fierynotes: Picture of Destruction, from the Sandman series, reading a book and slinging a guitar. (Default)
This is my front page. If you want me to add you, drop me a line here. Or, add me. Either way, I'll check you out. You can also drop me a line here if, for instance, you don't have my email address. All comments here are screened.

This post also includes every tag I have -- this is because my current LJ style doesn't include a tag index. (At least half of my participation on LJ is on my phone. I chose this style because, as bare-bones as it is, it loads quickly and it's still readable on a small screen.)

I'd tell you more about myself, but that's what my profile -- and the rest of my LJ -- is for.
fierynotes: Picture of Jerry Springer surrounded by the flames of Hell, with the caption 'What the fucking fucking fuck?' (wft)
...because they give the world so much.

Any given typical person, if they got a foreign body stuck in their rectum, would be mortified and hope that no one ever found out just what they had to visit the ER for. They'd claim to have fallen in the shower on their partner's neck massager, and hoping that no one comments on how it was conveniently upright at the time. They'd claim to have been attacked in a home invasion by burglars armed with sex toys. In short, they'd lie their foreignly-embodied ass off.

Not this guy! He live-tweeted the whole visit! And gave Energizer batteries a glowing endorsement I'm sure they'd be happier not to get!
fierynotes: Picture of Hotstreak, from the cartoon Static Shock.  He looks annoyed. (annoyed)
As seen elsewhere on my friendslist: "It's Too Damn Big." Note that I'm not suggesting you watch this, and in fact I could only manage about forty seconds myself (and half of that on mute). Sadly, not all gay musicians are Tchaikovsky or Michael Tilson Thomas, or even Rob Halford or Pansy Division -- some of them are annoying synth-pounding twits. (To be fair, though, not all straight musicians are Mozart, either.) But the real irritation is one Jonah Falcon, a man who has in his favor a very large penis, a certain level of media clout... and absolutely nothing else. This music video is apparently the latest step in his quest to make sure the whole world knows he's packing over a foot.

This is hardly new territory. There are lots of really bad songs where the guy is bragging about his dick, so I shouldn't be surprised that Falcon went there. It was inevitable, I suppose. This is, after all, the guy who decided in July of last year to call Huffington Post and say "my penis was so big it got me frisked by Homeland Security." And Huffington Post, for some reason, considered that a news story.

Gods help us if he wins the lottery. He'd take over hundreds of billboards. Hell, he'd run radio spots. "I'm Jonah Falcon, I have a gigantic penis, and I approve this message." No, really, that's the whole message.

Ah, well, it could be worse. He could read Heinlein's The Man Who Sold the Moon, and decide that instead of spraying the surface of the moon with graphite powder in the shape of a soft drink logo, he could graffiti the moon to tell the world how big his dick is.

Hell, if he ever gets access to a TARDIS and a Red Dwarf novel, he might decide to go back in time and supernova a whole bunch of stars, making it so that everyone who sees the night sky sees the words "Jonah Falcon is hung like a donkey" spelled out in exploded stars. He'd obviously have to steal the TARDIS, as he's not really interesting enough for the Doctor to choose him as a companion, and the Doctor would never let him blow up a few dozen (possibly-inhabited) suns.

Not that I have anything against big dicks. Hell, I have one,¹ though I'm not in Falcon's league.² But guys, however big your gear is, chances are there's at least one plastic toy bigger than you, so it behooves you to be more interesting than the plastic.

(If I ever meet Jonah Falcon and conclude that he's actually interesting, I reserve the right to retract some or all of my statements about him. For what it's worth, though, I've seen him in certain spaces for online discussions, and he's struck me as a guy who plays the "I have a huge dick card" every chance he gets, because it's the only card he has. It's a perverse twist on how if the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.)



    1. Unless I'm lying. This is the internet, after all.³

    2. If I'm lying, I've obviously learned to keep my lies credible.

    3. Okay, this running joke has been fun, but I should probably give it a rest.

fierynotes: Picture of a black sockpuppet. (footsie)
So, there's this study that's making the rounds about women prefering larger penises. And the article alludes to past studies that show women have preferences with respect to male body shape as well (tall and trapezoidal). Good news for guys who are tall, hung, and trapezoidal, right?

First, I'd like to get into the limitations of that study. Forgetting for a moment the limitations of any study with only 105 subjects... all it did was have women looking at images. "Women enjoy looking at larger penises" is a reasonable conclusion from that. "Women have greater initial attraction to men with larger penises" is also a reasonable conclusion. "Women enjoy sex more when the man has a larger penis" can be sorta kinda inferred from this study, but any scientist with a brain would want to do a separate study¹ rather than cite this one before making that conclusion. All we really have from this experiment is "women like looking at big ones" -- and considering what we already know about sexual selection in humans, this ain't a new revelation. (We seriously outclass all other primates with respect to penis size, and we probably don't stack up too badly against horses, either, if you account for the huge body weight difference².) One might wonder why this study needed to be done at all.

Or at least, that's what I thought until I read the comments. Wow, this article brought out the assholes. In fact, I think that the real experiment was to publish this study in a widely-read forum, and then count and categorize the responses.

To the guy who referred to this study as "junk science"? That was a bad pun and you should feel bad. I hate you for thinking of it before I did.

To all you guys who are complaining that women look at things and judge you unfairly on purely physical features? If you have ever watched a porno, you can shut the hell up. Women have been complaining about this for years, and you've been ignoring it. Now that the shoe is on the other foot, you start whining?

To all you guys who are yelling about how a man's bank account is the variable that scientists should be looking at? I did a years-long experiment of my own, with a single test subject who is tall (constant), hung (constant)³, trapezoidal (varies over t)... and frequently broke. While there are obviously problems with a study using a sample size of one... my anecdata experimental data does not support your conclusions. But hey, as long as you get to shout some more about how women are gold-diggers by nature...!

And finally, to the commenter named Velvet? Assuming you're for real, and not either a very subtle troll, or a social scientist trying to gauge commenter responses to certain stimuli... you're being far too nice. Especially since some of the replies you're getting have been really rude, and you're still being nice. You're never going to get their approval. And more to the point, you don't need their approval.



    1. And can you imagine what that study would look like? I have several ideas of what that kind of study would look like, and most of them would result in a laboratory looking like a porno set. Using human men of various sizes is problematic, because the bigger guys are going to go into the experiment with more confidence that the smaller ones, and that variable is going to be hard to isolate. Using machines with replaceable heads of various sizes has problems as well, since there's a human element to sex that just isn't there if you're using custom jackhammers. The easiest way to do that would be to make a bunch of Gigolo Joes, from the movie AI, and equip them all differently but leave the programming identical... but obviously, our technology isn't there yet.

      While I'm sure a lot of scientists would think a study like this would be a really interesting way to spent grant money, doing a credible study on this would be a lot of hard work. And not "hard" in any of the fun ways.

    2. To verify this, one could take the penile volume of the average human and the average horse (remembering, of course, that a cylinder's volume is its length times its width squared times π/4), and divide them each by the weight of the average human and the average horse, respectively. If you are okay with having questions like "how big is a horse's penis" in your search history, I encourage you to crunch those numbers yourself.

    3. Usual disclaimer that when a guy claims he has a big dick on the internet, he should not expect to be taken at his word.

fierynotes: Picture of a black sockpuppet. (footsie)
According to a bunch of nuns in Ohio, birth control is bad. Very bad. World-endingly bad. It's bad for women because it kills their babies, makes them unattractive, ruins their libidos, and turn them into completely wanton sluts. (How a woman with a ruined libido turns into a completely wanton slut is never explained.) It's bad for men because the presence of pill-popping libido-less sluts will make them fuck each other, their pets, and/or their children. And it's bad for the world because all the unmetabolized hormones that make it into the water supply are turning the entire animal kingdom transsexual, which is almost as bad as letting women believe that they should have a say in whether they have children and when, since such a decision should be left in God's hands.

These nuns are so close to the truth. Did they somehow not realize that having a society full of slutty women and sexually indiscriminate men would create both a huge market and a cheap and plentiful labor pool for the porn industry? Surely this is a single facet of a massive conspiracy by the porn companies!

...which are, in turn, controlled by aliens.


(In all fairness, I should add that I haven't watched the video in question. If I do, I plan to have alcohol on hand, because I suspect I'll need it.)
fierynotes: Picture of Hotstreak, from the cartoon Static Shock.  He looks annoyed. (annoyed)
Well, not really. Apparently, Craigslist is considering taking down the post in question, so this may only work as a short-term announcement... but the internet preserves everything. It's like formaldehyde that way.

Short version: guy takes over three thousand wards to explain how he gets married to Ms. Jeckyl and finds Ms. Hyde in his honeymoon suite. Ms. Hyde doesn't feel like putting out, ever, so he bangs a foreign girl during the honeymoon (followed eventually by banging 29 more women over the course of a three-year-marriage), and justifies himself as following his own biological needs, which of course must be met, inside of marriage or not. Meanwhile, Ms. Hyde sits around the house, does no housework, gest fat (oh noes!), and spends all his money. So this poor bastard is getting a divorce, and posting on Craigslist as a warning to all those dumb bitches out there that he's a hot mess they need to put out for their man or else he'll stray, because it's not like they have anything else to offer him in a relationship. Seriously, it's like the show Married With Children, except there's no children and in this latter it's the wife (instead of the husband) who never wants sex.

Wow. With all that contempt for women as a whole in that letter, I need to ask -- have you considered fucking dudes instead? No, forget I said that -- gay men have enough problems in this culture without including jerks like you in their ranks.

Now, assuming that there's a grain of truth here and there in this open letter, the lady seems to be as much of an asshole as the gentleman... but there are hints that this isn't the case. "You grudgingly gave it up once a week for a while. Still, you had become rather critical. You called it 'coaching me,' or 'teaching you what I like'." Sure, this could be a critical sex-hating ball-busting harpy... but couldn't this also be the lady saying something like "slow down, it doesn't feel good being jackhammered" or "gimme a week to recover from the last time you ignored me when I said I didn't like being jackhammered"?

But then, all the women I've had have actually enjoyed sex with me... even if the rest of the relationship was crap. Clearly my privilege is showing.

I have a couple of theories about this guy. One of them starts with the idea that we create our own misery, and he subconsciously chose the most horrible woman he could find, because he wants to be proven right about how horrible women are more than he wants to be happy. Therefore, he's telling the truth about this particular woman, and in doing so he's bragging about how he succeeded in proving himself right. If this is the case, he should never marry again.

My other theory is that he's the awful person, and she put up with him the best she could, becoming a bit more assertive when they said "I do" because she'd committed to the guy and wanted him to be less of a shlub. Perhaps she stopped doing dishes to see how long it would take for him to rinse a damn plate, for instance. If this is the case, he should never marry again. (For now, I'll skip the speculation into why she'd marry him in the first place. Perhaps she'll post her own letter about him on Craigslist later. I'll attempt it then.)
fierynotes: Picture of Arsenal, from DC comics, who clearly sees something he likes. (leers)
Have you heard of Laci Green yet? Probably¹. Me, I just discovered her, and she's awesome. She espouses this radical belief that sex and bodies and all of that stuff are just plain awesome. She has 143 videos, so if you find you like her, you could easily kill a whole afternoon with her, but she addresses a wide variety of topics, from fat² to race to virginity to... well, lots more. She's very good.

Have you heard of Colby Keller yet? Perhaps not. Me, I just discovered him, and he's awesome... though since he does gay porn, his focus is considerably narrower than Laci Green's. He gives useful and practical advice on orgies, size issues, and getting into porn (and just as importantly, being clear on your reasons for wanting to be in porn, and coping with the rest of the world when it discovers you're in porn).



    1. Once upon a time, when she was still in her teens, Laci Green used the word "tranny," unaware of its impact on transpeople. When made aware of it, she apologized and banished it from her lexicon. Then, she got Winterfoxed³. She's currently stepped away from tumblr, because some worthless piece of shit who no doubt identifies as an SJW thinks that while the word "tranny" is an unforgivable slur, death threats are just peachy and the word "cunt" is just fine as long as the word "transphobic" appears in front of it. If you are one of these people, I hope you step on a lego, trip over said lego, and land face-first in a fire. And by the way, go die in a fire.

    2. Laci Green has spoken out against fatphobia, but she has apparently also discussed her own issues with controlling her weight. According to some, this would make her both fatphobic and a hypocrite. Considering that I think judging people for being fat is wrong (and I'm occasionally very vocal about this), but I also put some effort into keeping my own body fat low, you can probably guess that I'm not exactly sympathetic to people who would make either of these claims about her.

    3. 1. Winterfox, v, to use the umbrella of social justice as license to be a fuming asshole, frequently using the whole premise of "tone argument" to justify no end of abusive behavior. 2. Winterfox, n, a person who frequently engages in Winterfoxing. While some Winterfoxes are solitary predators, many Winterfoxes are pack animals.

fierynotes: Picture of Hotstreak, from the cartoon Static Shock.  He looks annoyed. (annoyed)
Dear subconscious,

one: going into a store to buy condoms is, I suppose, a nice prelude to a dream. As the entirety of the dream, not so much. Even if the grocery store has an entire aisle devoted to condoms.

Two: condoms with the logo for Tide (a laundry detergent) printed on the wrapper? Really? I suppose that kinda makes sense -- using condoms can help keep your dick clean. Apple condoms are a bit more ridiculous -- I'm sure they'd be very good, but I'm also sure they'd cost twice as much, and about a third of men who use them would from that moment forward think they're better than everyone else for using them. Sony condoms would be low-quality, and if you tried to use them with any lube that wasn't also made by Sony, they'd fall apart... and yet, they'd have no end of rabid fanboys.

Three: thank you for your attention to detail, and for realizing that vanity-sizing happens in condom manufacturing. For instance, in the waking world, Nuvo makes an XXL that doesn't deserve an L, let alone the two Xs in front of it. In the dreaming world, for instance, I was amused that Apple minis and Hummer horse-cocks were the same size. On the other hand, McDonald's Big Macs and Apple Big Macs were very different. The ones in vintage packaging, labeled "Small" in Japanese, were amusing, too -- even if the joke about Japan mass-producing extra-large condoms during WWII and exporting them to China in boxes labeled "Small" is likely older than I am. The clerk handing me a ruler in a sterile wrapper, and then letting me punch my dimensions into a computer so that it could spit out recommendations, was also a nice touch.

Four: I hope that all these brand names just crept into my dreams because I deal with technology all the time (and because I have such a knee-jerk negative response to Hummer). If some marketing asshole finally discovered how to do oneiric product placement, I'm afraid I may have to hunt him down and murder him in his sleep.

Sincerely,
[personal profile] fierynotes
fierynotes: Picture of a B diminished 7th chord (B, D, F, A flat) followed by an inversion, in flames. (Bdim7)
Dear [Octavia],

I haven't thought of you for a while, because it's been a while since we've gone our separate ways. If I still had the means to contact you, I'd want you to know that I bear you no ill will, remember you pretty fondly, and understand why you had to end things between us -- just as I'm not cut out for monogamy, you weren't cut out for the alternatives. Still, it was one of my better breakups. You gave me mushrooms (I've since cleaned up), and I gave you an ahem-toy that resembled me as much as was possible given relatively short notice.

The reason I'm thinking of you lately? One of my friends bought an electric cello.

Way back when, you taught me a few things on your own cello, and if you were still in my life, you'd be surprised at how much I retained for having only touched the instrument at your place, and then not touched on for several years. My fingering could use work, but I'm a guitarist at heart -- I'm used to having frets. My bowing is actually not bad. There isn't any of that horrible beginner scratchiness in my technique, though I still have to be careful not to end up with octave overtones overpowering the primary note. I'm sure you'd know exactly what I'm doing wrong, and if I get one of these things for myself and play it regularly, I'll no doubt remember it myself.

My friend was very impressed, enough that he asked me to try to explain bowing to him. He's not going to become Rostropovich any time soon -- he's starting at least twenty years too late to have any chance at that. But then, the same could've been said about me, and you thought me worth teaching.

Thank you.

Sincerely,
[livejournal.com profile] fierynotes
fierynotes: Picture of Arsenal, from DC comics, looking very pissed off. (angry)
So, I've been digging through a website on PUA lingo. It's been illuminating, though a little enraging. As much as I hate to say it -- and believe me, I hate this -- whoever codified all this shit has some pretty solid psych background. Granted, it won't get the average guy into bed with every woman, every time... but psych doesn't work like that, anyway. Nor does it need to, in this case; if a PUA attempts to bed five women and successfully persuades one to go to his place, he doesn't care if the other four women think he's a complete douchebag.

In a bid to at least pretend to be charitable, I'll start with the positive.

I don't like how it's expressed, here, but I like the concept that PUAs refer to as an avatar. Indeed, I don't think it goes far enough. Most of us are the people our parents have made, but we then have the power (to varying degrees) to make ourselves. I only disagree with the stated motivation here. I haven't spent the last few years going to the gym, working on my anger issues, and making various other changes because I want to pick up chicks -- I'm doing all that because I like this new version of myself better than I liked the old version. Sometimes, being a new person is very hard work. Sometimes, we fail. Sometimes, it's impossible. Whatever the case, I'm not going to bash the PUA community for preaching this... not when I've got so many better reasons to bash them.

Negging, for instance. A neg is a casual insult a PUA offers to a woman to take her down a few notches, an attack on her self-esteem. It's intended to express disapproval, and is usually coupled with the PUA trying to establish himself as an alpha male, i.e. claiming authority. Since he has authority, his approval is important, and it means something that he's withholding it, but the woman in question has a chance to earn his approval. Gee, guess how?

Yes, this is slimy... but it works, and it's not limited to pickups. It's the reason that used car salesmen are sharply dressed and total assholes. It's why the Catholic Church has magnificent buildings, finely dressed officials, and a never-ending drumbeat of guilt, sin, and godly disapproval. It's why so many fitness gurus have perfect bodies and open hatred for fat people. It's why a lite beer ad campaign is depicting men as unmanly, but suggesting that these men "man up" by drinking their particular brand of insipid piss-water. It's why children try so hard to please their parents even if their parents are emotionally abusive. As disgusted as you might be by it, it gets results.

Of course, there are other weapons in the PUA arsenal. Anchoring, for instance, is a textbook application of classical conditioning, and PUAs use it both on themselves (warning: really fucking annoying song) and their targets. After all, if you're new to the whole "actively playing mindgames to try to get women to fuck you" routine, you need to be in the right frame of mind, right?

Of course, some women aren't instantly pliable fucktoys, and have their own responses when they don't like or trust a given man chasing them. And of course, these have been codified as well, with terms like Bitch Shield and Shit Test. Notice that these terms are much harsher than most of the other terms in the PUA lexicon. There's a reason for this -- it's to exclude the concept that women might actually have perfectly valid reasons for not wanting to go to bed with the PUA. In the field of general semantics, there's something called a map-territory relation, and humans tend to confuse the map for the territory -- if we have no words for a concept, we can't really discuss the concept meaningfully, and even thinking about that concept is difficult. In codifying women's negative responses so harshly, the PUA is dealing with a map with a hole in it.

That hole is not there by accident. It's the same hole in the map that allows the PUA to dismiss his own failures. Remember those four women the PUA didn't succeed with in my first paragraph? They weren't actually people. They were bitches with bitch shields and shit tests, so he needn't judge himself for how they reacted to him. If one of them slapped him for attempting a kino escalation (read: touching her boob within ten seconds of introducing himself), the PUA lexicon makes it easy to dismiss her reaction as having her bitch shields on high. The concept of inappropriate contact is curiously absent from the lexicon.

One other thing about language: it can define a culture. People who share a language share a cultural bond. The PUA lexicon, deficient as it is, is enough to create a sort of cultural bond. Think, for a moment, of the person (or small group of people) who created it. By creating this language and this body of applied knowledge, they are creating a sort of brotherhood... and they are making money off of it.


This is all psychology. It works... or at least, it works enough to be worth using. If you are human, you are probably susceptible to these techniques, even if you're not necessarily a woman being picked up, even if you're not a woman at all. For instance, a tough salesman may not think that you're putting out indicators of interest or that your reluctance to buy something is a bitch shield, but he still thinks of your objections as buying signals, as things to be overcome.

All around you, people are trying to reach into your head. Some of them do it because they're human, and we all do it, often without realizing it. Some of them have made a science of it. And some of them use that science to try to exploit you.
fierynotes: Picture of Gilgamesh Wulfenbach, from Girl Genius.  He looks tired. (tired)
(Note: I'm a man, talking about women. As a result, It's quite possible I'll get some things wrong. As there are quite a few vocal women reading my journal, I'm sure I'll get a few comments. If they disagree with me, listen to them: chances are they're in the right. If they disagree with each other... well, no one said all women think alike, did they?)

There's this idea out there that men have, that women aren't all that interested in sex. They think that men are the ones who are interested in sex, and that women are somewhat indifferent to it, or that what they actually want is these things called relationships and that giving this strange currency called sex in exchange is the easiest way to get them.

If you're one of these men who believe that, you are absolutely wrong.

If your body of sexual experience tells you that women don't like sex much... well, in all your past couplings, the one common element has been you. If one were to be charitable, one could guess that you tend to subconsciously choose women who are less interested in sex because the ones who really like it scare you. Do you refer to sexually "overactive" women as "sluts," or with other such harsh words? If you do, chances are you're one of these scared men. Of course, if one were to be less charitable, one could guess that you think none of the women you've taken to bed liked having sex (with you), not because they don't like sex, but because you're terrible in bed.

Heh heh, sorry. Cheap shot.

Unfortunately, it's not just these guys who help spread that idea. A lot of men with little to no experience at all with women share this belief, and at times, even women will say things that support it. Some gay men, for instance, think that if women truly liked sex as much as men did, they'd be picking up guys with abandon at truck stops, women would be hollering lewd things back at men at construction sites, no public restroom would be left unscrewed in... need I go on? (In fact, it was a very clever (but in some ways absolutely clueless) gay man who prompted me to type this up a while back. I just found it again because I'm going through the salvage heap I was able to pull off my old computer's hard drive.)

There are very good reasons women aren't picking up men all the time, and they all boil down to risks. Lots of them. And the more sexually active a woman is, the bigger the risks get.

Firstly, men tend to be quite a bit bigger than women. We tend to be a little stronger in the lower body, and quite a bit stronger in the upper body, and being on average taller, we usually have a big advantage when it comes to running speed as well. (I'll thank you not to point out a hypothetical pairing between, say, Nikki Fuller and Pee-wee Herman as if that proves anything -- I'm speaking generally here.) This makes us potentially dangerous to women. Sure, most of us aren't going to force ourselves on a woman, but a few would, and do -- and a woman is usually at a physical disadvantage when that happens. In the few minutes after she first approaches a man, but before sex happens, she may decide (as is her right) that this particular man was a mistake... and there's a risk that this particular man may not care what she's decided.

Yes, I know. You're not a rapist. The thing is, some men are, these men don't have the word "rapist" tattooed on their foreheads, and women aren't psychic.

Yes, I know. If a woman gets raped, she could press charges and get that rapist locked up. Er... not so much. There's a widespread belief that women can't get justice in rape cases, and that prosecuting a rapist will only net an acquittal after she's been mercilessly interrogated about how she was dressed at the time and whether she's had sex before, or whether she had sex willingly and later came down with "buyer's remorse. And all too often, this widespread belief is proven to be right. According to RAINN, rapists get off 94% of the time. Even if I could wave a magic wand and fix the system overnight, that belief would persist for probably at least one full generation afterward, if not longer.

So every time a woman decides to pick up a guy, she's taking a risk that he might rape her, and then she'll have to choose between letting it go... or taking another risk that she'll be blamed in court for having been raped and he'll walk away with a slap on the wrist, if that.

These risks, by themselves, would be enough for some women, but there are more. Condoms fail. Birth control pills fail. All of our current contraceptive methods fail. Pregnancy is another risk of pick-ups, and most of the social risks fall on women. All of the potential health risks that come with pregnancy fall on women. (I'm fully aware that healthy women give birth to babies all the time. Women die in childbirth all the time, too, and the US has some of the worst statistics for that in the developed world.) If a woman decides to terminate a pregnancy, she's the one who has to make the arrangements for it, and hope that there aren't a bunch of assholes protesting the clinic that day, and hope that certain assholes in Congress haven't yet passed yet more laws based on the premise that the little clump of cells in her uterus is more important than her life. If she decides to keep the baby, she's likely going to get stuck with most of the responsibilities for the baby as well. (Yeah, the man can be ordered to pay child support. That doesn't make it happen. I personally know at least one guy who doesn't, who has made a point of working where he can be compensated in barter or services that can't be garnished... and he's hardly alone.)

Then, there's the social risk. Our culture generally treats sexually active men positively, so there's little social risk for a man picking someone up. Not so with women. If a guy brags about having nailed three girls in a week, his male peers will no doubt envy the hell out of him. If a women says she's had three guys in a week, she'll be slut-shamed to hell and back, and her peers will speculate openly as to her complete lack of self-respect and how many diseases she's picked up. That one statement of having had multiple partners in a short period will forever change the perceptions of people around her, in all kinds of negative ways.

Nearly all of these risks are created by men. You know, those people that (straight) women could be picking up in truck stops, but generally aren't? (Lesbians also like sex, and also take risks for it, but I'll leave discussing those risks to people better qualified. If one of you cares to tackle that subject, I'll link to it from here.) You, as a man, may not personally create any of these risks, but again, any given woman has no way of knowing that. Again, women aren't psychic.

"But!" I hear some of you say. "Women themselves don't act like they like sex that much -- some of them say it outright! And some of them denigrate sexually active women, too!" Yes, they do. Some of them do it as protective camouflage. Some of them do it so that men won't think they enjoy sex "too much." And some of them do it because their partners are terrible in bed, either for fear of pissing off the man in their bed or hurting his feelings. In their own ways, they are all mitigating risks as well.

Some women genuinely aren't all that interested in sex, and really, that's okay. It shouldn't be any more controversial for a woman not to like sex than for me not to like bacon...

...okay, bad example. Where was I? Oh, yes: despite all these risks, many women do like sex. Some women cope with these risks by choosing one man, getting to know him very well, and forming a sexual relationship with him and him alone. Some women choose not to take these risks, but instead own several high-quality toys. Some women mitigate these risks by being a part of a social network that includes other women they can talk to about potential partners. (This comes up a lot in poly circles -- I've heard terms like "vetting" and phrases like "checking references" used to refer to this.) And some women who like sex a lot accept these risks, and go for pick-ups anyway.

If you find yourself approached by a woman trying to pick you up, be aware that she's taking a hell of a lot of risks in approaching you. Be aware, and be worthy. If you say yes, make her glad she chose you. If you say no (as is your right), do it with kindness and grace.
fierynotes: Picture of a black sockpuppet. (footsie)
Over in an anonymeme, the person in charge decided to ban the phrase "White Dick." Personally, I'm offended. After all, I have one, and it can't help its color any more than I can help mine.

So, as usually happens when something gets banned in an anonymeme, it... ahem, comes up a lot more. In this case, a lot of people had way too much fun coming up with nicknames for light-colored male reproductive organs.

Pale penis. Fair phallus. Wan willy. Milk manshaft. Moonskinned rocketship. Bleach-blond beef bayonet. (Try saying that three times fast.) Pearly pork sword. Lily lingam. Hoary hand banana. Alabaster ass blaster. Ashen assbanjo. Bleached blanc-mange launcher. Bone-hued bell-end. Caucasoid creamsicle. Dove-colored dribbledart. #FFFFFF fuckstick. Frost-hued flesh piston. Linen-colored love log. Magnolia man-meat. Platinum pleasure plunger. Vanilla veiny. Waxen winky.

My favorite is easily "#FFFFFF fuckstick."

(I have a few friends in the anonymeme in question, some of whom no doubt contributed to that list, but unless one or more of them step up and take credit in the comments, I'm not going to mention them by name here.)


And, as bonus content dug up by [personal profile] ms_daisy_cutter, a short slashy drabble involving Captain Kirk and a Pokemon. I found it hilarious, but of course I would...

Text here. It's only 175 words, what can it hurt? Pika pika! )
fierynotes: Picture of Destruction, from the Sandman series, reading a book and slinging a guitar. (Default)
...a little more literally than usual.

A study shows that wearing red tends to make other people more attracted to you. I'm okay with this, and in fact it doesn't surprise me at all. It shouldn't -- I'm a redhead, so I count as wearing red all the time, and I do okay as far as people being attracted to me.

For that matter, red is one of the most basic colors there is. I forget where I first read this, but a lot of human languages don't have many words for colors, and colors tend to be named in very predictable order. In any language with only two colors named, they'll be black and white. As a language develops, if it gives a third color a name, it'll be red. (The fourth and fifth will be yellow and green, in either order, likely to refer to vegetation, and the sixth will be blue... but I digress.) Clearly, red is an important color to us hairless apes, so nothing here surprises me in the least. Overall, this is a nice little study, with a reasonably solid finding.

Now watch the evo-psych crowd fuck it all up.

"Females were found to view men wearing red-colored clothing as being higher in status and more likely to earn a better living."

"...the reason men were attracted to women in red was due to red's association as 'the color of sexual receptivity' in the animal kingdom."

After you've pulled out your bingo cards, notice the built-in gender politics, no doubt "justified" by claiming that "Science isn't PC" (O-1) and "it's a FACT, I don't need to prove it" (G-4). Notice, also, the assumptions that women don't exactly like the color red so much as the status and "ability to provide" that it represents (N-1), and that men like women in red because it speaks of sexual availability (B-5), whereas no one considers the idea that woman might also have an interest in sex (G-2).

Personally, I think if they're going to throw in sexist assumptions in the name of science, they should go all out. Let's go Captain Caveman here! "Women like their men to be warriors, and way back in the savannah days, men's clothing would get covered by the blood of all their kills. Since blood tends to turn brown and dingy after a while, only men who had current kills would be wearing red, and men wearing dingy brown would get reactions like 'sure, you've killed some animals/rival tribesmen way back when, but what have you done for me lately?'"

This doesn't explain why women who wear red are more attractive, but no doubt men equate such women with raw meat or some shit. It could be that women just might have hunted as well, but of course the evo-psych crowd would never entertain that possibility in a million years.

I like the study itself. Ever since I became sexually active, I knew I had certain unfair advantages (this is called anecdata, boys and girls), and it's nice to see one of them backed up by science. That said, there's something to be said for not drawing conclusions from a study that it doesn't support, especially if your assumptions about gender dynamics are stuck in the fifties (I-2) and you're scrambling for ways to "prove" them with science.
fierynotes: Picture of Destruction, from the Sandman series, reading a book and slinging a guitar. (Default)
Saturday, at about midnight, I was having relations with an old ahem-friend.

Saturday, three seconds before midnight, this happened less than five miles away from us.

Now I'm not saying I was the cause or anything...! ;-)

Profile

fierynotes: Picture of Destruction, from the Sandman series, reading a book and slinging a guitar. (Default)
fierynotes

Tags

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags