etc. As I said, we don't explicitly talk about it, but it's sort of hinted around (much, I would imagine, as women do) in conversation. Example: say me and him were walking down the street, and a fair-skinned, relatively tall and slender, short haired, well-dressed individual was walking about 50 feet ahead of us. He'd maybe make the comment "is that a boy or a girl?" To which I'd likely respond with "not sure." Which would lead to his "eh, whichever...I'd probably make out with 'em. Either way." Or, it might just take the ever so subtle form of "I'd prolly hit that." Then we'd just keep walking, sit down at a bar, and we'd proceed to bitch and moan about our girlfriends (or current lack thereof). What this says, I have no clue, other than that maybe it suggests that there does exist at least a smaller, parallel phenomenon of (relatively straight) men experimenting, too.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   109.  Re: subtopic   by seawater       at Tue 17 Dec 4:41pm score of 1   in reply to comment 67     Sounds to me like your friend is interested in experimenting with you, and he's casually dropping comments like that to gauge your reaction. If you answer with a nonchalant "whatever" or have a hostile reaction, he knows to leave it alone. But I bet he's hoping you'll say something like "Yeah, I'd prolly hit that too, whichever it is," thus opening up the door for a conversation about experimentation and, eventually, some actual experimentation. If you're not interested, which it sound like you aren't, just letting his comments go is probably the best reaction.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   152.  Re: subtopic   by nackums       at Wed 18 Dec 8:58am score of 1   in reply to comment 109     "Sounds to me like your friend is interested in experimenting with you, and he's casually dropping comments like that to gauge your reaction." I don't think that's entirely out of the realm of possibility, but I don't think it's the case. He's had more than enough time to gauge my reaction. We've been very close since high school, went to the same college, lived together for over a year in absurdly close quarters where we slept about 2 feet apart in bunk beds (and later lived together for about 6 months a few years after college), and taken road trips together where it was just the two of us in a compact car for weeks on end. And we drank very heavily throughout all of these times. All this, and I never once got the feeling that he was hinting at wanting anything to do with me, sexually. I may not be an interpersonal communications genius, but I am usually pretty aware when someone is hinting towards something sexual. If anything, I think I'm hyperaware of anything that could be interpreted as sexual in a I'm-so-frustrated-that-any-utterance/gesture-that-could-remotely-be-interpretted-as-sexual-makes-my-ears-perk-up sort of way.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   68.  GUG   by Elvis_x       at Tue 17 Dec 12:58pm score of 1   in reply to comment 50     Uh, wait; while my evidence is not based on scientific survey or personal experience, the "sizeable male counterpart" assertion is questionable. While we could drill down into the various reasons, pop-culture stereotyping (sp?) shows a greater acceptance of Lesbian chic, especially if that Lesbian is a bisexual (yeah, I know, and I'm assuming most know the difference). Such is not the current case with the male of the species. But that doesn't mean guys don't experiment w/ their sexuality in college. It does mean they don't talk about it as much. The girls get to brag on it, but the guys don't. And that's not a bad thing, it's just a thing. Guy and girls are different and social view of guys and girls are different.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   75.  GUG = Ugh!   by coquito       at Tue 17 Dec 1:10pm score of 1   in reply to comment 68     it changes the focus, but it still leaves the question of why. let's assume, for argument's sake, that there really is just as much experimentation on the guys' side as the gals' (and actually, i've heard people say this many times, but usually the experimenting males were in their early teens). you still have to wonder why not as many men talk about it, and why, if they did, straight women would not view them the way us straight guys tend to view experimenting coeds (which is to say, furtively, and with great enjoyment). the social acceptability angle is just as important as the question of actual experimentation (and i still maintain that far fewer straight guys mess around on the same side of the fence than do straight women). In Hindu, you have not one God, but many, many, many, many, many gods -- learned Hindu scholar   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   130.  Re: GUG   by TheMCP       at Tue 17 Dec 8:04pm score of 1   in reply to comment 68     Uh, wait; while my evidence is not based on scientific survey or personal experience, the "sizeable male counterpart" assertion is questionable. I could be off on this because I'm pullin this from memory, but I think the Kinsey study said something like 50% of men have homosexual sex at least once at some point in their lives. I doubt anything like that percentage is actually gay. (Kinsey said about 10%.) End of line.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   144.  Re: GUG   by fudgenozzle       at Wed 18 Dec 7:55am score of 1   in reply to comment 130     Anybody else trying to find deeper meanings behind guesstimates for "percentage of men who've had non-heterosexual encouters?" Like, did the guy who cites 30% touch another man's, while the dude who let himself be licked goes for 50? Of course, my recollection of Kinsey has him at 70%... karma only matters on sites with rising Alexa numbers.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   145.  Re: GUG   by TheMCP       at Wed 18 Dec 8:07am score of 1   in reply to comment 144     Anybody else trying to find deeper meanings behind guesstimates for "percentage of men who've had non-heterosexual encouters?" Like, did the guy who cites 30% touch another man's, while the dude who let himself be licked goes for 50? Oh no, or else I'd have to guesstimate at 793% or so. End of line.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   148.  Re: GUG   by Tessera       at Wed 18 Dec 8:30am score of 1   in reply to comment 130     Kinsey's great and all, and he's got a nice scale for quantifying the unquantifiable, but everything that I've heard - from gay and straight friends alike - says that his numbers were bullshit. I'd be hard-pressed to find an [informed] gay person who'd be willing to own up to that 10% statistic, and you'd assume that it'd be in our best interest to have it as high as possible. Or something. I'd be even more skeptical of that 50% figure. Hopeful, but skeptical.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   156.  Re: GUG   by Norman108       at Wed 18 Dec 11:04am score of 1   in reply to comment 148     The scale itself is pretty cool (0-6 degrees of Homosexuality, beautiful) but the percentages themselves, and much else about Kinsey's methodology, not to mention lifestyle, pretty much sucked. Don't have the links handy, but as I understand it Kinsey was an obnoxious, voyeuristic, self-centered, pseudo-scientific jerk. But he's still Saint Alfred to many, including to some degree, myself. In man's stone-dark heart there burns a fire, That burns all veils to their root and foundation. Jelauddin Rumi   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   176.  Re: GUG   by Elvis_x       at Thu 19 Dec 9:35am score of 1   in reply to comment 156     Wow, Kinsey talk. The flaw - now widely recognized - in the Kinsey study was that they wound up interviewing people who were not uptight in talking about sex. This was a rarity at the time of the study. Hence Kinsey wound up talking to sex freaks (I mean that in a good way) about sex (I'm giving the shorthand version) and the resulting data skewed the results to show higher rates of sexual experimentation and the like.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   76.  Re: subtopic   by maml       at Tue 17 Dec 1:13pm score of 1   in reply to comment 50     there's no comparison between the percentage of men who find lesbian sex hot (huge!) and the percentage of women who find man on man sex hot (teensy). Actually, if you take a survey, you'll probably be surprised by the number of women who like the man-on-man action. I've spoken to a lot of ladies who like it. I've blocked AI. I'm happier now.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   124.  Re: subtopic   by evie       at Tue 17 Dec 7:28pm score of 1   in reply to comment 76     I think the problem is too many men refuse to admit it. Its as though they find the idea threatening (maybe its an I'm not enough fear). Just like they refuse to accept the idea that women are visually stimulated (just the crap that passes for straight porn doesn't cut it), and that women do like sex (oh no of course not they just want love) Your comment scores 100 on the Flesch scale of reading ease, making it comparable to selections from Dr. Seuss.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   88.  Re: subtopic   by Maayan       at Tue 17 Dec 2:05pm score of 2.5 astute   in reply to comment 50     B) there's no comparison between the percentage of men who find lesbian sex hot (huge!) and the percentage of women who find man on man sex hot (teensy) ladies: why is it not hot for brad pitt to be in bed with sean connery? Trust me, it's hot. I think the problem that you are running into when trying to make this sort of comparison is the fact that visual porn (images and movies) are primarily created for the male gaze. Uniformly, whether the porn is hetero, girl-on-girl, or boy-on-boy, there is almost no plot and the focus is entirely on inserting Tab A into Slot B. The actors don't even look like they're really having fun. I'm not sure why men enjoy this kind of porn, but as a woman, I find it amusing but certainly not erotic. On the other hand, there is another genre of porn that is very heavily dominated by women, both as creators and consumers, and this porn heavily features boy-on-boy action. I am referring, of course, to the genre of text porn, especially in the form of fan fiction, and specifically gay fan fiction, popularly known as Slash. Kirk/Spock? Yummy! Clark Kent/Lex Luthor? Be still my... ahem... heart. I think the appreciation among women for gay porn is much higher than commonly assumed. It's just that the quality of gay porn available for consumption is lower than most women would prefer.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   95.  Re: subtopic   by coquito       at Tue 17 Dec 2:24pm score of 1   in reply to comment 88     think the problem that you are running into when trying to make this sort of comparison is the fact that visual porn (images and movies) are primarily created for the male gaze. Uniformly, whether the porn is hetero, girl-on-girl, or boy-on-boy, there is almost no plot and the focus is entirely on inserting Tab A into Slot B. The actors don't even look like they're really having fun. I'm not sure why men enjoy this kind of porn, but as a woman, I find it amusing but certainly not erotic. so what you're telling me is that women would find it hotter if the men weren't just fucking but also sharing their feelings? no, i'm just kidding... well, i've now been assured twice that a sizable female population thinks man on man sex is sexy. so why are we men not out there making women hot by rubbing each other's buttocks (and whispering sweet nothings in each other's ears, of course)? why don't more women ever wonder aloud about Brad Pitt massaging Sean Connery's shoulders the way i'm constantly talking to anyone who will listen about Janet Jackson giving Carly Pope a sponge-bath? i've never accidentally run across a "story" ;) ;) about how some woman who caught her husband in bed with another man and got so hot!, but the reverse is findable anywhere. maybe the disparity is only significant in terms of what is "commonly assumed" or what is portrayed in popular culture vs. what is actually out there. but that's still significant. am i to believe this is all attributable to male homophobia? (which would be vastly lessened if more women showed an interest in men who liked humping the occassional other man, imo.) In Hindu, you have not one God, but many, many, many, many, many gods -- learned Hindu scholar   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   99.  Re: subtopic   by Maayan       at Tue 17 Dec 3:06pm score of 1   in reply to comment 95     Hmmm... You raise some good questions. Here are some potential answers: why don't more women ever wonder aloud about Brad Pitt massaging Sean Connery's shoulders the way i'm constantly talking to anyone who will listen about Janet Jackson giving Carly Pope a sponge-bath? I think they do. I mean, I certainly hear (and say) it enough. I refer you, once again, to Clark and Lex (from Smallville). i've never accidentally run across a "story" ;) ;) about how some woman who caught her husband in bed with another man and got so hot!, but the reverse is findable anywhere. Well, I, for one, don't want to catch my boyfriend in bed with anyone, male or female. Why are men turned on instead of enraged by the idea of their wives and girlfriends doing the nasty with other women? My guess is that they feel that since there's no dick involved, it's not "real sex" and therefore not worth getting jealous about. am i to believe this is all attributable to male homophobia? Partially homophobia, yes, but I think significantly because of the persisting belief that men are active seekers of sex, and women the passively pursued. Porn and popular perceptions of sex are created for men, and women are just the tools used to create it. As women continue to increase their vocal pursuit of sex, popular perceptions of what is sexy will change. It's happening, slowly, but definitely.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   117.  Re: subtopic   by coquito       at Tue 17 Dec 6:13pm score of 1   in reply to comment 99     I certainly hear (and say) it enough i'd love to meet your circle of friends, cause i know very few women who would ever say such a thing without a few drinks in them (and would then probably disavow it once sober) Well, I, for one, don't want to catch my boyfriend in bed with anyone, male or female. Why are men turned on instead of enraged by the idea of their wives and girlfriends doing the nasty with other women? the cheating part wasn't really my point, it had more to do with the notion of seeing two men together. it was just the scenario that popped into my head (make of that whatever freudian analysis you will) As women continue to increase their vocal pursuit of sex, popular perceptions of what is sexy will change. It's happening, slowly, but definitely oops. maybe Abercrombie & Fitch wasn't the best reference to make there. i know their artistic director and he's gay as the day is long. not exactly concerned with what women find sexy... but i see where you're coming from. i'm just not sure the argument is convincing. women have had a long time since the sexual revolution to express their desires, and as much as i see women lusting openly on TV, in movies, and in music, i never hear about them getting off on watching men get off together, unlike the myriad depictions of men loving lesbians you can find on top 40 radio, daytime TV, and at least 5 movies a year. i'm not saying it doesn't happen, but it's either happening in miniscule relative proportions or it's being kept largely in the dark. there's never been a man on man spread in (the supposedly "for women") Playgirl (that i know of). in either case, i find it interesting and i'm still awaiting a convincing explanation. but i do acknowledge that at least some women find this idea exciting. i'm told in japan (of course!) there's a whole genre of manga in this vein aimed at girls. maybe. i wonder why such a thing is brazenly advertised in a place like Japan (sexually restrictive relative even to the US) but not here. i just find the whole situation... unbalanced. In Hindu, you have not one God, but many, many, many, many, many gods -- learned Hindu scholar   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   125.  Re: subtopic   by evie       at Tue 17 Dec 7:34pm score of 1   in reply to comment 117     Well, I, for one, don't want to catch my boyfriend in bed with anyone, male or female. Why are men turned on instead of enraged by the idea of their wives and girlfriends doing the nasty with other women? the cheating part wasn't really my point, it had more to do with the notion of seeing two men together. it was just the scenario that popped into my head (make of that whatever freudian analysis you will) See maybe that's why straight porn doesn't work for women, I thought of the context straight away and didn't like the image. If you had phrased it as what woman doesn't think finding her man in bed with another man eagerly beckoning her to join them hot I'd say most women would find that incredibly hot, but you phrased it in a way that I'd interpret as cheating which is relationship destroying heartbreak not fun Your comment scores 100 on the Flesch scale of reading ease, making it comparable to selections from Dr. Seuss.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   141.  Not at all !   by TheColdKing       at Wed 18 Dec 2:26am score of 1   in reply to comment 117     Whoever said that Japan was sexually restrictive? It's quite possibly the most liberal place (sexually speaking) on earth ! TRUST NO ONE; USE EVERYONE   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

57.  Nothing new under the sun   by Lulu Lotus-Eater       at Tue 17 Dec 12:42pm score of 1     This shocking new phenomenon is also the stuff of countless Victorian novels. And it certainly didn't start in the 19th century. Wow... folks sometimes have sex with people of one gender, then later have sex with people of another gender.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

60.  I have a theory   by kallisti       at Tue 17 Dec 12:48pm score of 1     Studies of gay men indicate that something like 40% have a gay uncle on the mother's side. Lesbians don't show the same trait at all. The anecdotal evidence is that bisexuality is much more common among women than men - to the tune of something like 5 non-straight men will consist of 4 gay and 1 bi, and 5 non-straight women will consist of 4 bi and 1 gay. I also believe that, if it is genetic, these genes aren't "destiny" - they have to be activated or perhaps they indicate a predisposition. These things, taken together, have combined to make me wonder if maybe homosexual genetics are partially sex-linked. Your mom's X chromosome determines part of your gayness, and having two X chromosomes softens the effect.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

71.  Re: I have a theory   by coquito       at Tue 17 Dec 1:02pm score of 1   in reply to comment 60     while i'm skeptical of the evidence you started with, i have to say your conclusion is a really interesting one. it would certainly explain what's the Lug v Gug disparity. In Hindu, you have not one God, but many, many, many, many, many gods -- learned Hindu scholar   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   86.  Re: I have a theory   by kallisti       at Tue 17 Dec 1:53pm score of 1.5 helpful   in reply to comment 71     The "evidence" I presented is little more than anecdotal, except for the gay man having a gay uncle bit. I'm gay, and I have a gay uncle. I've informed my sister about this particular phenomenon, because I'd like her to keep it in mind when/if she has a boy. (She's the kind of person who could do something inadvertantly stupid, but she'd never do something malicious. I figured I should urge her to be considerate of the possibility.) The rest of it is just a kind of consensus observation among people I have know, although I have two stories about my genetic reasoning. First: My friend, we'll call him Clark, is SO gay. He's got a brother. His mother and father divorced several years ago, and now his mother is living with/loving a woman. Clark's dad basically said that he'd done some rather bisexual things back in the day. The only person in the family without any alternative sexuality experience is his brother, who is a total babe. I'd love to give him some alternative sexuality experience. ;) However, the point is - if he's actually genetically required to be gay or bi, why hasn't he manifested that behavior at all? If he's not gay or bi, does that imply that there's no genetic component, or what? Second: My friend, we'll call him Mike, is SO gay. He's so CUTE, too! Anyway. He has a little brother. His parents are divorced. His mom is remarried - to a man - and his dad is involved with a man, too. Surprise! His little brother is gay. These two stories together provide conflict with the partially-sex-linked theory, and raise some questions about genetics and nature vs. nurture. They inform most of my personal thoughts on the genetics of homosexuality.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   100.  Re: I have a theory   by Ahnaka       at Tue 17 Dec 3:15pm score of 1   in reply to comment 86     Since homosexuality is a popular field of study in psychology, I've heard about a few interesting theories in my psych class. Of course, these focus on gay men only, because no one really pays attention to women or bisexuals. But that's beside the point. One study I heard about suggested that homosexuality in men may have something to do with conditions in the womb as well as genetics. When conditions are stressful for the mother, a certain steroid is produced (sorry, I can't remember which one). In normal situations, it is produced in low levels for female children, higher levels for male children, and even higher levels for gay male children. Stressful conditions (both environmental and internal) can increase the likelihood of gay offspring, because of the increase in this steroid (the experimenters went from a low occurence of gay rats, to having generations of almost exclusivly gay rats). When a mother has multiple children, the uterine environment is under more stress after each successive child. It hasn't been widely studied that I know of, but people are looking into the possiblitliy that many gay men are younger siblings, because after the first few children, the steroid is produced in greater abundance. In nature, this is actually helpful, because the gay offspring will generally grow up to help care for other children in the group instead of themselves reproducing, increasing the survival rate of individuals. Of course there are lots of youngest sons who are straight, and plenty of oldest children who are gay, but it's an interesting theory none the less. Also, there is evidence that sexual orientation is connected to the X chromosome, but I haven't heard too many details of the studies, so your theory is far from baseless... "The difference between being stupid and being dumb is that when you are stupid, you should know better."-Holtzman   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   132.  Since we're giving anecdotes...   by TheMCP       at Tue 17 Dec 8:44pm score of 1   in reply to comment 86     I grew up in a small rural town in New Jersey, as previously discussed. In the first hour of the first day of first grade, I made immediate friends with M. It has been well over 20 years and we're still friends. He's gay. His little sister turns out to be a lesbian. That same hour I met C. We became friends about 5 years later. About 13 years after we met he confided to me that if I'd just taken one of the many hints he tried to drop, we could have been lovers, but I didn't so he decided he wants to be with women instead. (Dammit! The man is both a chef and a male model...) In second or third grade I met S. From time to time over the years I got the feeling that he was trying to come on to me but wasn't sure about what he was doing. When we were 19 he had a nervous breakdown, spent a few months undergoing mental health care, and upon emerging from the hospital he emailed me to tell me he's bisexual and hadn't been able to admit it to himself. In high school I met J and hung out with him a lot. We drifted apart, but later his mother told my father's girlfriend that he has come out of the closet as gay. I also met B in high school and fell in love with him. He claimed to be straight. After I came out, all of our mutual friends told me they didn't believe a word of his claims of heterosexuality. B is, sadly, deceased. Given that I was in the closet in high school, it seems sort of interesting that most of my friends turned out to be gay or bi. I have a theory that somehow people subconsciously are drawn toward people of not only a certain gender but of a certain orientation. So, it comes as no surprise to me that the mother of two gay sons would turn out to have a gay husband. I bet if you check out other men she selected to date you'd find an unusually high percent of them would be gay too, and I wouldn't be surprised if her sisters or matrilineal female cousins had the same experience. What the woman is passing on to her children may not be simply attraction to men, but attraction to men who exhibit certain behaviors common among gay men... and she may have that same attraction. End of line.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   142.  Re: Since we're giving anecdotes...   by veschke       at Wed 18 Dec 6:01am score of 1   in reply to comment 132     "it seems sort of interesting that most of my friends turned out to be gay or bi..." I'm three for three on female best friends turning out to be far from Kinsey 0's. I have occasionally wondered what, if anything, this says about me. On the general topic, I'm all in favor the continuum concept, and it baffles me why we're all so uptight and determinedly binary about the subject. Cynicism is the opposite of wisdom.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   151.  Re: Since we're giving anecdotes...   by Tessera       at Wed 18 Dec 8:46am score of 1   in reply to comment 142     You know, it's true. Quite a few of my female friends are...well, not lesbian, but as you said, not exactly as straight as they come. (I'm bi, leaning towards guys this week.) The same's true of a lot of my gay friends; although obviously a lot of our friendships overlap, I've seen way too many friends come out of the closet for it to be coincidence. Of course, it's not necessarily because we're birds of a feather. Of our friends who are straight, they're all accepting of gays - because if they weren't, we wouldn't be friends with them. So you're weeding out a [too] large section of the population right there. Plus, it's certainly possible, though probably impossible to prove, that many of my now-out gay friends wouldn't have figured it out if they hadn't been surrounded by all of us, rubbing the subject in their figurative faces all the time. Or maybe they just wouldn't be out of the closet. With things like this, it's hard to pin down the reason behind the patterns you see, but it's easy to identify them.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   89.  Re: I have a theory   by CharlesWallace       at Tue 17 Dec 2:13pm score of 1   in reply to comment 60     Here's another theory: Women are more complex and mysterious than men. Maybe the LUGs just want to have sex with someone who doesn't reach orgasm before they've even gotten started. I won't say anything because no one ever listens to me anyway! I might as well be a Leonard Cohen record!   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   103.  Re: I have a theory   by shadarr       at Tue 17 Dec 3:29pm score of 1   in reply to comment 89     Your second point may be valid, but your first is nothing more than a stupid stereotype. Women are not more complex than men. Women may make more of their inner monologue public, but saying that makes them more complex is like saying all water is shallow when it's too dark to see the bottom.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

63.  I think we all missed the real issue here...   by jukeboxcharlie       at Tue 17 Dec 12:51pm score of 2 astute     From the panicmag article: Despite these advantages, I cannot bring myself to endorse LUGism. For if the bisexual is the Uncle Tom, then the LUG is that white kid who sat next to you in homeroom in a FUBU jacket and baggy pants. When that kid is 25 and working in a mind-numbing office job, he will no longer begin every sentence with "yo" and end it with "you know what I'm sayin'?" By the same process of social evolution, the average LUG will be married, shuttling her 2.5 kids around in a Dodge Caravan and embracing the values she once cursed in her Women's Studies class. LUGism is a real and genuine threat to gay activism because it undermines the "I can't help it, I was born this way" argument used to advance many of their causes (causes which I generally support, though on very different grounds). If one can choose to be in a same-sex relationship, one can also choose not to be in a same-sex relationship. LUGs give credibility to those But I'm A Cheerleader type reeducation camps and those freaky ex-gay Christians. I think that there is a way around this, however; sexuality is both chosen and inherent. But extremists of all stripes hate the middle ground, don't they? This is my sig. Here I have a pithy quote, or wry comment.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

74.  But really...   by maml       at Tue 17 Dec 1:08pm score of 1.5 interesting   in reply to comment 63     Ultimately, the Gay rights movement shouldn't be looking for excuses ("I was born this way", for example). The point is, people are entitled to equal rights no matter what gender(s) they prefer. Squashing experimentation with derision isn't going to make the Gay Rights movement any stronger. Do you think the married LUGs are voting for Defense of Marriage Acts? I suspect they are much more likely to be open minded about gay marriage, their gay kids, etc... I've blocked AI. I'm happier now.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   96.  Re: But really...   by jukeboxcharlie       at Tue 17 Dec 2:34pm score of 2 interesting   in reply to comment 74     Ultimately, the Gay rights movement shouldn't be looking for excuses ("I was born this way", for example). The point is, people are entitled to equal rights no matter what gender(s) they prefer. Well, I have a problem with calling "I was born this way" an excuse (because I really do believe that many, many gay people were in fact born that way). I do agree with your second sentence, though. Here's the problem: gay rights activists are asserting a positive liberty (that is, people have an inherent right to be gay). It goes hand in hand with their "I can't help it" rhetoric. This is completely in keeping with postmodern, deconstructionist identity politics. LUGs suggest identity doesn't matter- it's none of your business whom I sleep with and you can't stop me, a negative liberty. Negative liberties go back to the Magna Carta, the Enlightenment, and the Constitution (ever notice that the Bill of Rights is actually a list of what the government can't do?). All of this may be splitting hairs- the end results are the same- but for gay rights activists (actually, anybody rights activists) it's not enough that "you can't stop me," they want to advance to "I have a right to do this and/or be this way." It's always the most inconsequential philosophical differences that prove the most troubling. This is my sig. Here I have a pithy quote, or wry comment.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   163.  Re: But really...   by maml       at Wed 18 Dec 2:31pm score of 1   in reply to comment 96     gay rights activists are asserting a positive liberty (that is, people have an inherent right to be gay). It goes hand in hand with their "I can't help it" rhetoric. This is completely in keeping with postmodern, deconstructionist identity politics. Actually, I'd say the inherent right to be gay has nothing to do with whether or not it can be helped, and that is truly post-modern. Gender theory is all about fluidity of identity. Deconstruction takes apart to notions of inherent gender and sexuality. Indeed, erotic focus does not even have to be fixed on human beings, or even animals. The Berlin Wall can be your husband. Fixed identity politics are Modern. The dissolution of identity and self is Post-Modern. Now positive statement "I have the right to do this." is much more powerful than "You have no right to stop me.", but they are essentially the same statement. Both of them avoid the question of "why do you want to do that, anyway?", which is fine, because we don't apply that question to speech, assembly, etectera... There are exceptions, you can't assemble in front of a business to keep people from using the door. You don't have the right to encourage people to kill other people. Likewise we don't have the right non-consensual sex. I've blocked AI. I'm happier now.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   177.  Re: But really...   by jukeboxcharlie       at Thu 19 Dec 10:30am score of 1   in reply to comment 163     Fixed identity politics are Modern. The dissolution of identity and self is Post-Modern. Interesting- I've never looked at it in the way you suggest. I think you're argument goes way over the heads of most identity based activists, though, because so much of their time is spent distancing themselves from the Dead White Euro Males who created so much of Modern political theory (that's why people care so much whether Jefferson had a child with Sally Hemmings- it demonstrates a disconnect between his "All men are created equal" and his "get yo black ass in Big Daddy's bed" slaveowning self). What it may suggest is that Postmodernism may have advanced beyond its original theoretical underpinnings- i.e. to critically analyze the power relationships of Modernists- and are now analyzing everything, including their own rhetoric, through the same lens. This is my sig. Here I have a pithy quote, or wry comment.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   82.  Re: I think we all missed the real issue here...   by Norman108       at Tue 17 Dec 1:37pm score of 1.5 compelling   in reply to comment 63     Mostly agree. When movements get stuck on one issue, one cause rhetoric, they are almost always bound to lose in the end. Such arguments may be good for a short, hard fight, but they never really get past the fact such arguments are often bogus, and certainly not integrateable into the mainstream. The may help in the inspiration at the core of the movement, but not with the education of the bulk of the masses. Another way of putting it is activists who reject LUGism on the grounds it undermines the gay rights movement, are more of a threat to the movement than the LUGism itself. This is of course because radical rigidity breeds contempt in the general society, and engenders rejection by more moderate members of your movement. By no means am I saying radicals don't have our place, and our points, but it is as the deep Soul of the movement, less than as the first Voice of the movement that radicals can find our best roles. In man's stone-dark heart there burns a fire, That burns all veils to their root and foundation. Jelauddin Rumi   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   139.  Re: I think we all missed the real issue here...   by HenryVonFurstenberg       at Wed 18 Dec 2:12am score of 1   in reply to comment 82     Wow, read what the thought police wrote about my first post. I don't try to put people in catagories; I call it as I see it. I might not like what people have to say or write but in a nonviolent society we are able to express ourselves free of retribution except on Plastic. In a free society it takes many voices. I remember the days when certain movements were considered not just the right thing. I remember the blood at Kent State. I remember when people would say we don't need your kind starting trouble down here. I remember the bodies of freedom workers being pulled from rivers in Missippi. I remember when Martin Luther King Jr. was shot for stirring up the people. I remember listening to radio as a wagon carried his body. In my mind I marched along that wagon even though I was on a farm in Indiana. Oh, I remember my mothers pain as she lanquished in a concentration camp in Ravensbruck, Germany. I also remember when my mother was being raped by the people who released her, the Russians. I remember the arms and legs sticking out of the ground because they were hurriedly buried by the fleeing nazis. My mother and aunt ended up in the camp, not for being jewish, not for being gay, but for a family having the gull to say we wont support Hitler. These things happen because people say these kind of things. "When movements get stuck on one issue, one cause rhetoric, they are almost always bound to lose in the end. Such arguments may be good for a short, hard fight, but they never really get past the fact such arguments are often bogus, and certainly not integrateable into the mainstream." Sometimes we trivialize the gifts people share with us. We have to remember we are all on a journey. Some of us might be further along than others. Others might be ahead of us so we listen so we might advance.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

64.  She said it best...   by renny0       at Tue 17 Dec 12:53pm score of 1     I'm not about straight and gay," said Anna, "I think that if you see something special in a person, that's all that matters. Although I agree that many people may just be acting or playing, I completely agree with Anna's comment.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

84.  Natural Law of Sex   by Yohan       at Tue 17 Dec 1:46pm score of 1.5 astute     I think things like this are further illustration that there aren't two and only two polar ways of looking at sexuality. People try to cram themselves into one extreme or the other, but the very freedom of human sexuality is that you have sex with whatever tasty morsel arouses your fire, and is willing to oblige your advances of course. Sexual orientation is more like a gradient of preference rather than the black and white we think of today. Openness was the norm in human sexuality since its beginning until the rise of the great monotheistic religions(in the west at least, I'm not as well versed in Eastern thought on this topic). Plato said that you should take a woman to be your wife for childbearing and some sexual purposes, but the ideal for romance and sex was to take on a young boy of about 15. The Romans had no word for "homosexuality" because it was just naturally assumed that you had sex with what you liked, not just one gender or the other. Then Christianity came along and came up with some wacky ideas of what "normal" sexual activity should be, and unfortunately those artificial ideals have influenced our culture up through today, even among people who are not christian. I say let people do whatever the hell they want in the realm of sexual experience. As others have mentioned up thread, the gay community shouldn't be attacking free expression and experimentation of sexuality because they fear people won't think they were born gay. Whether they are "born gay" or not is not and should not be the issue, the issue is that people should be able to enjoy sex with whoever the hell they want. If that means only having sex with the opposite/same gender, fine. If it means switching genders from time to time, that should be fine too. The "LUGS" in question might have really stupid reasons for seeking out other girls in your opinion, but really your opinion shouldn't matter at all in their decision, just as Pat Robertson's or Joe Sixpack's or anyone else's opinion shouldn't matter at all in your sexual decisions. When In Rome Do As The Vandals Do   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

179.  Re: Natural Law of Sex   by Mad Ogger       at Thu 19 Dec 11:35am score of 1.5 astute   in reply to comment 84     Plato said that you should take a woman to be your wife for childbearing and some sexual purposes, but the ideal for romance and sex was to take on a young boy of about 15. Plato was the Ralph Nader of his day. His attitudes were not typical. Pederasts were fairly common, and they were tolerated, but they were still a minority. Remember the part in the Symposium where the men wish for a world where fathers didn't try to chase away pederasts? The Romans had no word for "homosexuality" because it was just naturally assumed that you had sex with what you liked, not just one gender or the other. Yes, as I understand it, around the Mediterranean, a normal man can stick it in whomever he likes. I think they consider it shameful for a man to take it up the ass. Is that right? Sounds like part of a general male chauvinist doctrine. Then Christianity came along and came up with some wacky ideas of what "normal" sexual activity should be, and unfortunately those artificial ideals have influenced our culture up through today, even among people who are not christian. Actually Paul said that chastity is best, but better to marry than burn. That idea was dead by the middle ages, assuming it wasn't stillborn. I think the reason why a few Americans today get really angry about homosexuality is because it is now publically visible and accepted, which feeds into their sense that the world is in a terrible state of moral decay.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

107.  Open Minded?   by moodcontrol       at Tue 17 Dec 4:12pm score of 1     First off, my opinion that this has very little to do with too many women's studies courses. That sort of talk is scapegoating and treats women like they are weak minded prawns: incapable of making decisions without undue influence from academia whilst they're in college. I think the factor that would drive someone to being a LUG is probably both: 1. An interest in the boundaries of sexuality. 2. A complete lack of interest in general male immaturity during those ages.   [It is important to note that obviously not all males are immature. I don't think I would venture to say that most males are. However, I do think that the prevailing attitude is one of disgust with the stereotypical behavior of males which may drive some to experimentation during this 4 year hiatus from the rigidity and social norms enforced by a more traditional non-academic lifestyle.] Whatever the case may be, I believe it's important to note that women aren't branded with the same sexual identity pressure that men are (that is, to be straight). Moreover, if the choices you had were between a woman (which at the very least has a defacto understanding of what it means to be a woman) who could very likely be experiencing relevantly similar feelings and exploratory urges that you are, and a man who is exploring the annals of MAXIM, FHM, and alcohol, wouldn't be more likely to choose that which is closer to your personality? MTV makes me wanna smoke crack.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

111.  Re: Open Minded?   by nyekulturniy       at Tue 17 Dec 5:16pm score of 1   in reply to comment 107     General male immaturity? You got me out of a big D&D campaign to tell me I'm too immature? Nyekulturniy... Proudly confusing readers and editors since 1981!   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

108.  I'm more gay than you   by wicked_sprite       at Tue 17 Dec 4:13pm score of 3 compelling     I just love this. The gay rights movement pushes for people to be more accepting of a person's choices and to separate sexual orientation from a person's character and then they go ahead and are un-accepting of a person's choices and judge a person's character by their sexual orientation. You know, cuz those LUGS aren't really gay and just want attention and they're all hypocritical soccer-mom's now anyway. They're called "LUGS" dontcha know but don't call me a DIKE, that's disrespectful. I guess I'm a LUG but never knew it! Here I thought I was experimenting with my burgeoning sexuality and attempting to open my mind to new experiences but apparently I was actually undermining gay rights. I spose I'm a pretty big let down even for a LUG though since I'm a single career woman now and an artist. Damn! I can't do anything right! As for the argument of those "LUGS" who DO become soccer mom's, so what? Who hasn't experimented in their youth with who they are and who they want to be. Isn't this what this time is about? I say bring it on! More sexual openess, more thoughtful drug experimentation, more foray's into lifestyles you may not identify with, more experimentation please! The more you experiment the more likely you will be ending up the kind of person you really want to be and the more likely you will be to be open of others who have chosen other paths.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

114.  Further Research   by alternadox       at Tue 17 Dec 6:00pm score of 0.5 obnoxious     Read the Book of Leviticus Chapter 18:22, found in the Bible and the Torah, dated by scholars as far back as 1200 BCE. Admonitions against same-sex relationships go way before Christianity. Yet, there seems to be an on and off again trend in acceptance of homosexuality, and, according to Focault, the most recent concerns about the practice regard mental health issues rather than Bible belt homophobia. And the Middle Ages, what king didn't have a page boy here and there. America really sounds a lot like Berlin in the 20's, where all kinds of "alternative" lifestyles flourished, until... -alternadox - Win at Losing and Fail Successfully   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

115.  Further Research   by alternadox       at Tue 17 Dec 6:00pm score of 0.5 disingenuous     Read the Book of Leviticus Chapter 18:22, found in the Bible and the Torah, dated by scholars as far back as 1200 BCE. Admonitions against same-sex relationships go way before Christianity. Yet, there seems to be an on and off again trend in acceptance of homosexuality, and, according to Focault, the most recent concerns about the practice regard mental health issues rather than Bible belt homophobia. And the Middle Ages, what king didn't have a page boy here and there. America really sounds a lot like Berlin in the 20's, where all kinds of "alternative" lifestyles flourished, until... -alternadox - Win at Losing and Fail Successfully   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

118.  very confused   by Anonymous Idiot       at Tue 17 Dec 6:29pm score of 1 intriguing     Like many guys, I find the idea of chicks digging each other a turn on, and have watched the "evolution" of the trendiness of bis and lesbians all since I was a kid. Back then Playboy and Penthouse had pictorials of two beautiful women kissing and enjoying each other's bodies, very stimulating photos. Nowadays, the pictorials have gotten really wild and--to me at least--very unattractive, all due to the use of dildos. I attributed this to some male publisher wanting to push the limits. Then I took a peek at On Our Backs, a lesbian magazine, and the pictorials there, which cater to a woman audience, were even raunchier and more dildo-ridden than the men's magazines. So it ain't about the physicality of men or women, is it? I'm forced to conclude that "real" lesbians just don't want to be with men. Is this correct? To be honest, I can't really blame them nowadays, the typical guy is such a fratboy dork these days...but it's kinda strange that a woman with a rubber dick is acceptable to lesbians!   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

127.  Re: very confused   by evie       at Tue 17 Dec 7:42pm score of 2 helpful   in reply to comment 118     but it's kinda strange that a woman with a rubber dick is acceptable to lesbians! Ok let me try and explain it to you. Heterosexual women are attracted to men, not to penises. Lesbian women are attracted to women - not penises. A woman using a dildo is a woman, not a penis. This is one of the reasons women bitch about the lack of male skill during sex. Sex is not what the penis does! All those decent (and talented) men have people like you to thank when they receive jokes about how bad men are. Your comment scores 100 on the Flesch scale of reading ease, making it comparable to selections from Dr. Seuss.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

119.  LUGism   by oinonio       at Tue 17 Dec 6:39pm score of 1     As I recall, the statistic for experimentation between boys and young men is somewhere around 30%? Funny that there isn't as much talk about that. I suspect this doesn't get as much attention as the Lesbian issue being that, as our society is still largely patriarchal, there is less "danger" in talking of lesbian experimentation vs. gay. This has almost always been true (1920s Berlin being an exception). In ancient China gaymen were beheaded. There were no laws on lesbianism.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

126.  I Get It Now...   by k0s       at Tue 17 Dec 7:40pm score of 0.5 obnoxious     But while the life of a LUG ends at college graduation, it is starting to begin much earlier, as LUGism is spreading to high school girls. So THAT is why I could never get a date in high school. They were all too busy eatting fish and slapping clams. Visit www. seriouslythough.com   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

133.  The really important issue is...   by SlurmV       at Tue 17 Dec 9:15pm score of 1.5 succinct     ...is Willow a LUG? --Of course it's going off the rails. How else is it ever going to fly?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

134.  Great Lesbian Wedding Toast.   by MAYORBOB       at Tue 17 Dec 9:27pm score of 1.5 funny     About 10 years ago, my wife and I attended the wedding of a cousin of hers who was getting married to her significant other. My wife's cousin had come out of the closet after dissolving a rather loveless marriage to her husband of some 15 years. So anyway, after the ceremony (unrecognized officially by the state of New Jersey) we were ready to have a champagne toast. The best person (did I mention that the wedding was overrun by lesbians?) offered the following toast: "Life should be like a stroll through a rose garden. You should be able to wander at will from flower to flower enjoying the colors and the fragrances. But, just remember, avoid the pricks." Tending to final details.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

155.  Moi?   by willpate       at Wed 18 Dec 10:51am score of 1     I've dated one lesbian and one bisexual. I've had a one-night stand with another lesbian. I've been hit on by gay guys numerous times. What does this say about me? Why do I attract those of the alternative sexualities of both sexes?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

171.  Liquid sky   by sglover910       at Wed 18 Dec 8:12pm score of 1.5 funny   in reply to comment 155     What does this say about me? Why do I attract those of the alternative sexualities of both sexes? You're more androgynous than David Bowie..... An argument isn't merely nay-sayings and contradictions! M. Python   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   182.  Re: Moi?   by danila       at Thu 19 Dec 7:00pm score of 1   in reply to comment 155     That doesn't say anything - doesn't even hint about your gender. :-)   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   184.  Re: Moi?   by willpate       at Thu 19 Dec 7:33pm score of 1   in reply to comment 182     I thought the being hit on by gay guys would certainly give it away.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

160.  Love   by Verbalicious       at Wed 18 Dec 12:48pm score of 1     Is a very complicated thing. Sex is even worse. If you can manage to find someone to love who loves you back, and you both manage to be kind to each other during the process, who the hell cares what form it takes?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

161.  erotophobia   by sfmarkie       at Wed 18 Dec 1:43pm score of 1     wait a minute, isn't this explained by our culture's shame around sex + our sexist double standards? think of it this way: straight guys are expected to fool around (but only with women), especially when they're young, that doesn't make them bad people . straight women aren't, still, although thank God that's changing. thanks to the activists in the gay movement, now we know it's not "shameful" to be gay if you're "out about it," "not ashamed," , so if young women want to experiment they proclaim an identity - it's moral cover for saying "they want to fool around." no?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

185.  !!!   by b1z0t       at Thu 19 Dec 8:16pm score of 1     that tatu video rules, by the way. it's up at tatugirls.com   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]