Login

Register

Member List

RSS Feed

Amanda | Contact

Auguste | Contact

Jesse | Contact

Pam | Contact

Next entry: Andrew Sullivan joins LGF’s Charles Johnson in kissing off the current ‘conservative’ movement Previous entry: Cardinal: ‘gays and transvestites will never enter the kingdom of God’

No woman anywhere should ever be good enough

Choads

If you read feminist blogs, surely you’ve seen the outrage over this article in the New York Observer.  It’s a kinda-sorta joking article to invent the term “cheetah”—-women who are younger than so-called “cougars” and “pumas”, but are still over 25 and unaware that they are therefore too nasty to have sex.  Women over the legal age of consent having sex is supposed to be pitiful.  Apparently, it’s just hilarious that when we were at the “abstinence-only” age, we developed a taste for cock, and not that we’re too old to have sex and probably too damn old to leave the house, we troll pathetically for cock that men can only be convinced to give up to our nasty ass selves by force. 

Other bloggers have dealt with the way this article minimizes the reality of rape and exposes how even mild-mannered nice guys can turn into raging misogynists when someone uses “prove your masculinity” as bait.  What I want to deal with is how this article, because it was “joking”, demonstrates how much misogyny is tied up with anti-sex attitudes. The conundrum of sex has always been that it’s both exquisitely pleasurable (if done with enthusiastic consent, of course), but also pretty gross.  Like eating barbecue, but involving nudity, and therefore kind of embarrassing.  The solution to this conundrum in our male-dominated society is to put all the nastiness of sex on women, and present to women a bizarre catch-22: you must simultaneously be sexually available but not sexual at all, because that’s gross. 

This article is one manifestation of that, fitting right into the category of “no woman is actually good enough to fuck”.  You’ll notice that entire categories of women are being redefined as so disgusting that any man who touches them should be ashamed.  First it was over 40 (cougar), then over 30 (puma), and now over 25 (cheetah), and soon it will be anyone over the age of legal consent.  And those below it?  Illegal.  Exactly zero women will be acceptable for fucking.  And this will be women’s fault because we’re so fucking disgusting. Already John Derbyshire has gone there, trying to normalize pedophilia as the most full realization of male sexuality, because it’s the only sexual desire that’s “clean” enough, because it’s for girls who haven’t yet developed sexual bodies. 

This way men get to have the cake (the pleasure of sex) without the taint of having done something gross, since all disgust with sex has been projected onto women’s bodies, and made women’s fault.  Guys can even engage in congratulatory behavior, where one is admired for being “brave” enough to have sex with one of those disgusting she-creatures.  I read an article (sadly, can’t find it now) about a group of guys that seduces fat women for this reason.  They seduce the women, and then sit around bragging to each other about how awful it was to have sex with those women.  It was obviously a way to be sexual without owning any responsibility for it.  But of course, this sort of mentality requires all other men to reinforce it—-even a single dude pointing out that the biological realities of sex are part of the fun can result in an emperor’s-naked moment, I guess—-and so the impetus is to define the category of “too disgusting to enjoy fucking” to all but the vanishingly rare, perfectly plastic, just-turned-18-year-old, so that all men can have sex and then congratulate themselves for their courage of going there.

Or that’s my read on it, anyway.  I’m open to assaulting this stupid article from any angle you can think of, it irritated me so much. 

 

------

Registration is now required! We're still in the process of getting it all squared away, so for the moment don't forget to Login or Register using the links in the upper left menu before starting to write your comment.

Posted by Amanda Marcotte on 02:49 PM • (140) Comments

And to go along with that, while it is considered odd for a man to get involved with a much younger woman, the opprobrium in such cases usually falls on the woman, being called a gold-digger or whatever. So, in almost any case where something…questionable is going on, the blame goes to the woman. Shows how fucked-up we are.

Comment #1: truth is life  on  12/03  at  03:24 PM

when someone uses “prove your masculinity” as bait.

That shit’s easy to handle: I just say “fuck you”.

Comment #2: Aaron  on  12/03  at  03:28 PM

I’m always confused when people declare that sex is disgusting.  I mean, yes, if you really think about it logically it is silly, and kinda repetitive, and if you stare too long at even a perfectly normal set of genitalia it’s hard not to giggle, but these are things that are more bothersome when you’re trying to write a sex scene than act one out.  I suspect at least some of the men trying to limit the pool of ‘acceptable’ female sexual partners do it either because a) women who actually know how it goes want them to sing the tune and will not accept dispirited humming just to soothe their egos, so they’re intimidating, or b) they don’t actually like sex all the time, but can’t say that if they want to be taken seriously, so flail around hitting every available target but the one causing the angst—aka themselves.

Comment #3: fluffster  on  12/03  at  03:32 PM

Of course they had to throw in the part about how the Cheetah tries to “trap” the man after fucking him. Because simply having a woman who wanted a quick fuck with a random dude and didn’t give two shits about anything after that would just be too terrifying to these poor men. Sexual commodities are supposed to have boobs, not nuts.

If these guys were really treated the way they fantasize about treating women, it would be kind of funny.

Comment #4: Mighty Ponygirl  on  12/03  at  03:33 PM

fluffster—Neil DeGrasse Tyson (who is awesome) declared that sex is one of the best ways of proving there is no “Intelligent Design”: What engineer would design an entertainment complex in the middle of a waste removal facility?

I personally consider it the proof that God’s got a black sense of humor. But I’m irreverent like that.

Comment #5: Mighty Ponygirl  on  12/03  at  03:36 PM

Sometimes I think that the men who write these articles are of some totally separate sexuality that has nothing to do with normative heterosexuality.  Heterosexual men like to have sex with women, and, as a rule, do not hate their wives, girlfriends, and sexual partners.  Who are these men who are disgusted by female sexuality?  They’re not like any men I’ve ever slept with, or any of my male friends, or my friends’ husbands.  I simply do not know any men like this, yet they are very, very overrepresented on blogs and in the media.

Comment #6: MadLibrarian  on  12/03  at  03:40 PM

Is there such a thing as “peak MRA”, beyond which the Nice Guys will disappear into a black hole of sheer manliness (doubtless smelling of old sweaty socks), leaving actual women and men who like them in peace?
If so, I wish they’d hurry up about it.
[It is possible that the Black Hole of Masculinity already has at least one inhabitant, Dave Sim, creator of Cerebus the Aardvark: ]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dave_Sim]

Comment #7: Dr. Psycho  on  12/03  at  03:41 PM

I was particularly struck by the faux-sympathetic stuff about how the problem with these women is that they moved to the big city, away from the social structures that would have guided them into the marriages or longterm relationships they really want, so that they wouldn’t be cluttering up bars and clubs with their horrible overage ugliness (oh, and taking the cool jobs that guys need to impress chicks too).

So many things wrong with that trope, on so many different levels

Comment #8: paul  on  12/03  at  03:43 PM

Mighty Ponygirl @ 5: I’d forgotten who said that!

I’m with you on the black sense of humour thing—either that, or aspiring to Olympian levels of pettiness.

Comment #9: fluffster  on  12/03  at  03:44 PM

There must be Black Hole of Masculinity, because, doesn’t Ace’o'Spades live there?  And Vox Day?

Comment #10: Older  on  12/03  at  03:44 PM

MP, I think the original joke was that it meant God is a *civil* engineer.  But yeah, the point stands.

Now I’m going to go read the offending article because I feel a deep need to ruin my day.

Comment #11: Sour Kraut  on  12/03  at  03:44 PM

These guys think that no woman wants to fuck them.  They may or may not be right about that, but that doesn’t matter.  Their goal is to reject large groups of women before those women have a chance to reject them.  It’s sort of like in middle school when you say you’re glad you didn’t get invited to Tiffany’s party because she’s so mean and ugly anyway.

As for those guys who “seduce” fat girls just to make fun of them later, most of those guys probably enjoyed the sex a lot.  They like it and they know it, but they’re embarrassed that they like it so they have to make up some stupid excuse about why they’re doing it.

Also, the trivialization of rape sickens me, although it doesn’t surprise me.  These same people probably think it’s cool and manly when a frat boy gets a girl drunk with the intention of raping her.  I’m actually surprised that they’re not high-fiving these women instead of calling it gross an pathetic.  It seems like they don’t like it so much when they could be a potential victim, but they’re too invested in rape culture to realize they can hate it simply because it’s rape.

Comment #12: bananacat  on  12/03  at  03:48 PM

I love how women are now being categorized and named in the same manner as Mac OS’s.  What do you have to do to become, say, a mountain lion?

Comment #13: jTuba  on  12/03  at  03:54 PM

What do you have to do to become, say, a mountain lion?

My guess is that you have to be a 20 year-old women who dates 25 year-old men, rather than 40 year-old men.

Comment #14: bananacat  on  12/03  at  03:57 PM

jTuba: I’m still trying to figure out if this means no woman in her 30s was allowed to vote for Obama…

Comment #15: paul  on  12/03  at  03:57 PM

A cougar is a mountain lion. Sheesh.

Comment #16: Aaron  on  12/03  at  04:00 PM

Wow, that’s some crazy article.  I laughed so hard at the line “New-media mogul and man-about-town Lockhart Steele ” from the article that I couldn’t even finish reading it.  Seriously, the guy is named Lockhart Steele and he’s a “man-about-town”?  Does he hang out with Scrooge McDuck?

Comment #17: zarza  on  12/03  at  04:01 PM

I’m just wondering when women as cats OR dogs thing will be formalized.
I mean… pick one!

But in all seriousness that is the most ridiculous waste of pixels since the latest update on Sarah Palin.

Comment #18: Danica Lefse Queen  on  12/03  at  04:07 PM

Sweet!  Does this mean I get to be the cool old lady who wears ridiculous hats and says outrageous things, knowing that no one will argue with an old lady?  I was looking forward to that, but I thought I might have to wait until I was older than 27.  But since I’m too ancient and dried up for anyone to find me attractive, it’s clearly outrageous-old-lady time.

brb, buying ridiculous hats.

Comment #19: snowmentality  on  12/03  at  04:09 PM

From the article in question:

The Dana “type” was familiar to me. There was a girl I knew in L.A. who fit the bill. She’d sunk her teeth into at least 20 percent of her lopsidedly male friend group. All you had to do was watch the faces when she approached to know which ones she’d had her way with.

Good God, I thought, how many of my fellow men are at risk at this very moment?!

At risk for what, exactly? Fun?

Now I’m all married and a dad and all, but back in the day, if I woke up next to an attractive woman a few years older than me, the last thing in the world I was going to think was “this is a problem.”

What the hell is wrong with these people?

Comment #20: felagund  on  12/03  at  04:09 PM

The article is a steaming, flaming bag of poop.  The comments on the article, however, are pretty good.  Some of my faves:

Ah, the mating call of the Lesser-Spotted Asshat.

and

Ah, baiting women via idiocy.
Yeah, I’m mad. Not for the silly content of this article but because sites like Gawker are jerking Spencer off as such a “great writer.”
A great writer attracts page views by intelligent and thoughtful articles, not your cliche’d hipster writer ploys for attention.
Oh, and Observer, tell your advertising department to stop calling me. You won’t get my money after this.

and maybe the best—

Seriously? Women take home and screw these “poor, drunk, innocent” (snicker) men are the desperate ones? What century are you living in? God Forbid a women try and fuck “above her station”! What a tragedy! It’s OK if men try every chance they can, because, after all, they’re men!

As Lauren Bans said over on XXX, let’s recap:

You sleep with a drunk man, you’re a cheetah.

You watch two football games in a row at a bar, you’re a cheetah.

You hook up with someone casually, you’re a cheetah.

You hook up with someone with the aim of starting a relationship, you’re a cheetah.

You’re single and looking to meet guys, you’re a cheetah.

So, uh, according to the standards of this “trend,” exactly who ISN’T a cheetah among us? Oh yeah, hot girls.

You know what? F*** you.

Comment #21: nolo  on  12/03  at  04:12 PM

Yeah, I’m still trying to figure out what the fuck’s with that article. That is “perfectly nice, charmingly nerdy”? No, I’m afraid not. In order from left to right, that’s “just about to grope the photographer”, “1973 puked all over me especially between my nose and upper lip”, and “the voices in my head are telling me to feed you your eyeballs, won’t that be nice?”

Comment #22: Aaron  on  12/03  at  04:18 PM

Also, “cheetah” and “cheater” are very similar phonetically. I wonder whether this has anything to do with anything.

Comment #23: Aaron  on  12/03  at  04:19 PM

#20 felagund. These people have had very little socialization. They probably fell in with their peers in the high school locker room and had no older male relatives to emulate. Can you imagine a group of fifteen year old males making stuff up about women in said locker room, never having any older, wiser male correct them? I really worry about how much separation there is between generations in this country, as real and solid as class separation.

I won’t say anything about their mothers, because so many have absolutely no idea that their sons are not listening to or respecting them, and have no idea what goes on when a group of 15-25 year old males get together. Your can’t hold anyone responsible when they are absolutely outside of the context.

Comment #24: LCforevah  on  12/03  at  04:25 PM

#22, Aaron, your middle caption made me choke on my soda!

Comment #25: carovee  on  12/03  at  04:27 PM

I looked out the car window—it was raining. A cold, insinuating rain.

I suppose my inner pedant is showing but what the hell is an “insinuating” rain? How does rain insinuate anything? More to the point, do they pay this guy in real money, as if he were some sort of grown-up?

Comment #26: other_orange  on  12/03  at  04:36 PM

Sorry, carovee. No harm done, I hope.

Can you imagine a group of fifteen year old males making stuff up about women in said locker room, never having any older, wiser male correct them?

Christ, that’s a terrifying thought.

Comment #27: Aaron  on  12/03  at  04:38 PM

<quote>The Dana “type” was familiar to me. There was a girl I knew in L.A. who fit the bill. She’d sunk her teeth into at least 20 percent of her lopsidedly male friend group. All you had to do was watch the faces when she approached to know which ones she’d had her way with. </quote>

Wow, at least 20%!  Thats, um, 2 out of 10? 4 out of 20?  This girl is clearly a preditor.  She’s dated/slept with more than one of her male friends - but not our narrator.  I think I know what the problem is…

Comment #28: zarza  on  12/03  at  04:42 PM

A tip of my faaabulous hat to snowmentality, who wins the thread.

Comment #29: Lindsay Beyerstein  on  12/03  at  04:47 PM

I read that article as well, and I’ve been banging my head against the wall trying to find it.  For anyone with better Google-fu, I’m positive it was in the New Times (possibly Phoenix) and it was about men who specifically pursue fat women for one night stands.

Of course they had to throw in the part about how the Cheetah tries to “trap” the man after fucking him.

And of course it can’t just be because she LIKES the guy and wants to pursue a relationship with him.  There’s also the big lie that men are terrified of commitment or, rather, more terrified of it than women are.

Who are these men who are disgusted by female sexuality?  They’re not like any men I’ve ever slept with

Unfortunately I have.  I’ve gotten avoiding these men down to a science, but what’s interesting to me is that their hatred/fear of women’s sexuality isn’t obvious.  It manifests itself in apathetic sexual technique and a fear of touching any part of a woman’s body in any way that isn’t explicitly sexual.  That’s my take on it anyway.

All you had to do was watch the faces when she approached to know which ones she’d had her way with.

You only had to watch their faces, huh?  Interesting.  If it were just sex to Dana and those men, why would those men then have a visceral reaction to seeing her?  Could it be that some of them were disappointed/felt rejected because SHE only wanted a sexual relationship?

Comment #30: keshmeshi  on  12/03  at  04:50 PM

Women of 25 too old to be desirable? Wow, the nasty fantasies of immature dickwads. Which doesn’t reflect reality in the slightest, of course.

Non-misogynist and not-rapist men generally find women attractive, you idiots. Based on my experience and that of the middle-aged women I know, right up through the decades. I’m 59 and I don’t get sexually harassed on the street anywhere near as much as when I was in my twenties, but I find that a bonus. However, at a conference last weekend I had two rather nice flirtations going, both initiated by the men, one my age, and another twenty, or more, years younger.

And I’m little and pudgy, and make no secret of my age, but I’d given an amusing, competent speech at the start of the weekend, so credit goes to the men who apparently found that part of my charm.

I’m not bragging, but over my lifetime I’ve found, consistently, that grownup men like grownup women.

As for the others—feh, who needs them?

Comment #31: judybrowni  on  12/03  at  04:52 PM

Haven’t read a lot of this yet, but I just wanted to throw this (probably much-stated) idea out in between obnoxious work chores.  What struck me about the article was that it seemed to be saying “ew, smart successful adult women who are interesting and want real-life relatioships are ICKY!!1!11!!!!!!” 

I mean, the thing about the Cougars and Pumas and all this other garbage is that they’re usually singling out a somewhat odd case out for revulsion.  There doesn’t seem to be any “definition” of Cheetah other than “adult female who actually is a human being”.

Comment #32: The Opoponax  on  12/03  at  04:55 PM

There doesn’t seem to be any “definition” of Cheetah other than “adult female who actually is a human being”.

And therefore, by definition, not a cheetah. wink

Comment #33: Felix Culpa  on  12/03  at  04:57 PM

“She’s dated/slept with more than one of her male friends - but not our narrator.  I think I know what the problem is… “

ha.  that is the sum and total of a Nice Guy(tm) douchebucket like this dude, isn’t it.  She’s a dirty horrible bitch because she sleeps with guys, but not *him*.  Therefore all females are icky and men really don’t like them.  Cuz he’s not getting any.

Call me “late to the party” but it just sank in recently that a lot of men seem to do this sort of “it’s true about me, therefore it’s true about all men” thing. wink

Comment #34: Gypsy Lee  on  12/03  at  04:59 PM

Oh, and can I just add, I went and read Derbyshire’s article, and I don’t think it’s accidental—I doubt he did it on purpose, but that’s not quite the same—that the first paragraph sounds much more like he’s telling us about his first experience of masturbation than his first time reading Lolita.

Yecch.

Comment #35: Aaron  on  12/03  at  05:04 PM

What do I have to do to be an ocelot?

We had some sex-hatin’ fun here in merrie England today. The wife of a politician, who is standing for election herself, gave an interview where she said - with no pride, but apparently insufficient shame - in her 20s she drank and had casual sex. To which a female Conservative MP said she’d brought Parliament into disrepute and her husband shouldn’t have allowed her to give the interview. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6942945.ece

Comment #36: MissPrism  on  12/03  at  05:10 PM

“In order from left to right, that’s “just about to grope the photographer”, “1973 puked all over me especially between my nose and upper lip”, and “the voices in my head are telling me to feed you your eyeballs, won’t that be nice?””

Don’t be silly.  That dude is totally about to challenge the photographer to a duel in which he pits the laserbeams he can shoot from his eyes against the camera’s power to steal his soul.

Comment #37: preying mantis  on  12/03  at  05:10 PM

I’m with snowmentality @ 19. Does this mean we are snow leopards? (off to check hat collection)

Comment #38: Bethynyc  on  12/03  at  05:12 PM

Ugh, wait, sorry, let me revise before someone takes the first sentence of my second paragraph out of context (stupid having to work…). 

With cougars and the like, it was always “women who are Like X” or “women who belong to Y Group” who have the nerve to be sexual!  Now it’s “women who are human beings” have the nerve to be sexual!

Not that sexually active women in their 30’s and 40’s are an “odd case”.  Obviously.

Comment #39: The Opoponax  on  12/03  at  05:18 PM

I am no guiding light of relationship behavior, it’s not in my usual pattern to be critical of content like this.

What planet these idiots and weirdos live in is beyond me.  What could be disgusting about sex? I have no idea, in any context or any scenario.

I have slept with women in in every age decade through 50—above legal age in teens—through my lifetime and have never, ever thought of classifying them like this, it’s beyond absurd.

It’s always a dreamy honor and I was extremely fortunate to have those partners.  They were women, for chrissakes, how dare these idiots classify them with feline names!

[shakes head] Disgusting.  Grow the fuck up already.

Comment #40: paradox  on  12/03  at  05:18 PM

At this point, is there any large cat that’s not a slang term for sexual woman or a version of OS X (or both)?

Comment #41: jfpbookworm  on  12/03  at  05:19 PM

Hey, I had a lopsidedly male friend group at uni too!
*counts on fingers* Oh dear.

Comment #42: MissPrism  on  12/03  at  05:19 PM

What do you have to do to become, say, a mountain lion?

According to Urban Dictionary, be ugly:

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=mountain+lion

But oddly enough, years ago when the term “cougar” first appeared, I saw “mountain lion” used as the male equivalent a few times. Now it’s “manther” or “mougar”, but the fact that the “male cougar” is hardly ever mentioned or called out speaks loudly to the problems Amanda was talking about: slut-shaming, grossness of women, male default, etc etc etc.  Yuck.  Sick of it.

Comment #43: Ranylt  on  12/03  at  05:23 PM

Wow, at least 20%!  Thats, um, 2 out of 10? 4 out of 20?

Haha, srsly.  I believe that, as of the last bar-oriented outing with a co-ed group of my friends, there were (at least) 2 people there I’d slept with.  I did not know this made me a nasty unfuckable slut.  I thought it was more like, “person who is good at staying friends with her exes.”

Comment #44: The Opoponax  on  12/03  at  05:24 PM

Imagine you were on board an airplane on a trans-Atlantic flight.  At some point you strike up a conversation with the person next to you, and over the course of thirty minutes, he goes from talking about his schnauzer to talking about UFOs and finally to talking about the alien symbiont that lives inside his schnauzer and beams mind-control rays into his head.

That’s the sort of rising sense of dread I got while reading that article.  He starts by describing how, essentially, he came to find out that someone he considered a friend was a serial date-rapist.  The alarm bells started going off when I realized he really didn’t have a problem with the whole rape aspect of it, so much as that this woman was using it to fuck above her station.  The rest of it was pretty much a commentary on how sad it was that she had outlived her early 20s and was now essentially unfuckable.

So let’s recap: date rape = OK, women outliving their early 20s = Tragic.

Comment #45: DaveL  on  12/03  at  05:29 PM

What planet these idiots and weirdos live in is beyond me.  What could be disgusting about sex? I have no idea, in any context or any scenario.

There’s a part of me that thinks the lad-centric media publishes this stuff to make the average man feel like a sexual saint.  Like simply being attracted to the women in their life makes them an amazing partner worthy of praise.  It reminds me a little bit of the way that the popular media fawns over fathers who have been observed to actually parent their children.  If the bar were any lower, it would be on the floor.

Comment #46: The Opoponax  on  12/03  at  05:30 PM

Married/partnered women must not even exist in this nomenclature.

I hearby reserve Bornean Clouded Leopard for married/partnered women who are not interested in infidelity but yet have the audacity to have male friends.

Comment #47: Mighty Ponygirl  on  12/03  at  05:32 PM

I just read the article in question and my regret is huge.  Not because it was garbage (hoo! was it) but because I gave that turd writer and the NYO a page-view.

Comment #48: Ranylt  on  12/03  at  05:33 PM

One of the guys quoted in the article, Daulerio, is an editor at Deadspin.  He basically says in his own post that his quotes were BS and he didn’t take it seriously because he saw the whole thing is just another “made-up trend piece”.

I believe Daulerio, but I also think the author was 100% sincere and 100% trying to start something for no reason.

Comment #49: bouj  on  12/03  at  05:39 PM

“manther” or “mougar”

You know, I’ve found a high tolerance for agonizingly ugly words like these, and especially a blithe willingness to utter them, to be a strong indicator that someone is very much worth avoiding entirely; it’s like, while there might be something good there, it’s going to be buried under so many layers of asshole that it’s just not worth the effort of digging.

Comment #50: Aaron  on  12/03  at  05:39 PM

I’m open to assaulting this stupid article from any angle you can think of, it irritated me so much.

Man, what a train-wreck of an article. A few anecdotes and a derivative term blown up into a trend piece. Embarrassing for everyone, not least for the writer.

As for those guys who “seduce” fat girls just to make fun of them later, most of those guys probably enjoyed the sex a lot.  They like it and they know it, but they’re embarrassed that they like it so they have to make up some stupid excuse about why they’re doing it.

There was a good bit on Dan Savage’s podcast (ep 163) about that very topic the other day. Basically Savage and his pro-domme guest called the guy in the story (a frat boy with a closet “feeder” fetish) what he is: an arsehole and a user.

I laughed so hard at the line “New-media mogul and man-about-town Lockhart Steele “ from the article that I couldn’t even finish reading it.  Seriously, the guy is named Lockhart Steele and he’s a “man-about-town”?  Does he hang out with Scrooge McDuck?

It’s basically Observer style, which is aimed at giving young newcomers to the New York real-estate and media-industrial complex the illusion that they’re part of some extended Algonquin Round Table. Charming at first, but it wears quickly.

These people have had very little socialization. They probably fell in with their peers in the high school locker room and had no older male relatives to emulate.

Lots of these type in the audience served by the Observer—you can take the nerd out of high school (by giving him an Ivy education, a “fabulous” entry-level job at Corcoran or Conde Nast or Penguin or Saatchi, and by draping him in Prada and D&G;), but you can’t take the high school out of the nerd until after age 25.

Whit Stillman has made a study of these types—I highly recommend The Last Days of Disco, which as a bonus has a major plot point that hinges on Scrooge McDuck.

Comment #51: Gracchus.  on  12/03  at  05:40 PM

#36 Miss Prism: To become an ocelot? Move to the desert. Also become a predatory cat.

People who do this sort of thing are obviously intimidated by sexual women. Think about it - cougars, pumas, and cheetahs are all pretty darn intimidating. Your natural reaction would be to run scared or be eaten. (Sorry, MissPrism, ocelots are actually kinda cute.)

Which says a lot about the nature of people who do such classifying. We’ve established that they probably view female sexuality as freakish, but they probably also have a fairly low self-image. They feel “forced” into having sex with any woman who initiates no matter how attracted they are to that woman, and they chalk that up to some sort of mystical power inherent in female sexuality (when the actual, more prosaic reason is that they’re too chickenshit to say no). Worse, they need to shame women who they don’t find desirable into not showing interest in them so that these women don’t work their jujuvoodoo on them.

Side note: anyone ever wonder if the people who believe women have some sort of mystical power over men look at women and see Ka from The Jungle Book? No wonder they’re not attracted to any women out there - they’re too busy looking into women’s eyes and seeing a googly-eyed snake.

Comment #52: Jeff  on  12/03  at  05:41 PM

If the bar were any lower, it would be on the floor.

Opoponax, the bar is on the floor. It’s kept on the floor because having to live up to anything else might be a little bit of effort, so it’s apparently preferable to try to give women the idea that any man who doesn’t actually use his fists is therefore a saint. Because, you know, it doesn’t matter that that makes men look like about half a step down from weasels; after all, no man would think so poorly of himself or of any of his testicle-brothers, and what other perspective matters?

Comment #53: Aaron  on  12/03  at  05:43 PM

How do you titillate an ocelot? Oscillate its tit a lot! Ha!
Old joke, but a good’un.

Comment #54: MissPrism  on  12/03  at  05:45 PM

In a sense, if you buy the idea that women have some mystical power over men, the use of the rape story makes sense. This idiot is conflating men who are forced into having sex with men who are too chickenshit and self-hating to say no, because to him, the second category doesn’t exist. If a man has sex with someone he’s not really attracted to, he was forced into it. Whether it was by rape or by some sort of Harry Potter power granted by the second X chromosome doesn’t matter anymore.

Comment #55: Jeff  on  12/03  at  05:47 PM

The article quotes John Carney, of the absolutely odious Business Insider. What is it about “business” bloggers that make them such complete douchebags?

Comment #56: stephen  on  12/03  at  05:50 PM

fluffster—Neil DeGrasse Tyson (who is awesome) declared that sex is one of the best ways of proving there is no “Intelligent Design”: What engineer would design an entertainment complex in the middle of a waste removal facility?

I personally consider it the proof that God’s got a black sense of humor. But I’m irreverent like that.
Comment #5: Mighty Ponygirl on 12/03 at 01:36 PM

Much as I love me some NDT, this is not original to him.  It was told in different form when I was in college in 1977, where people are arguing about God’s profession, and the punchline is “Look at the human body! Who else but a civil engineer would run a toxic waste line through a recreation area?”

I mean, yes, he could have thought of it as a freshman or sophomore at Harvard, and it was so high-larious that it made it from Harvard to the engineering sector pre-internet, but I kinda doubt it.

Comment #57: oldfeminist  on  12/03  at  05:55 PM

very good. The only time I’ve heard it was watching Amazing Video meetings on YouTube.

Comment #58: Mighty Ponygirl  on  12/03  at  06:14 PM

Ponygirl, I always figured that that was because ammonia is a sterilant and there’s only so much room, but the God Thinks Genitals Are Humorous theory is always good for a spin.

Jeff, if we concede that our current model of sexuality doesn’t have a strong enough concept of positive consent for women, I think we can go ahead and say it doesn’t have a strong enough concept of positive consent for men either. I think that young men with very little feminist background often have difficulty turning down straight-up offers (aren’t women supposed to be the withholders, after all?) and might even have kind of a tough time making a clear mental distinction between physical arousal and an actual wish to have sex with a given partner.

So I think there is a certain internal logic in the conflation of what this man chillingly does not understand is date rape and the simple existence of sexual assertion among women. If young men in our culture don’t have any expectation of or training in saying no, then preventing women from being sexually assertive avoids the question of ever being the target of, or needing to respond to, unwanted sexual attention - be that anything from a simple proposition to that rather chilling story of what honest-to-god sounds like serial date rape.

Of course, feminism has already suggested a solution to this problem, and that solution is called feminism, in which people can act like people instead of gender roles and the only reason to have sex is because you want to have sex with someone who wants to have sex with you. Or we could do it his way. I guess.

Comment #59: purpleshoes  on  12/03  at  06:24 PM

This idiot is conflating men who are forced into having sex with men who are too chickenshit and self-hating to say no, because to him, the second category doesn’t exist. If a man has sex with someone he’s not really attracted to, he was forced into it.

This, I think, is seriously destructive to men and women. Didn’t we just get through the post where we were all agreed that if he was really drunk and wouldn’t take no for an answer, and the woman didn’t want to cause a huge scene getting away from him it was still rape? Call it “taking advantage” or “pressuring” or whatever you want that isn’t rape, but it’s still kinda rotten. And it’s a rotten set of institutions for both sexes when people are conditioned to say yes to sex they don’t really want, just because it’s the wy things are.

(Let me be clear: I think the article still sucks, but the behavior that’s ostensibly described in it still ain’t a good idea.)

Comment #60: paul  on  12/03  at  06:28 PM

Paul, my comment was laborous and ungrammatical so I will reply separately: I’m not sure our culture understands male consent very well. If men are always supposed to be the pursuers, and women the witholders, then it puts men, especially young men, who don’t want to have sex at a particular time with a particular person in a rough spot. See this article, in which the author apparently has to go the whole way around in the opposite direction and declare every sexually-assertive woman on earth disgusting in order to give himself permission to feel uncomfortable when his male friends are something-that-sounds-a-lot-like-date-raped by a lady. Feminism is supposed to fix this problem. Someone should inform Spencer Morgan.

Comment #61: purpleshoes  on  12/03  at  06:37 PM

Sweet!  Does this mean I get to be the cool old lady who wears ridiculous hats and says outrageous things, knowing that no one will argue with an old lady?

You also need at least a dozen cats, all named after characters from some work of fiction.

Comment #62: Woodrowfan  on  12/03  at  06:41 PM

(Let me be clear: I think the article still sucks, but the behavior that’s ostensibly described in it still ain’t a good idea.)

I agree.  If the guy was really so drunk that he blacked out the next day, the women shouldn’t have taken advantage of him.  The article is still a mess though.

Comment #63: lemmy caution  on  12/03  at  06:46 PM

I think the article still sucks, but the behavior that’s ostensibly described in it still ain’t a good idea

Agreed. The article is screwed up in that it reserves its condemnation not for sex with a falling-down drunk person who can’t remember consenting, but for the predator’s “limpid eyed” hope (silly desperate gurl!) that a relationship will emerge out of it.

If we were discussing a 29-year-old male rapist who took advantage of a blitzed-out-of-her-mind girl and then hoped that it would lead to more dates (“can I call you sometime?”), we’d be talking about his individual derangement and focusing on the events of the evening. Instead, it’s spun into a trend about “cheetahs” with the focus on the morning after.

Comment #64: Gracchus.  on  12/03  at  06:51 PM

I don’t know, to me this kid just comes off as a bitchy little closet case jealous of all the cock the “cheetahs” are getting.

Comment #65: tb  on  12/03  at  07:00 PM

On a somewhat-related note regarding Mac OS: perhaps it is no coincidence that comes bundled with a browser called “Safari.”

Comment #66: Felix Culpa  on  12/03  at  07:08 PM

If men are always supposed to be the pursuers, and women the witholders, then it puts men, especially young men, who don’t want to have sex at a particular time with a particular person in a rough spot.

I disagree. They have an easy excuse - that the woman is not attractive. And this article defines any woman who pursues as opposed to passively being pursued as unattractive. Therefore, when a man is propositioned he can easily accept (because “guys always want to get laid” if she’s “unattractive” or because “who could refuse” if she is attractive) or reject (because all women who are pro-active are by definition unattractive according to this article - no matter how young or objectively attractive they are). It’s a no lose situation - either he gets laid (and therefore wins) or he gets to prove how the woman is inferior. And if the situation is reversed and she rejects him, she goes from being attractive to being the sort of girl that makes baby Jesus cry because she dates jerks instead of “nice guys.” The whole system is set up to privilege men.

The portrayal of male consent in this article is seriously disturbing. It becomes clear that in the author’s mind the violation is not nonconsensual sex (the image of the guy waking up the next morning with no clear memory of the night before and a condom on was quite upsetting) but the fact that she hung around after the sex. As I read through the piece I realized that there’s no assertion that the sex was nonconsenual or that the “victim” couldn’t recall it - I just assumed that was the case because it fit the date rape narrative in my head.  The article is pretty explicit that the problem is that “the cheetah stays the night.” The “risk” that the author feels is not rape - it’s…ok, I’m not sure what it is. I think it’s loss of face - either because the woman is not attractive or because being the pursued is feminizing. And, bizarrely, the second page of the article seems to be about the risk to the woman - that of appearing desperate. So, in addition to being offensive it makes no sense.

Comment #67: rivki  on  12/03  at  07:09 PM

Woodrowfan, I’ve got two cats, whose names are from works of fiction (Cold Mountain and Benny and Joon), though I didn’t name them.  So I’m well on my way!

Comment #68: snowmentality  on  12/03  at  07:13 PM

Non-misogynist and not-rapist men generally find women attractive, you idiots. Based on my experience and that of the middle-aged women I know, right up through the decades.

TVTropes even has a category (with fictional and many real life examples, male and female) called “Grandma, What Massive Hotness You Have” (in addition to the various categories of examples for attractive slightly younger women).  So I really don’t know where idiots like this twit come from.

Comment #69: KeithM  on  12/03  at  07:25 PM

Rivki: exactly. Being the pursued is feminizing. It’s unmanly. Having to give or withhold consent is not the proper male role and it’s throwing him into a tailspin. If the only male out is that a woman is unattractive, then by god, he’s going to reclassify every lady who propositions him as unattractive (reading the article, he’s pretty much classified every lady who propositions him as subhuman) so that he’s got a consistent reason to say no. And again, maybe I’m projecting my own enculturation, but being the nonconsenting party in, let’s cage and call it something that looks a lot like date rape, is the most feminizing thing in the world to some people. If it takes classifying women as subhuman animals to laugh that off without ever seriously considering the question of male consent, then by god, he’s going to do it.

Comment #70: purpleshoes  on  12/03  at  07:28 PM

“As I read through the piece I realized that there’s no assertion that the sex was nonconsenual [...]”

Generally if you’re falling-down drunk when you leave the bar and too out of it to take the condom off after sex when you get home, I’d say you’re too out of it to have consented to the sex.

Comment #71: preying mantis  on  12/03  at  07:28 PM

But basically, I think if he believed that people are people who sometimes don’t want to have sex, and that’s not a huge big deal, he wouldn’t have to denigrate half the human race to 1) explain why sometimes he doesn’t feel like doing it 2) frantically escape any lingering discomfort over the prospect that he or his dudely dude friends are in any way rapeable. Not being rapeable is a if not the major component of heterosexual male privilege, and if it takes rewriting several word definitions and writing off all women ever to preserve that privilege, by God, I think he’s going to.

Comment #72: purpleshoes  on  12/03  at  07:32 PM

purpleshoes,
that dovetails nicely with agressive homophobia, too.

Comment #73: lonespark  on  12/03  at  07:36 PM

Fuck them and then shoot them.  That way they do not get confused into presuming you want a relationship with them.

Comment #74: scratchy888  on  12/03  at  07:37 PM

I just can’t get upset at these troll articles.  The same with some of the stuff people post from Spike and want me to get all outraged over.  Why?  That’s why these guys are writing this stuff.  They get hard when women get outraged.  They get hard, when they feel they have degraded women.

Now, they may very well have degraded their mothers, and for quite some time I’m certain, but they haven’t degraded me.

I’m a 40 yo serial monogamist and I have never had trouble either “getting laid” (they’re kidding me right?) or, and this is important, attracting men who very much desire a relationship with me. 

This stuff is meaningless out in the real world, a place where I reside, and they cleary do not.

Comment #75: JennyLI  on  12/03  at  07:42 PM

lonespark, you’re right! most homophobic teenage boys I know who’ve articulated their phobia coherently seem paralyzed at the idea of 1) having to rebuff a proposition 2) potentially being harassed, groped, etc, both because these are incredibly awkward situations and because the mere act of being put in the role of the rebuffer is feminizing. So they have to reject gay things because gay things are gross, which keeps them from losing status.

Comment #76: purpleshoes  on  12/03  at  07:46 PM

“They’re not like any men I’ve ever slept with, or any of my male friends, or my friends’ husbands.  I simply do not know any men like this, yet they are very, very overrepresented on blogs and in the media”

Exactly.  They do not exist out here in the real world.  I would imagine the ones who write like this on the internet are used to being turned down by women and get their revenge by writing rejection porn.  It’s utter nonsense.  It’s not operative.  It doesn’t matter.  It isnt’ real. 

“hopes her pussy is still good enough to hold him”  WTF does that mean?  Nobody knows.  No real woman has ever worried over any such thing.  Many insecure men DO worry about their penis.  Size, stamina, etc.  Are these particular men trying to project their own terror of being found wanting onto women?  Of course they are.

I actually laughed reading that article.

Comment #77: JennyLI  on  12/03  at  07:47 PM

AnglScarlett: I laughed at that line too. Suddenly it’s a magical man-containment pouch! Like the TARDIS? Or a tractor beam! Oh no, my man-holding tractor beam is malfunctioning! It must be my advanced age of 27? Here I was thinking that these were parts of people, like hands or ears, with no actual science-fiction level powers.

Comment #78: purpleshoes  on  12/03  at  07:51 PM

Heterosexual men like to have sex with women, and, as a rule, do not hate their wives, girlfriends, and sexual partners.  Who are these men who are disgusted by female sexuality?

Maybe it’s because I’m 22 and am still fuckable—if barely—but I’ve only met one person like this and he had the good sense (I guess) to disguise his squeamishness about female sexuality with religion.  Predictably, I’ve never felt more like my own sexuality was dirty than during that relationship.  It’s unsettling how contagious that sort of thing can be, even if you know for a fact that female sexuality is really cool, loads of fun, and well within a bearable range of “gross” even if you think about it slightly too long.

I doubt this will be a revelation to anyone, but that certainly suggested to me that religion can be as much an excuse for people freaked out by sex as the reason why.  This person had converted pretty recently, and still couldn’t figure out how to take responsibility for his principles when he was around me—I had to be the one who thought about them.  Not the worst thing in the world, since it was sort of my job as someone who’s not an asshole, but creepy in conjunction with the emails about how he couldn’t “stimulate” me because of the tears Jesus would cry.

Everyone’s allowed to pick one horrible, horrible failure…  Right?  And that’s what men who are freaked out by female sexuality are.  After that experience, I wouldn’t call them hard to spot.

Comment #79: themmases  on  12/03  at  07:55 PM

It’s not just that its considered “gross” to date older women. Or overweight women. Also off-limits 99% of the time according to the frat-boy cobag crowd: bisexual women, women taller than you, women who have more money then you, women who are TOO much shorter than you, and women who aren’t white. I’m suer I forgot a couple.

See, if you date any women of those categories (any women other than a white, blonde, skin, short but not TOO short woman between the ages of 18 and 25 who is “below” your social station) you’re some sick weirdo with a fetish or a gigolo (remember how much shit John Kerry got from the right-wing in 2004 because he married a wife who was, at the time, wealthier and more famous than him?

Comment #80: Ben D.  on  12/03  at  08:01 PM

And yeah, I agree that this all comes down to “if I reject 99% of all women before they reject me, I’m not a loser!” line of “thought”.

Comment #81: Ben D.  on  12/03  at  08:01 PM

Generally if you’re falling-down drunk when you leave the bar and too out of it to take the condom off after sex when you get home, I’d say you’re too out of it to have consented to the sex.

Generally I agree with you. I just think the rest of the article undermines the opening story to the extent that I can’t see any connection between what is presented as date rape and the behavior actually attributed to the generic “cheetah.” Which is hanging out with guys in social situations (that sometimes involve alcohol, the horror!) and occasionally sleeping with them. And that suggests to me that the invokation of rape was intended not to shed light on actual questions of consent and rape, but to play up the supposed desperation/ridiculousness of women who actively seek sex, basically creating the ultimate slut-shame. Women who pursue men are not only unnattractive people who can’t get laid properly (ie, by being passive), they’re not only sluts (they sleep with more than one friend in a group!), they’re flat out rapists. And with that as the theme of the story, I question its veracity. I start wondering who made the first move, and how drunk she was, and what their previous relationship was, and whether his subsequent horror when she made a move on his buddy was that she might actually not have wanted a relationship with him - she may have actually just wanted a one night stand.

The admonition at the end “Heed my warning: You’re never going to get a boyfriend or a husband this way. Men like to chase. ” makes it clear that the point of this article is not questionable consent, but admonishing women that they must be properly passive in order to land a properly manly man.

Comment #82: rivki  on  12/03  at  08:06 PM

In the ‘80s it was the urban myth (also repeated in Newsweek magazine!) that it was easier for a woman over 40 to be killed by a terrorist than get to married.

Of course, years later it came out that the “statistical study” qouted, had been misquoted, the authors of the study horrified their data had been twisted.

A decade or two later, Newsweek went back to the core group of over-40 unmarried women they’d orignally interviewed, and of course, most had married in the interim (and one came out as a lesbian, if memory serves.)

I believe the above was also covered in Susan Faludi’s Backlash: those skeevy-looking deewbs threw in a reverse-rapist meme, and ratcheted down the age at which a woman supposedly becomes undesirable, and it also strikes me as a backlash against feminism.

As a reaction to mid-twenties sexually autonomous women who also—horrors—expect to have human connection with their partners, or merely a misogynist paranoid fantasy.

Either way.

Comment #83: judybrowni  on  12/03  at  08:15 PM

felagund: What the hell is wrong with these people?

They are wankers and afraid to admit it?

Also: I am getting the impression that these people have a very strange relationship to cats. And I want to be a snow leopard. Or a fishing cat.

Comment #84: inge  on  12/03  at  08:16 PM

It’s not just that its considered “gross” to date older women. Or overweight women. Also off-limits 99% of the time according to the frat-boy cobag crowd: bisexual women, women taller than you, women who have more money then you, women who are TOO much shorter than you, and women who aren’t white. I’m suer I forgot a couple.

Women who are smarter.

Comment #85: keshmeshi  on  12/03  at  08:19 PM

It’s staggering to me that so many men can apparently be so squicked about sex. It’s like dealing with a bunch of adolescents…you know, guys that have never had sex, or haven’t had enough sex to know that women really are.

If women disgust these guys so much, they are of course free to not sleep with any of us. Idiots.

Comment #86: xxxevilgrinxxx  on  12/03  at  08:21 PM

Women who are smarter.

Oh yeah. I should have included that, that’s a BIG one. And women with smaller than averrage breasts, too. Or even among the more douchey ones women with completely average sized breasts.

Comment #87: Ben D.  on  12/03  at  08:21 PM

What do I have to do to be an ocelot?

“I’m glad you asked”, said Dr. Moreau, pulling out a syringe .....

Comment #88: seeker6079  on  12/03  at  08:26 PM

Here’s my take…  The writer is 25.  Late 20’s dating is very different than early 20’s dating.  In your early 20’s, people still have a lot of hang-ups about sex.  A lot of people are either still living at home, or in roommate situations.  People aren’t as financially independent.

You get to your late 20’s, and it’s pretty much given that everyone has established a comfort level with sex.  People have their own places.  They have money to go out and do things.

This sounds to me like someone in an early-20’s mind frame having their first encounter with someone who has a late-20’s sensibility about sex.  And it’s creating confusion.  The guy was easily identified as available.  The woman was more experienced at knowing how to initiate a sexual encounter.  Once clothes started coming off, there was no hesitation about whether it was going to go all the way.  So the response is “this must be some new, strange breed of female”.

Comment #89: Wallace  on  12/03  at  08:27 PM

I think that young men with very little feminist background often have difficulty turning down straight-up offers (aren’t women supposed to be the withholders, after all?) and might even have kind of a tough time making a clear mental distinction between physical arousal and an actual wish to have sex with a given partner.

This doesn’t ring true from my experiences or those of male classmates and friends.  Rivki’s correct in saying males can always use the unattractiveness of the woman in question as an easy out. 

If one is in college, one can also IME use the “Academics prioritization excuse” to avoid dating altogether if one so chooses.  Knew plenty of undergrad classmates who did this including yours truly.  It does risk having other people perceive you as a prude or a nerd/geek…..though I would think undergrads are mature enough to get over being affected by junior high/high school namecalling…..

Comment #90: exholt  on  12/03  at  08:35 PM

Women with larger than average breasts, if they are real and therefore less than perfect.

Comment #91: bellacoker  on  12/03  at  08:36 PM

I read an article (sadly, can’t find it now) about a group of guys that seduces fat women for this reason.  They seduce the women, and then sit around bragging to each other about how awful it was to have sex with those women.

This is so transparent as to be ridiculous. Do any dudes actually buy into that shit? Seriously… You’d have to be a massive moron to actually think they’re not closet fat enthusiasts.

“Faggots are so gross. You should have seen the one I got to suck me off behind the dumpster…”
“Dude. That’s sort of gay.”
“No no, see, I did it as a lark, so we could all have a laugh after.”
“Dude… still gay.”

Comment #92: BlackBloc  on  12/03  at  08:43 PM

“Faggots are so gross. You should have seen the one I got to suck me off behind the dumpster…”

Sadly this seems to exist in reality. Go look on Criaglist under “discrete encounters” or whatever they call it on there. There’s all kinds of posts like “I need a guy who will jerk me off. But he has to be STRAIGHT, ok? STRAIGHT guys only, no queers!”

Comment #93: Ben D.  on  12/03  at  08:46 PM

It’s good to know I’m not the only one that read this and picked out the extreme strains of closeted homosexuality.  Jesus Christ on a crutch, I know half a dozen guys who would happily have drinks with the theoretical cheetah.  Commitment free, open ended, post-bar hopping wild sex?  What 21 year old wouldn’t claw over his two best friends just to get in line?

The entire premise is absurd.  Oh, woe is the adolescent male.  So young and naive.  Only looking to sip mojitos and bloody marries with a few of his bros before they saunter home for much needed beauty sleep.  And then.  From the bushes!  They are assaulted by the cruel and callous, yet hopelessly romantic and rejected, piercing claws of the heterosexual female!  Run away!  Run away!  She’s just going to use you for a passionate night of drunken but contentiously safe sex!

If you’re really unlucky, she’ll make you drive her luxury sports car back to her penthouse apartment where her three promiscuous roommates roommates will pillow fight for your affection.  Then shower you with money.

I can only hope and pray this article was written with tongue jammed firmly in cheek.  It’s got to be a joke.

Comment #94: Zifnab  on  12/03  at  08:49 PM

Women with larger than average breasts, if they are real and therefore less than perfect.

And don’t forget women who’ve got fake breasts, because they’re gold digging narcissistic hoes.

Comment #95: Zifnab  on  12/03  at  08:57 PM

It’s good to know I’m not the only one that read this and picked out the extreme strains of closeted homosexuality.

I wonder, are a good portion or at least some Nice Guys possibly deeply, deeply repressed and closeted gay?

Comment #96: Ben D.  on  12/03  at  08:59 PM

The first scenerio he describes is rape.  I also don’t get why he passes this by as “Cheetah Behavior”.  Is he trying to save raping a drunk as acceptable behavior for himself to engage in?  Is rape ok as long as you get a high five from your buddies the next morning?

Comment #97: Captain Optimistic  on  12/03  at  09:08 PM

women who are younger than so-called “cougars” and “pumas”, but are still over 25 and unaware that they are therefore too nasty to have sex.

I would like you to imagine what it feels like for a 55-year-old man (happy birfday to ME) to read something like this article. “Over 25,” dear me. 

I know I was once as young as the author and his drooling intended audience, but was I ever that stupid?  Ever?  I really don’t recall, but it’s hard to believe.

Comment #98: W. Kiernan  on  12/03  at  09:15 PM

I know I was once as young as the author and his drooling intended audience, but was I ever that stupid?

Those of us who were young and stupid before the internet age have the privilege of not having been so publicly—and even if we did, the witnesses are not getting younger, either.

Comment #99: inge  on  12/03  at  09:30 PM

But of course, this sort of mentality requires all other men to reinforce it—-even a single dude pointing out that the biological realities of sex are part of the fun can result in an emperor’s-naked moment, I guess—-and so the impetus is to define the category of “too disgusting to enjoy fucking” to all but the vanishingly rare, perfectly plastic, just-turned-18-year-old, so that all men can have sex and then congratulate themselves for their courage of going there

I’d appreciate it very much if you didn’t lump me and other gay men in with hetero men.  The most beautiful group of woman of any age—Derbyshire-age to 110—could undress in front of me and I wouldn’t give a damn. Your hetero-centrism is typical, but please do better.

Thank you.

Comment #100: Henry Holland  on  12/03  at  10:00 PM

“The admonition at the end “Heed my warning: You’re never going to get a boyfriend or a husband this way. Men like to chase. “ makes it clear that the point of this article is not questionable consent [...]”

I think the entire article makes it clear that the author wouldn’t know questionable consent if it hit him with a bus without his permission.  I’d wager airplanes have gone over his head at lower altitudes than the ultimate implications of what he was writing about the predatory hook-up methodology under scrutiny here.

Comment #101: preying mantis  on  12/03  at  10:07 PM

I’m almost that old, and was pretty messed up at an early age, but never that stupid.

But I do remember a time when even if a woman was not conventionally attractive (see all the thing on the lists above, plus: makes more money than you) turning down sex (as opposed to having the sex and then complaining about it) was considered kinda gay.

(And completely agree with everyone who said that the focus should have been on the behavior by whoever, not on trying to claim it was part of one gender/age group. )

Comment #102: paul  on  12/03  at  10:14 PM

I’d appreciate it very much if you didn’t lump me and other gay men in with hetero men.  The most beautiful group of woman of any age—Derbyshire-age to 110—could undress in front of me and I wouldn’t give a damn. Your hetero-centrism is typical, but please do better.

Damn, way to make it all about you. Since the entire fucking thread is about hetero sex, you’d think the non-hetero, hell, the non-sexual exceptions would be implicit.

Comment #103: tb  on  12/03  at  10:55 PM

Comment #93: Ben D.  on 12/03 at 06:46 PM

Sadly this seems to exist in reality. Go look on Criaglist under “discrete encounters” or whatever they call it on there. There’s all kinds of posts like “I need a guy who will jerk me off. But he has to be STRAIGHT, ok? STRAIGHT guys only, no queers!”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Men_who_have_sex_with_men
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Down-low_(sexual_slang)
http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/001251.html

Comment #104: sacundim  on  12/03  at  11:14 PM

I got here late and don’t feel like reading everything, but Zinfab @94 nailed it IMO.

I’ll just add that my favorite single sentence in that article was:

I looked out the car window—it was raining. A cold, insinuating rain.

What exactly does rain “insinuate”? “Hey, I’m wet”?

Comment #105: Bitter Scribe  on  12/03  at  11:59 PM

It’s weird how ancient themes get recycled. The women in this article are all portrayed as predatory cats, and there is no fear more ancient than that of getting eaten alive. Our tiny gracile ancestors had to deal with that fear constantly, since it was reality. And when they first developed a taste for meat, it was as scavengers, simultaneously threatened by the predator and also strangely grateful, since the predator was also the provider! The predator was both feared and desired.

This primal fear was shifted on to women in the myth of the vagina dentata, which likely stems from the uncanny alignment of women’s menstrual cycles and the lunar cycle. Women had some powerful mojo, since they have the capacity to ‘eat’ the moon. And the classic way men deal with this anxiety about women is to trash them—I desire you but fear you, but for me to admit that would be to unman me, so I need to debase you in order to deal with my fear.

Is that how it still goes?

Comment #106: revrick  on  12/04  at  12:02 AM

Revrick, you’re post is pretty much right on.

Funny, the last time most guys think girls are “icky” is in about 6th grade. I think the author of the article is still at that emotional level.

Comment #107: Ben D.  on  12/04  at  12:18 AM

Angela would like to do the cheetahs of the world a favor: “Heed my warning: You’re never going to get a boyfriend or a husband this way. Men like to chase. The only man you’ll ever get to stick around by being a cheetah is going to be a total pussy.”

This last line in particular blew my mind.  I mean, what the ever-loving monkey fuck is that all about?  If a “cheetah” is fortunate enough to hook up with a guy whose attitude towards gender roles and sex is as straightforward and uncomplicated as her own—who is comfortable enough with his own masculinity that he doesn’t mind a woman who initiates sex—then he must be some kind of “pussy” (not that there’s anything wrong with pussies, but the epithet as used here is not intended to be kind)? 

To repeat: guys who like to have sex with willing partners are limp-wristed “pussies”?  Real men, presumably, take it by force?  How fucked up is that?

I mean, it’s just the icing on that shit-cake of an article, but damn.  I dreamed of “cheetahs” when I was younger—and I wouldn’t have minded staying around afterward to see if anything more than sex was possible.  I guess that just makes me a big set of female genital organs, or something.  Not, again, that there’s anything wrong with that.

/rant

Comment #108: Captain Bathrobe  on  12/04  at  12:25 AM

“I read an article (sadly, can’t find it now) about a group of guys that seduces fat women for this reason.  They seduce the women, and then sit around bragging to each other about how awful it was to have sex with those women. “

You are probably thinking of this article from 2003.  They called it “hogging”.  I was really horrified when i read this years ago.  It stuck with me.

http://www.clevescene.com/cleveland/big-game-hunters/Content?oid=1484039

Comment #109: cola  on  12/04  at  12:28 AM

I wonder if this isn’t actually some sort of reverse advertising: guys, you’d better stay away from these bars, because the women there will take you home and fuck you, a fate worse than going home alone.

As for cats that have never been named in these contexts, I’ll nominate the bobcat (too butch, and perhaps reminiscent of Bobbiting) and the cacomistle.

Comment #110: bad Jim  on  12/04  at  01:58 AM

Angela would like to do the cheetahs of the world a favor: “Heed my warning: You’re never going to get a boyfriend or a husband this way. Men like to chase. The only man you’ll ever get to stick around by being a cheetah is going to be a total pussy.”

Um, yes. That’s the point.  A cheetah, being of the feline persuasion, wants to find another of the feline persuasion (i.e. pussy) as a mate or just a casual fuck.  I’m not seeing the horror here.

That article was made of all sorts of fail.

Comment #111: history_mom  on  12/04  at  02:01 AM

You guys are still talking?  catgirl concluded the thread at #12.

Comment #112: Jake  on  12/04  at  02:35 AM

You know how that “what superpower would you have” question comes up? I think I would like the power to make straight women give up sex with straight men , Lysistrata style, for however long just to see what guys like this would do.

Since we’re going with the cat labels, I’d like to call dibs on Caracals. . Though I’m not sure what the caracal m.o. would be. Just thought it was cool.

Comment #113: UltraMagnus  on  12/04  at  02:45 AM

I think this makes manifest something I’ve been noticing for awhile about the toxic maculinity culture. Basically that lots of overtures are made that toxic masculinity culture is as fucked up as it is, violates consent like it does, has the neg and all the rest of that crap because it supposedly “works”, that that’s what one needs to do in order to have sex with women.

But the goal was never women, not even in the objectified idea of acquisition. The audience for the dudebro activities is for and always has been about men looking goód homosocially to other men. They use the neg, because they are taking a woman down a peg and thus looking more manly by the toxic masculinity code. They fear the sexually aggressive woman, because they aren’t after actual sex. Actual sex can threaten the game. This is also why any male in a relationship is “pussy-whipped”, “lost his edge”, or is a “faggot”. They are getting regular sex or are supposedly winning the game as stated, but they actually lose, because toxic masculinity cannot afford having men actually spend time with a woman or engage with them in anything approaching equality.

The audience one is always supposed to be considering is that of other men. And that is enforced by the patriarchy. There are consequences for not being seen as “masculine” as only the loudest of men define it. Your boss is probably a man, the boy’s network for easier access to jobs and power are held by male gatekeepers and men have all the social weight owing to the rape culture and misogyny. And being a woman or seen as womanly is an implicit threat (see homophobic terror at being propositioned or more aptly raped by a gay man as the immediate image they turn to and expect if they were to lose masculine status). The rape culture is set, men can rape, women get raped, if you’re not a man or haven’t proved your masculinity lately, prepare to be dispensed with as a woman.

This is at the root of so much anxious masculinity as people try and prove this abstract masculinity to the crowd and it’s at the root of so many standards of masculinity and worry that have nothing to do with any successful strategy. This is especially obvious in the penis size wars. Women generally don’t care about penis size (generally, some women do like and seek out the feeling of being stretched) and a big penis can often be a problem as it can rip and tear without due caution or be too big to fit. But to a man, rip and tear, too big to fit, are ego-boosters, and men do obsess about penis size because it seems a biological measure of masculinity and as always bigger is just better just cause, right?

It’s also why I suspect young men are so easily swayed to the standard hatreds of conservatism, including the constant hate on for other more liberal young men. By eschewing more of the bullshit, more feminist men can be a hell of a lot more popular with the ladies just by treating them like humans and also by putting their tongue to use to be a better sexual partner. But the supposed reward at the end of the game of jumping through hoops for other men was supposed to be just a sudden present of pussy that never actually arrives. They reveal that the game they’ve internalized and can’t escape is never going to deliver more than the approval of other douchebags.

Comment #114: Cerberus  on  12/04  at  03:14 AM

insinuating rain is a kind of common phrase, using an archaic definition of insinuate (which i can nevertheless find in an online dictionary) - to enter gently, slowly, or imperceptibly

Comment #115: Mandolin  on  12/04  at  03:23 AM

@109:  That is definitely the ugliest lifestyle article I ever read.

Comment #116: Eileen  on  12/04  at  04:28 AM

This primal fear was shifted on to women in the myth of the vagina dentata, which likely stems from the uncanny alignment of women’s menstrual cycles and the lunar cycle.

I always thought vagina dentata was the result of pure projection.  People in power who do bad things always assume that the people they oppress would be just as bad if they were in power. Men’s sex organs are routinely used violently, therefore men fear women’s sexual organs. It parallels the slave era terror of black men raping white women - when white men were routinely raping black women. It’s why the Christian right constantly talks about being oppressed and victimized for their religion, while they actively oppress everyone else.  I get the feeling that it feeds into the human need for fair play - the only way to excuse bad behavior is to assume that everyone would oppress if only they could, and therefore by being bad first you’re just protecting yourself.

Comment #117: rivki  on  12/04  at  10:43 AM

This cheetah/puma/cougar thing is so made of fail. I would guess a solid majority of straight men are very flexible about age and care primarily about whether they are attracted and whether she’s interested in them.

But I have to defend one thing. The insinuating rain. Insinuate is NOT merely a synonym for imply. It is also a verb that means “to enter subtly.” A person can insinuate themselves into a room, a fog or rain can insinuate through your clothing and make you feel cold and damp.

Comment #118: Samantha Vimes  on  12/04  at  10:47 AM

UM, the beast you cite isn’t a member of the Felidae, it does have a jungle companion, the jaguar, which is one of the largest cats of prey and is unique because it kills its prey by a bite to the skull, a fearful death, to take its place.

Comment #119: Dark Avenger Guardian Chow Mein  on  12/04  at  11:00 AM

rivki—exactly. Which has always struck me as weird that the selfsame guys who just adore getting BJs—by putting their dick into an orifice that actually, you know, HAS TEETH .... would get freaked out about imaginary teeth in a different orifice.

Comment #120: Mighty Ponygirl  on  12/04  at  11:08 AM

As an amateur nature and wildlife photographer, I have to say, the big cats are among the most beautiful and elegant creatures on the planet.  I’d think any human compared to them should feel honored, but that’s just me.

Comment #121: James  on  12/04  at  11:31 AM

This morning on the way to my office I stopped for coffee.  A man who was probably in his late 30’s held the door open for me.  “Thank you,” I said.

“No, thank you,” he replied with a big smile.

And I stood there pondering…you know, I thought, I bet I could get this guy drunk enough that he wouldn’t be able to fight me off when I fucked him.

But…was my pussy still good enough to hold him afterwards?

That was enough to send me back home to hit the bottle.  Because you know, I am just that pathetic.  Oh yeah.

Comment #122: JennyLI  on  12/04  at  11:46 AM

According to that dude I’m only three years away from becoming Granny Weatherwax.

That, is pure awesome, though I don’t think the original misogynist intended cronedom that way.

Comment #123: Princess Rot  on  12/04  at  12:11 PM

@ rivki #117: thank you. You just helped me understand the world.

Comment #124: CassieC  on  12/04  at  12:16 PM

I hearby reserve Bornean Clouded Leopard for married/partnered women who are not interested in infidelity but yet have the audacity to have male friends.

Ooh, Mighty Ponygirl, I’m such a pretty kitty….

Comment #125: Ab_Normal  on  12/04  at  01:04 PM

If sex is disgusting why do they call it ‘getting lucky?’

Comment #126: Magis  on  12/04  at  01:53 PM

People in power who do bad things always assume that the people they oppress would be just as bad if they were in power.

Well, to be fair, they’re mostly right. That’s what power does to people. The only way to be and remain in power (as opposed to destroying the power structure entirely) is to fuck people over. And usually the only way to get rid of power entirely involves prying it out of the cold dead fingers of those who’d hold on to it at any costs.

So yeah, they’re paranoid, but there’s a good reason for them to be.

Comment #127: BlackBloc  on  12/04  at  02:13 PM

It really troubles me when female sexual coercion is depicted as sexy fun.  I think it screws up young men AND young women.  I know I’ve been guilty in the past of trying to pressure guys into sex (though they did tell me to step down).  I think it was largely because of the cultural meme that guys always want sex, so if a guy doesn’t want sex you must not be being sexy enough, and sexual aggression is sexy, so if you want sex with a guy who’s not into it you should be more aggressive.  After I removed myself from the situation and thought about how I would feel if someone treated me the way I had been treating them that I realized how wrong it had been.

I was wondering if this article was going to talk about that, but then it was all about how women over 25 are gross (WTF?)

Comment #128: Jennifer S.  on  12/04  at  02:30 PM

Aaron @ 16 is absolutely correct and says one of the things that bothers me so much about the terms, never mind the ideas behind them.  Both Cougar and puma are another work for mountain lion.  So is catamount.  At least half a dozen other regional terms refer to the same species just in American English.  No doubt there are Canadian English regional terms, too.  And Mexican Spanish ones.  The beast has a wide range.

Comment #129: helen w. h.  on  12/04  at  03:08 PM

Having read the rest of the comments, I must say I am relieved not to be the only one to have thought that story was about a seriel rapist, just a female one.

Comment #130: helen w. h.  on  12/04  at  03:22 PM

Also, God as a Civil Engineer joke; early ‘80s at U Idaho it was considered an old, old joke.  Still funny though.

Comment #131: helen w. h.  on  12/04  at  03:24 PM

think it was largely because of the cultural meme that guys always want sex, so if a guy doesn’t want sex you must not be being sexy enough, and sexual aggression is sexy, so if you want sex with a guy who’s not into it you should be more aggressive.

That’s not really a cultural meme.  Guys really do want sex a large majority of the time.  And some guys are shy.  And sometimes it helps to be aggressive.  But not always.  Getting laid is a delicate game. 

I’ve had a girlfriend storm out of the room once or twice because I wasn’t putting out.  And not because I wouldn’t have been happy to, but because I was oblivious to the signals she was sending.

And I’ve had a few girls completely reject me.  And then it was really awkward after that, because she knew I was interested in her but I knew she wasn’t interested in me.  But whatchagonna do?  Because if you don’t ever make a move, you’re guaranteed to be sleeping alone.

So yeah.  Shit’s complicated.  Don’t beat yourself up over it.

Comment #132: Zifnab  on  12/04  at  04:15 PM

Categorize all potential female partners as unworthy for sex? Check.
Categorize all potential male partners as teh ghey? Check.
Figure out why I’m not getting any? Hmm…..

Comment #133: Quaker in a Basement  on  12/04  at  04:47 PM

That’s not really a cultural meme.  Guys really do want sex a large majority of the time.  And some guys are shy.

Since when do you get to speak for all guys?  Also, do you really think that men want sex more than women do?

Comment #134: bananacat  on  12/04  at  05:15 PM

“Cheetah”? There needs to be a term for this?

Then again, I caught on to the term “cougar” when the women it referred to had already start to claim it for their own, so unlike the people who coined it, it’s always had a positive, if teasing, connotation to it…

Comment #135: BrianX  on  12/04  at  05:48 PM

I know I should be offended by the dehumanizing aspect of these feline names.  But I’m a cloud leopard y’all and that is made of awesome!

Comment #136: word problem  on  12/05  at  01:32 AM

I’m not sure what the deal is…but I find a lot of women sexually attractive. Not to say I don’t strike out most of the time.

Comment #137: al734  on  12/05  at  01:41 AM

most homophobic teenage boys I know who’ve articulated their phobia coherently seem paralyzed at the idea of 1) having to rebuff a proposition

Is probably a big part of the way there - though in a lot of cases, that rebuffing the proposition is an option is probably not an idea that’s ever crossed their minds.  A lot may grow out of it (though some never might; I dunno, of course, having never been propositioned, I can’t really swear how well I’d handle it.), but it’s certainly common early, when young boys only get models for how to say yes, not how to say no.  It’s probably not that different with women (though it’s possible young men generally aren’t nearly so upset about the idea of sleeping with women when they don’t want to than men when they don’t want to)

Comment #138: Brian  on  12/05  at  02:03 AM

...but it’s certainly common early, when young boys only get models for how to say yes, not how to say no.

And this ties in with the disregard that gets shown for women who say “no.” It makes me think of all those cases where the woman says something like, “I said no once and he didn’t listen” or “I said I wasn’t comfortable and wanted to stop and he didn’t” and people act like that’s a questionable “grey rape” scenario (ugh, that term.) So maybe some men really think they have something to be afraid of- if a predatory guy wouldn’t accept a women’s “no,” maybe he’d assume another guy wouldn’t accept his.

Comment #139: other_orange  on  12/05  at  01:08 PM

Great comment, Cerberus @ 114.

Comment #140: annejumps  on  12/05  at  08:05 PM
Page 1 of 1 pages
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.