An imaginary conversation with Amanda Marcotte and Steve Buscemi.

In which I imagine what Amanda might say about my nice guys post and her response.

(Disclaimer for the literal-minded:  This is fiction, cut out of whole cloth.  Neither Amanda Marcotte nor Mr. Buscemi did or said any of the things in this scene.  “Steve Buscemi” here is intended as a comic amalgamation of some of the characters he’s played.)

Scene:  An outdoor café in Austin.

Steve Buscemi:  Miguel!  Good to see you, glad you could come.  Me and Amanda thought we’d sit out here so we could smoke.  Hope you don’t mind.

Miguel:  No, I don’t mind.  That’s one nice thing about Austin.  It’s usually pretty nice outside this time of year.

Amanda Marcotte:  [Glares at Miguel.  Inhales from a cigarette.  Blows out plume of smoke.]

Steve Buscemi:  So, ah, Miguel.  I thought maybe we could just get this whole “nice guys” thing out of the way and…

Miguel:  Out of the way?

Steve Buscemi:  Well yeah, Miguel.  Ya know.  Mistakes happen.  Amanda got pissed, I’m sure you didn’t mean it.  So uh, ya know, I thought maybe a little apology might be in order, and then we could just move on.

Miguel:  Apology?  I thought we were going to talk about…

Steve Buscemi:  Everyone fucks up once in a while, know what I mean?  I’m sure you weren’t thinkin’ right when you wrote that “nice guy” thing.

Miguel:  Well I thought we were going to talk about that, and why Amanda got so pissed…

Amanda Marcotte:  [Rolls eyes.]  Jesus Christ.  [Stubs out cigarette on table.  Gets up and walks into the café to get more beer.]

Steve Buscemi:  [sotto voce]  Look, Miguel.  Women go for the bad boys.  I know that.  You know that.  But Amanda’s pissed.  Just give her a goddamn apology and let it go.

Miguel:  Well, I thought, you know, we might actually be able to discuss this and…

Steve Buscemi:  Discuss it?  Discuss this?  Look, Amanda’s a nice gal, but if you think you’re going to “discuss this” [does air quotes] with her, then you just bought a one way ticket to negativity town, my friend.

Miguel:  Well, what’s her trip with this “nice guys” thing anyway?  I mean, if she’d just chill, she’d see I support ninety percent of what she’s saying about sex.  But here I make what I think is a pretty obvious observation, and she has a shit fit.

Steve Buscemi:  Well why not focus on the positive, Miguel?  You two ought to be on the same side here.  Take that son-of-a-bitch James O’Keefe, for example…

Miguel:  Yeah, or what she was saying about Ross Douthat.  I mean, his ideas about sexuality are maddening, and…

Steve Buscemi:  I believe her expression was [does air quotes] “maddening shithead”.

Miguel:  Yeah, I wouldn’t call him that, ‘cause I’m too nice of a guy, but…

Amanda Marcotte:  [Returns holding a Schlitz in her hand.]  The reason I got so pissed, Miguel [slams beer can down on table] is because you were talking about a woman getting the shit slapped out of her, and the only fucking thing you [points accusingly at Miguel] were thinking about was how this guy was so goddamn oppressed because she wouldn’t let him stick his dick in her!  Because he was such a fucking nice guy!  Capesh!?

Steve Buscemi:  It’s actually “capisci,” I just said “capesh” is Fargo ‘cause my character was…

Amanda Marcotte:  [Glowers at Steve Buscemi.]

Steve Buscemi:  [Holds up hands in “I surrender” gesture, then pantomimes locking his mouth shut and throwing away the key.]

Miguel:  Look, Amanda, you’re talking about Oscar, the fictional character, right?

Amanda Marcotte:  Yeah, that guy.  He meets his friend, who’s already told him she’s not interested.  And she’s been crying because her boyfriend’s been slapping her around.  So what’s the first thing he does?  Tells her she’s got nice breasts.  Don’t you see how that’s not cool?  You think that’s nice?

Miguel:  If you read the story, Amanda, or even the excerpt I posted, it’s obvious that Oscar cared about his friend, and wasn’t just trying to fuck her.

Amanda Marcotte:  He wasn’t a complete asshole all of the time, no.  But that’s not the point.  You seem to think that just because you’re not a complete asshole, and don’t beat up women, that that makes you a “nice guy” and women are somehow obligated to jump on your cock.

Miguel:  Amanda, I don’t remember “women are obligated to jump on my cock” anywhere in my post.

Amanda Marcotte:  It’s pretty fucking implicit in what you write, Miguel, that you think women are obligated to fuck you.  You don’t come out and say it, but it’s pretty damn clear that’s your attitude.

Miguel:  That’s not actually what I think.

Amanda Marcotte:  Then what’s your point, Miguel?

Miguel:  My point is that young women tend to overvalue aggressive, macho traits in men.  And this can make life really difficult for less aggressive men who are basically decent human beings.

Amanda Marcotte:  Yeah, and that’s the other thing.  You’re saying that women have this masochistic desire to date assholes and get slapped around…

Miguel:  That not what I’m saying!

Amanda Marcotte:  Then why the hell did you put that little vignette in your post, about “nice guy” Oscar not getting the girl that’s dating the abusive boyfriend?

Miguel:  If you actually read my post, I specifically said that women don’t “only want thugs.”

Amanda Marcotte:  [Snorts derisively.]  So you’re basically saying two things in your post.  Your fiction excerpt pretty strongly implies that women want to get slapped around.  But then a couple paragraphs later you’re doing some slight of hand and trying to conflate being an abusive asshole with “social dominance,” i.e. “confidence” which, by the way, is attractive to pretty much everyone, and doesn’t have a fucking thing to do with beating up your girlfriend.

Miguel:  There’s a correlation, Amanda.

Amanda Marcotte:  What the fuck, Miguel?  No, actually there are a lot of really nice men out there who are confident, and women like them, and they get laid.  And guess what?  They’re not assholes and they don’t beat up their girlfriends.  And maybe you want to think that confident men are all assholes, if that makes it easier for you to rationalize not getting laid.  But if you actually talk to women, Miguel, you might find that your “confident men are assholes” theory is complete bullshit.

Miguel:  I never said “women prefer assholes” and I never said “confident men who get laid are assholes.”  I said young women overvalue social dominance and an entitled attitude.  And overvalue is not the same thing as “only value.” And yeah, sure, all things being equal, a woman is going to prefer a man who’s nice over an asshole.  But all things are rarely equal, and when a woman overvalues social dominance…

Amanda Marcotte:  Confidence, Miguel, you’re talking about confidence.

Miguel:  Actually, I think “social dominance” entails a degree of aggression that goes beyond “confidence”… but if you want to call it “confidence,” fine.  If a woman overvalues “confidence,” then she’s going to be more receptive to “assholes” than to genuinely nice men who happen to be a little bit shy.  And sure, there are a lot of confident men who are also nice, and if Matt Damon gets to fuck… uh…

Steve Buscemi:  Sarah Silberman?

Miguel:  Yeah, her.  If she’s fucking Matt Damon then bully for him.  But there are a lot of other “confident” men who aren’t particularly nice, and…

Amanda Marcotte:  But that’s up to her, Miguel.  If she wants to make shitty choices in who she dates, and “overvalue” confidence, or “social dominance,” or whatever, that’s her fucking choice.

Steve Buscemi:  She’s got a point, Miguel.  Her fuckin’ choice.

Amanda Marcotte:  And women aren’t obligated to shape their sexual desires to fit your social anxieties.

Miguel:  I’m not saying women have that obligation.

Amanda Marcotte:  Bullshit.  That’s exactly what you’re saying, you just don’t come out and say it explicitly.

Miguel:  Okay Amanda, let me ask you this.  Do you think men have an obligation to date fat women?

Amanda Marcotte:  Nobody has an obligation to be sexual with anyone, Miguel.

Miguel:  Okay, so when feminists complain about women being written off because they aren’t thin enough or don’t conform the right body type…

Amanda Marcotte:  That is completely fucking different, Miguel!  Fat women aren’t asking men to fuck them, they’re asking men to treat them with respect!

Miguel:  Really?  Being devalued as a sexual person has nothing to do with it?  Nothing at all?  That’s bullshit, Amanda.  When feminists talk about beauty standards, they’re talking about standards women feel they have to meet to be accepted as a sexual partner. Sure, that’s not the only thing, but don’t pretend that being undervalued as a sexual partner has nothing to do with feminist complaints about beauty standards.

Amanda Marcotte:  Beauty standards and body issues aren’t just about sex!  It’s about women accepting their own bodies, and how they feel about themselves, and about being treated with respect!

Miguel:  Okay then.  Does it ever occur to you that when women insist that men have to be “confident” or “alpha” to be considered as sexual partners that that’s going to affect how a lot of men feel about themselves?

Amanda Marcotte:  The difference, Miguel, is that women who are fat or unattractive don’t go around with a sense of entitlement, thinking that men are obligated to have sex with them.

Miguel:  Believe it or not, most shy men are not walking around with a huge sense of entitlement.  The difference here, Amanda, is that women are allowed to talk about the way men’s standards for beauty can make life difficult for them, but men aren’t allowed to talk about how women’s standards for “confidence” can make life difficult for men…

Amanda Marcotte:  It’s not “women’s dating preferences” that are the problem when men have a problem with social anxiety.

Miguel:  …without getting exactly the kind of blowback you gave in response to my post.  And does it occur to you that the problem can be both social anxiety, on the man’s part, and some pretty fucked up societal standards about what makes a man desirable?

Amanda Marcotte:  But if a man has trouble meeting women, he needs to work on whatever problems he has.  He can’t just piss and moan about how women are making the wrong choices.

Miguel:  I don’t disagree with that, Amanda.

Amanda Marcotte:  But the problem with what you’re writing, Miguel, is that it essentially tells men that women are to blame if they can’t get laid.  And yes, I know you threw in a couple of caveats about men working on their own issues, or whatever, but the overall picture you’re painting here is that women are to blame.

Miguel:  Well, that’s not what I’m trying to say.

Amanda Marcotte:  Then why the fuck are you doing your blog?  Because, reading what you’ve written, I don’t see a hell of a lot of advice to men on how to work on their issues.  So, obviously, the focus of what you’re saying here is that women are fucking men over.

Steve Buscemi:  [Lights a joint, takes a puff, and hands it to Miguel.]

Miguel:  There’s a difference between saying “women are fucking men over” and saying that women sometimes make choices that make life more difficult for men.  [Takes puff from joint, hands to Amanda.]

Amanda Marcotte:  That’s basically two ways of saying the same thing, Miguel.  [Takes deep puff from joint, holds, squints eyes, and blows out in long stream of smoke.]

Miguel:  No, it’s very different.  If I say “women are fucking men over” I’m being accusatory and hostile.  And look, feminist talk about men’s behavior and men’s choices all the time.  Feminists talk about how men pressure women to be thin, or how men pressure women to be agreeable and deferential, and all of that.

Amanda Marcotte:  But women have always been under that kind of pressure from men.  Almost all women get that kind of pressure.  It’s not the same to say that women are “pressuring” men with what you claim is their preference for “socially dominant” partners, because apparently most men seem to survive just fine, and end up finding a partner.  [Takes another puff from joint.]  I mean, you’re talking about men with social dysfunction and then, you’re saying that all, uh… women need to make special sexual accommodations and that’s… that’s… bull.  [Takes puff from joint, coughs violently, turns away from table and spits up some phlegm.]

Steve Buscemi:  It’s pretty unnerving when you meet people who think spitting should never be done in public.

Miguel:  Who thinks that?  You know, women survive “beauty standards” too, if you’re going to argue that.

Steve Buscemi:  I’ve heard people say it’s terrible, and I’m like, what the hell, are you from Singapore?

Amanda Marcotte:  Beauty standards?

Steve Buscemi:  Spitting up phlegm.

Miguel:  Oh, yeah, they’ve got all those laws about gum chewing.

Steve Buscemi:  Hey, I was thinking we could all go to this costume shop.

Miguel:  Oh.  The one south of the river?

Amanda Marcotte:  I’m an adult.

Miguel:  Well, you could still go there.  Maybe buy a hat or something.

Steve Buscemi:  Good place to buy a hat.

Amanda Marcotte:  Well okay, sure.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

24 Responses to An imaginary conversation with Amanda Marcotte and Steve Buscemi.

  1. Tim says:

    Oh Miguel,
    brace yourself, I think I hear a shitstorm brewing.

    By the way, as a non-American, I feel the need to ask what’s the shtick with Buscemi. Why does everybody keep bringing him up ? Did I miss the latest meme trend ?

  2. Danny says:

    Wow. That’s a pretty big powder keg you got there. Oh what’s that sizzling sound?

    I like this post.

  3. John E. says:

    Huh…well get ready to be accused of cyber-stalking or something, I guess…

    Also Miguel, maybe you care too much about what feminists think…

    Seems to me your process goes something like this:
    1. Feminist theory has led me to believe things that make it difficult for me to start relationships with women.
    2. I don’t like this.
    3. I will try to start a dialog with feminists to encourage them to change these things about which my understanding thereof has led me to internalize thoughts and feelings about my sexual nature that are not productive towards starting relationships with women.

    Might I suggest an alternative:
    1. Feminist theory has led me to believe things that make it difficult for me to start relationships with women.
    2. I don’t like this.
    3. I will say ‘to heck with feminist theory’ and start acting in ways that are productive towards starting relationships with women.

    After all Miguel, what has feminist theory ever done for you that you should feel any obligation to internalize it?

  4. Sagredo says:

    My point is that young women tend to overvalue aggressive, macho traits in men.

    Miguel I don’t think this is particularly true. In my experience pretty much all young women value confidence, and perhaps some kind of social dominance, whereas aggressive, macho traits are maybe just a minority taste.

    Look at PUA, it really doesn’t advise beating up on the guy next to you to impress the ladies, or even putting him down unless he’s the competition or whatever. It’s all about social mastery and being a source of good feelings.

  5. Sagredo says:

    Oops, fictional Amanda said the same thing. Anyway, confidence is a good thing, it’s a sign of less internal contradiction or somesuch, so a preference for it is quite natural.

    What does it mean to say that a woman’s preference for confidence makes life difficult for less confident men? There’s an implied counterfactual: if women didn’t prefer confident men, life would be better for me. This is true on its face, but not all that helpful. Certainly I don’t prefer such a world.

    A better counterfactual would be if I were confident, life would be better for me.

  6. Lathe of Heaven says:

    Sagredo — Having summoned the djinn of “confidence” against Miguel, I now think it is incumbent on you to define what you mean by it; what is this “confidence” you speak of? And, please, nothing circular ie “confidence is the act of being confident”. You may find it surprisingly hard actually to write out a sensible and explicit definition that also does the work you want.

    After that, you should answer: what are the behavioral markers for confidence? Here we can imagine Miguel simply saying “young women take aggressive and macho behaviors as markers for confidence,” and then he’s back in the saddle and you’ve effectively said nothing by having brought up the word. So to have any impact you have to name behavioral markers for confidence (by your definition) that are different from what Miguel is talking about; and no, just saying “I know it when I see it” will not cut the mustard.

    Just as an example run-through: if you say that confidence is the feeling of surety that one can accomplish certain challenging tasks, then why isn’t the surety that a man can solve calculus problems an attractive trait to young women? of course, YMMV….

  7. Sagredo says:

    Hmm, I’ll go for confidence as not doubting oneself and one’s own value marked by lack of social fear. For what appeals to women (actually, everyone) I think I’ll throw in the allied notion of congruence, which is outer expression matching inner values. Incongruence is generally marked by different kinds of expression that suggest values inconsistently. In fact I would say reactions of “falseness”, “creepiness” etc. are always due to incongruence.

  8. Lathe of Heaven says:

    Sagredo, I like your marker definition lack of social fear as it is reasonably objective and interpretable. I have some problems with the not doubting oneself and congruence formulations; but let’s look at “lack of social fear” first, and here I think you’re really just serving to confirm even more strongly what Miguel has said originally. After all, what are the essential ingredients of “macho” behavior if not precisely showing a lack of fear? Taking the more exact phrase, who would you say most conspicuously displays the least social fear? I think it’s the entitled and self-centered types, those with the attitude that they can do no wrong and who expect everyone else to cater to them — jerks, typically. (This is not to say that non-jerks can’t also be un-fearful; but it’s much more obvious and demonstrative with certain classes of jerk.) So if you maintain that (i) confidence is by far the best attractor for women, and (ii) lack of social fear is the best marker for confidence, then I maintain that you’ve basically taken the long way ’round to re-stating that “chicks dig jerks”. Advantage: Miguel.

  9. Sagredo says:

    After all, what are the essential ingredients of “macho” behavior if not precisely showing a lack of fear?

    You forgot the other ingredient of macho, which is aggression.

    Very roughly, chicks dig aggressive and non-aggressive forms of confidence, and hate aggressive and non-aggressive forms of unconfidence. Thus the macho jerk and the pleasantly confident will do better than the passive-aggressive bitter guy and the quiet shy guy.

    To be honest I think women negatively value aggressiveness for a given level of confidence.

  10. Sagredo says:

    Taking the more exact phrase, who would you say most conspicuously displays the least social fear?

    In my experience, it’s that crazy dude who smiles a lot and knows everyone. Everyone likes him because he expresses a lot of good feeling to everyone he talks to.

  11. Lathe of Heaven says:

    Sagredo — I agree with most of your last entry, though I think the effect is to go even further in supporting Miguel’s original post. The last sentence strikes me as tendentious, though: I think it’s problematic to imagine maintaining a “given level of confidence” while dialing aggressiveness up and down, since the perception of confidence — as perceived as per your definition — is closely coupled with aggressiveness. Aggression creates drama, and drama provides opportunities to demonstrate lack of fear. The “pleasantly confident” guy you imagine is nearly invisible by contrast, at least outside of an active war zone.

    What I think is much more problematic, though, is your basic definition of confidence, at least as it’s relevant for attracting women, as not doubting oneself and one’s own value. The basic ambiguity is, by “one’s own value” do you mean how you value yourself? or how you believe that others value you? Either way, I don’t think this is really workable as a definition.

    In the first case, where “value” means value to one’s self then it’s clear that anyone who appreciates their own work and talents should qualify, including the Warhammer geek who has proudly dominated his local league and posts detailed strategy memos on gaming forums (not me! but I know a few). One might argue over whether his kind of self-appreciation should be denoted “confidence,” though it fits your definition perfectly; what cannot be disputed, however, is that this kind of confidence is highly unlikely to make him at all attractive to women.

    In the second case, where “value” means value to others, then it makes the property of “confidence” essentially a quality that is _not_ about a person, but about other people’s _opinion_ of the person. Confidence is now non-local, it’s all about how sure you can be that others will respond positively to you. This is not nonsensical; but it must be recognized that it’s not a quality that a rational person can just gin up by force of will, extra pushups or good dental hygiene. If you think, rationally and based on past experience, that people _don’t_ value you and _won’t_ likely respond to you in the way that you want, then under your definition it is literally impossible to have confidence, no matter how many people shout from the sidelines that you should. Until his experience changes sufficiently to justify a change in his expectations, the rational person is simply condemned to a lack of confidence. (There is an evo-psych argument to be made here, that behaving with confidence or the lack of it thus serves as a marker for how well-treated a person has been in the past, which is certainly information that many would like to be privy to.) And, needless to say, this dynamic gives the advantage to jerks, liars, charlatans and especially those with irrational levels of self-regard.

    So, while your definition of confidence is not unreasonable I think it fails in the work you wanted it to do. Either it’s an internal valuation, which clearly fails to predict being attractive to women; or it’s an external valuation, which eventually goes to support the same chestnutty “chicks dig jerks”. Any way you look at it the advantage is still with Miguel (who really should be paying me) and against the imaginary AM.

  12. Sagredo says:

    Aggression creates drama, and drama provides opportunities to demonstrate lack of fear.

    This might be true for confident aggression, but I don’t think the passive-aggressive bitter guy is going to pull it off.

    The “pleasantly confident” guy you imagine is nearly invisible by contrast, at least outside of an active war zone.

    He’s really not. He tends to be at the centre of the party.

    The basic ambiguity is, by “one’s own value” do you mean how you value yourself? or how you believe that others value you?

    It’s value based on shared valuation. You might see this with the Warhammer geek, who suddenly becomes a lot more confident when they discover the person they are talking to is a fellow Warhammer geek. Confidence is I do not doubt my own value according to values we share.

  13. Sagredo says:

    Confidence is I do not doubt my own value according to values we share… expanding on this, the we might not always be obvious. In an interaction, it’s you and I. But it can also mean one’s larger social group, or society as a whole. For instance, if Warhammer geekery is widely valued in society, the Warhammer geek is going to have more “overall” confidence.

  14. Lathe of Heaven says:

    Last remark for tonight:

    I’m fascinated by this idea of “shared valuation,” but really puzzled making any sense out of its connection to confidence. What if you don’t share values with someone else? Does that make it impossible to be confident in that person’s presence, or when having any dealings with that person? I don’t think that makes sense at all.

    Beyond that, your elucidation doesn’t really resolve the problem I described above. If “shared valuation” means that the relevant values are those that two people both hold, it still doesn’t say who needs to make the positive judgement in line with those values for confidence to be possible: the individual, the other, or both? In the latter two cases the judgement is still in the hands of others, and so again confidence is not a voluntary exercise on the individual’s part despite how often we are told to “just be more confident”. The rich get richer, the poor get poorer, and AM doesn’t care one whit about any male person’s suffering.

  15. Sagredo says:

    What if you don’t share values with someone else? Does that make it impossible to be confident in that person’s presence, or when having any dealings with that person?

    You know, it might make more sense to formulate confidence entirely with reference to how one feels about oneself. In this view, confidence is I do not doubt my own value according to my own values. But: our values are fluid and influenced by our interactions and larger society. Shared values are relevant precisely because they influence one’s own values.

    Consider: some guy values Warhammer geekery, and values himself well according to that. But he’s influenced by society devaluing Warhammer geekery, and as a result at some level starts to doubt its value, and consequently his own. This causes him to exhibit less confidence, especially in situations where society’s negative valuation is more immediate.

    Consider: Nietzsche’s Zarathustra is entirely confident when “in the market-place”, because he cares not at all for the values there and is not influenced by them. But I wouldn’t necessarily say this is desirable or even possible.

  16. April says:

    Oh my god, that was a riot to read.

  17. hahahahahahahaha,

    Megadouche or Bad Ass Muthafucka, I don’t know………

    Rock On!

    Stoner With A Boner

  18. RickyTicky says:

    Wow, AM just got served. Nice post Miguel.

  19. Schala says:

    Gotta love how pro-stupidity culture anti-intellectualism has made scholarly achievements that don’t translate relatively easily into something else (a high paying job, like doctor or lawyer) devaluated from elementary school onward as *unmanly*.

    You study and don’t waste 90% of your time “hanging out” and getting plastered drunk, or chasing the other sex, or, when younger, doing physical activity outside most of the time – well you’re devalued heavily.

    You get As and have a penis? Devalued heavily.

    Funny though, this kind of culture existed in the late 1980s and 1990s (when I was in school, elementary and high) and graduation rates weren’t as bad as now for boys.

    For the epitome of this culture, see Idiocracy, movie by Mike Judge.

    Speaking properly is seen as effeminate there. And courts are like the WWE, you trash talk your opponent about whatever you can think of, facts be damned. It looks cooler…

  20. Clarence says:

    Here’s where the value of “fake it, till you make it” comes in, for all that some feminists hate it.

    And no, one doesn’t have to display aggression to display confidence. Often if you can set something up that you are good at OR something that you don’t care about but is fun to do, the lady involved will still look at that as confidence. Not to mention you will get brownie points for making her laugh or smile. In short, if I suck at dancing, but I’m willing to try it with her in a place she feels comfortable AND I can laugh at myself that often goes a long way towards displaying that I value myself. If nothing else, I show her I am not afraid to fail.

    As for confidence itself, I lean toward it being more an internal state than anything else. Yes, alas, it does often have douchebaggy external indicators, and hence the dilemma of the genuine nice, but awkward or unconfident or both, guy.

  21. Violet says:

    When feminists talk about beauty standards, they’re talking about standards women feel they have to meet to be accepted as a sexual partner. Sure, that’s not the only thing, but don’t pretend that being undervalued as a sexual partner has nothing to do with feminist complaints about beauty standards.

    The thing is, if a woman is not seen as “doable” (by men) then any accomplishment – be it academic, athletic, professional, etc is automatically seen as less than – as though being “unacceptable looking” as a (hetero) sexual partner diminishes everything a woman does or touches.

    Some of the most scathing criticisms of societal beauty standards come from the lesbian feminist community. Where failing to fit societal beauty standards really does not causes one to be “undervalued” as sexual partner.

    Feminists complaints against the beauty standards are all about not being valued as people. Full stop.

    If you really think feminist opposition to the beauty standards has to do with the being undervalued as sex object, well, you have been drinking way too much of Rush Limbaugh’s brand of Kool-aid.

  22. Tamen says:

    Violet: Wait, are you saying that lesbians don’t care about physical appearances of their love interests and/or that who lesbians are attracted to in no way are influenced by societal beauty standards? I find that hard to believe.

    I once saw a cartoon made by a Norwegian goth cartoonist where a small group of goths criticized the non-indivuduality and conformity of the mainstream people walking by while they themselves all wore basically the same outfit, had the same hairstyle and -colour and obviously were very conforming to their sub-culture’s societal standard.

  23. Violet says:

    No, I’m not saying that. Individual people will have their preferences whether it is in conformity to societal standards or in rebellion agains them or based on other criteria. What I am saying is that the definition of what counts as “hot” or “attractive” is more equally (which is not the same as perfectly equal) distributed across a much wider variety of appearances in the lesbian community.

  24. AlekNovy says:

    You gotta admit, a lot of the same is true for the homosexual male community, no?

    As in, homosexual men face a lot less ridicule, humiliation and rejection when they date other men.

Comments are closed.