Really funny. Makes me like Quinn a bit. But he's still from ND.
What's the matriarchy got to do with it? Isn't this fairly standard "ha ha, we're acting all gay but we're totally not, no really I mean it guys" homoerotic patriarchal frathaus bullying.
Except for the word bullying, 6 (and 1) seem right. Or more simply, I really do not get what is funny about the picture. I do not find it offensive or anything, but what's the joke? (where is standpipe when you need him/her/it?).
I don't get it.
Also, the feeling of terror conveyed by the middle boy is only amplified by his resemblance to Hilary Swank in Boys Don't Cry.
I know a gay frat boy who graduated last year. Nice guy.
It's funny because it's goofy, particularly the look on the middle boy's face. Also funny for Brady ruining what would otherwise be a perfect(ly ghastly?) outfit by wearing fucking cargos.
Why "matriarchy"? If you're trying to bait a feminist, you can't be entirely nonsensical about it.
12: Ned, everyone knows feminists are to blame for spreading Teh Gay by robbing clean-cut young Anglo-Saxon men like these of their true, masculine role in society. Where have you been?
If you're trying to bait a feminist, you can't be entirely nonsensical about it.
Says who?
I just can't get over the fact that they're identically-dressed. I thought no one over the age of 12 (and female) did that.
Maybe they were just trying to cover their own penises, but in the swirl of booze and identical outfits, got confused as to whose body was whose.
in the swirl of booze and identical outfits, got confused as to whose body was whose.
Honestly, that's just how it happened yerrhonner.
I don't get it either.
Frat boys are all gay. To a man.
I'd like to think I'm that kind of man.
The look on the center guy's face is what makes it awesome.
or just hiding it? That's lame. Man up, ogged.
I just can't get over the fact that they're identically-dressed.
It's a male thing. Must suck for them, though they appear to do it to themselves. And yes, the first thing I noticed: the shirts are all .. what's that called, an Izod? Anyway, with the little logo-thing at the breast.
If there's any single reason I love being a woman, it's that I have so many more choices.
I have no idea what the rest of the photo is about.
17 is awesome.
Blaming the matriarchy is a feint. The photo is just further proof that football is gay.
Oh, lord, Brady, the good brothers of the Holy Cross are so jealous of you now.
The middle guy looks like he's doing Zoolander's "Blue Steel".
It reminds me of my first college bf, whose friends played what they called "gay chicken." They'd take turns touching each other in increasingly private places until one of them weirded out. The winner of gay chicken was he who could totally let someone touch his johnson without freaking out, making him the most heterosexual dude in the room. Nerdboys are really weird.
We're so playing gay chicken at the next meetup.
There was an episode of Scrubs a couple of years back where two characters played gay chicken -- I wonder if a friend of a friend of AWB's writes for the show.
I don't associate that with "nerdboys", AWB, that game has been played on the Howard Stern show.
"Gay chicken" is a pretty standard guy type of play.
Are points earned or taken off if the guy gets aroused?
Upon arousal, the point system effectively evaporates. It's like the golden snitch.
How does the game escalate past johnson-touching? If you've got two very competitive dudes who stick it out that far, is the match declared a draw or does it continue on to blowjobs and buttfucking?
Especially in that arousal ends the game.
Brock, I think in that case the match would be replayed, with a scoring system that penalizes you for showing eagerness to move on to the next step.
34: The married couple in the apartment downstairs from me are going to go their separate ways as straight men as soon as one of them cries "Uncle". They've been playing for fifteen years now.
34: They suggested it would involve blowjobs, but there was really only one guy who wouldn't freak out about johnson-touching, so it never got that far. It was pretty obvious that he wouldn't have minded if the whole thing escalated a bit.
So to clarify, who's losing the round in the photograph? The giddy-grinning Brady or the petrified guy in the middle?
We're so playing gay chicken at the next meetup.
I am so showing up on time for the next meetup.
40: I think you might be disqualified. You could play "Straight Chicken," maybe.
37: As opposed to crying "Daddy?"
It's probably best for me to leave this thread now.
They appear to be tied at the moment. This seems like more of a practice round, since the players are safely separated by at least two layers of clothing.
I have an image now of cerebrocrat at an unfogged meetup, sanguine as all the straight guys think of ever lewder ways to service him, nobody ever able to puzzle out how he could possibly be so dominating at Gay Chicken.
43: Clothes, and all that protective pleating.
To get all serious and shit, when I was a young man (many many years ago) we did not do things exactly like the game you are describing, but it was not uncommon to do milder versions of this. It's a bit disappointing to see that it continues, indeed perhaps has gotten worse. Since there is nothing wrong with being gay, why is it necessary to prove that you are not? I am not so clueless as to think that gays no longer are held in contempt by some people, but I would have hoped that games like this were no longer OK in polite, educated company.
[sorry for the humorlessness; resume cock jokes]
That said, 42 is pretty darn funny.
Au contraire, cerebrocrat will be locked in a tightly-matched struggle of Vagina Chicken against the world champion, Ace of Spades.
41: You mean... touch boobies?! Dude, that's totally for fags.
To get all serious and shit, when I was a young man (many many years ago) we did not do things exactly like the game you are describing, but it was not uncommon to do milder versions of this.
And the truth about the US military emerges.
46: What on earth makes you think anybody's talking about polite, educated company?
47: You can't be gay enough to beat Ace at that game.
It reminds me of my first college bf, whose friends played what they called "gay chicken." They'd take turns touching each other in increasingly private places until one of them weirded out. The winner of gay chicken was he who could totally let someone touch his johnson without freaking out, making him the most heterosexual dude in the room. Nerdboys are really weird.
....
............
Straight people use the word 'heterosexual' differently from normal people.
44: Hahahaha
I don't have the nerve to post anything I can think of in response to this.
51 is not a snide comment about AWB, but about AWB's first college bf's weird friends. Just to clarify.
51: I think AWB has the rules confused. The one who was able to touch the other's johnson without freaking out was the less heterosexual dude.
Yes, this game depends on the honor system.
52: Oh, c'mon. First of all, Labs is going to be totally disappointed, second of all, have you seen some of the fucked up shit apo links to?
I would have hoped that games like this were no longer OK in polite, educated company.
If it reassures you at all, I've never heard of "gay chicken."
It would come down to cerebrocrat and DaveB in a gay chicken match To the Death!...which, honestly, would probably get kind of uncomfortable at some point anyway.
I've only heard of it on the Howard Stern show, which polite educated people like me listen to vicariously.
I think actual gayness is cheating -- it's like taking steroids. ("Hey, the guy over there getting the blow job? I'm starting to think he's a ringer.")
I had only heard of it via Brian Posehn's joke in "Comedians of Comedy."
57 - Really? I don't think you, Tia, and I would have minded if they'd started playing gay chicken at the Indonesian place.
I think the 'uncomfortable' characterization applied to a battle to the death. It would clearly involve chafing, which is a terrible way to die.
For some people, sexuality is not a game, Becks.
/faux-serious
46, 56: I've never heard of Gay Chicken either, but my ability to miss or not be included in things is extraordinary.
Actually, I was kinda thinking about the fact that it's necessarily a homosocial activity, in a way. Gay chicken for other dudes? Somehow okay. Gay chicken between chicks for other chicks? Hott. Gay chicken with a mixed audience, either way? Too inflaming and performative.
("Hey, the guy over there getting the blow job? I'm starting to think he's a ringer.")
Close only counts in horseshoes, not blowjobs.
I've never heard of Gay Chicken either
Look at it this way, IDP, our generation got drugs, sex and rock and roll. Kids these day got gay chicken. I'm content with how it worked out.
Gay chicken and rainbow parties, Idealist.
That's cruel, Idealist. Gay chicken can only exist, of course, because young dudes are too puritanical to actually have sex with anyone, male or female. It is a sad truth about all those gay chicken dudes I knew in college that, to a one, they were virgins.
young dudes are too puritanical to actually have sex with anyone, male or female.
See, now I know life was way better back in the day.
I'm going to dissent from the prevailing interpretation of the photo, btw. The look on the middle guy's face doesn't seem to me to be terror so much as a botched "come hither" glare. Also, given the belt configuration (wide and very high!) and the lack of pleats and the yellow shirt and the hair gel, I'm going to guess that he might be gay. In which case, the other guys are fucking around with turning him on while pretending to be macho-macho about it. Anyhoo, that's my theory.
I don't know if I would have called it gay chicken, but the playing around with supposedly gay norms is certainly something not uncommon to my college guyfriends. I think that they were probably all too chicken to get as far as fondling. Props to Quinn. God, Country, Notre Dame, Cock.
Oh, and the fat guy on the left is the real dweeb in the picture. He's not even touching yellow-shirt's cock.
The look on the middle guy's face doesn't seem to me to be terror so much as a botched "come hither" glare.
Does anyone really believe it's "terror"? He's playing, too.
Also, Suns-Spurs game: sickening.
I share JM's reading of the middle guy. Or, at least, I doubt he's gay, but I imagine he's pretending to pose as the stud who's getting all the attention. Guy on the left is the homophobe here.
all that protective pleating.
So that's why that kind of guy wears that kind of pants.
"Since there is nothing wrong with being gay, why is it necessary to prove that you are not?"
It could be viewed as a way to demonstrate that you aren't homophobic, as opposed to not gay.
I've never heard of this Gay Chicken character.
It could be viewed as a way to demonstrate that you aren't homophobic
I suppose, but the fact that I do not care what other people do with their cocks does not mean that I do not care who fondles mine. Indeed, I have definite preferences on the matter.
"Gay chicken" games have nothing direct to do with homophobia or homophilia. They are about the individual's lack of comfort with his sexuality. Occasionally, you'll see straight couples in which one partner is much more uncomfortable with PDA than the other one; and sometimes the other one will initiate PDA as a way of teasing. Same thing.
you'll see straight couples in which one partner is much more uncomfortable with PDA than the other one; and sometimes the other one will initiate PDA as a way of teasing. Same thing.
Maybe, but it still seem like proving that you are not gay, to me.
Oh, and not that I need to defend myself from the forces of humorlessness, dogged though they may be, but if you look at the name I gave the picture, "erasure" and read it along with the title, I'm implying that what's going on is an ashamed attempt to hide the penis. See? Haha. I'm aware that an explained joke is not a funny joke, but I do think this establishes that I rule and you drool.
It's really about proving that one is "secure in one's heterosexuality," which is different from proving heterosexuality or comfort with homosexuality.
Who the hell read picture names? And how would one do so even if one wanted?
listen to vicariously
Too many degrees of removal, methinks. You vicariously participate in the hijinks to which you are listening, you don't listen to them vicariously.
84: I got it. Still not funny.
"Gay chicken" games have nothing direct to do with homophobia or homophilia.
If you say so, Tim.
Maybe, but it still seem like proving that you are not gay, to me.
Think of it this way: if, contrary to all evidence, cereb were not an exhibitionist man-whore, but rather a really shy but still openly gay guy, he could easily be included in various "gay chicken" types of games. He would probably be the guy who got it worst, because his friends would find it funny that he was uncomfortable (we assume) on different grounds than (we assume) everyone else was uncomfortable.
I dunno, I think the concepts "secure in one's sexuality" and "not homophobic" tend to run together. If you're weirded out because your buddy (or some stranger) is touching your cock, it's because you hate gate people and/or are secretly gay.
In playing such games, one (a) helps his friends to discover their true sexual preferences and (b) helps them to understand that it's silly to hate gay people because your buddy here, who is touching your cock, might be gay himself. It all seems quite obvious to me.
In my defense, the letters "Y" and "T" are located right next to each other on the keyboard, as anyone can see. As far as the E, I have no explanation.
Now I am off to be ashamed.
If you're weirded out because your buddy (or some stranger) is touching your cock, it's because you hate gate people and/or are secretly gay.
Men are weird.
Well, sure, weird was a given. But isn't the point of demonstrating that one is secure in one's sexuality really demonstrating that one is secure in one's straightness? In an environment where nobody gave a damn what your orientation was, the game would be different -- something more like the straight-women-making-out-in-bars thing.
There's a current trend of man-on-man grinding in bars which is curiously parallel to the straight-women-making-out thing.
As to the first point, I don't know. It seems to me that a really secure gay man would be the primary benefactor of these games.
The context of homophobia is important, I agree. The point of the games is to demonstrate security in one's sexuality. In a (hopefully less but still noticably) homophobic culture, that demonstration primarily involves showing that you aren't afraid of being gay. Sometimes this requires actual penetration.
Sometimes this requires actual penetration.
Um, when?
Seriously, I can't imagine playing a game like this. That might have more to do with hating fun than being straight or gay, but I just don't see the point here (and not just because it's being hidden by the matriarchal hand).
You'll be informed, presumably, should it become necessary. I'd keep some lube with you at all times just in case.
I agree with Oggers. This game is only fun if you think it is highly important that people realize how straight you are. I'm not going to try to defend it as something else, because it sounds pretty stupid to me.
Sometimes, teo, you've got to recognize nonsense talk.
More seriously, I will cop to having played something like the pictured game, though my friends, of course, wore less lame shirts. I don't know that I can mount a sincere defense to the activity, but neither do I think it is an expression of homophobia. It's a bonding routine; there's probably stuff like it in lots of other cultures.
99: I don't really think of it as a game so much as teasing that sometimes, apparently, gets turned into a game. What's the fun of a wet willy? Dunno, but people still do it, and do it with the intention of contributing fun.
It's obviously pretty stupid, but I don't think it's hateful. I mean, I have gay friends and stuff. Sometimes you've just got to be stupid and that's it.
92: Yeah, see, I totally don't get this. I would be weirded out, frankly, by pretty much anyone I wasn't intimate with (or consulting for medical advice) grabbing my special parts. I'm kind of attached to the whole boundaries thing that way.
Ogged, if you hate fun, you might as well officially give up relationships too, and then you can be my successor when I pass on to a better world.
I pass on to a better world.
Aren't you opposed to that sort of thing as well?
It's the boundary breaking that creates the bond. Like how conspirators always have that special something.
Yeah, see, I totally don't get this. I would be weirded out, frankly, by pretty much anyone I wasn't intimate with (or consulting for medical advice) grabbing my special parts. I'm kind of attached to the whole boundaries thing that way.
No guy would do it to you because you're a woman. But if you are a guy, that's exactly why it would be fun to do it to you.
I'm sort of shocked that this logic of "fun" isn't immediately apprehended by ogged. This would seem to be your wheelhouse.
Aren't you opposed to that sort of thing as well?
He means Canada.
I havent heard of gay chicken, but some guys on my college team did regularly see who could have the heaviest weight on the c/ock.
Seriously, I can't imagine playing a game like this. That might have more to do with hating fun than being straight or gay
Word.
The real question here of course, is this game regular fun, or M-fun?
Sometimes, teo, you've got to recognize nonsense talk.
Wait, you mean some of the things you say aren't nonsense?
Vonnegut wants us to talk that way. He's in Heaven now.
So the "fun" is in making someone feel uncomfortable because you've violated their boundaries?
Y'all are weird.
That's what makes a lot of things fun, 115. A bonding ritual occurs when certain people are together who know each other very well and can break each other's boundaries, unlike strangers.
The "I Never" game where you get to find out what embarrassing things people did without them actually saying so is another example.
Note the color of Brady's shirt. It's important.
So the "fun" is in making someone feel uncomfortable because you've violated their boundaries? Y'all are weird.
Welcome to being a guy.
So the "fun" is in making someone feel uncomfortable because you've violated their boundaries?
Now that I can see. But among my friends, this means that someone sneaks up and flicks your ear, hard, and then you beat each other up. Fun! No cock touching!
Well, if it's all reciprocal, it doesn't seem that weird that it's fun. An awful lot of varieties of fun have to do with the interplay between feeling safe and allowing your boundaries to be violated.
I'm sort of shocked that this logic of "fun" isn't immediately apprehended by ogged.
I more imagine Ogged as the type to push somebodies boundaries verbally, but grabbing someones dick? No way.
Except you have to pretend-break others' boundaries without really doing so.
Anyone who has been on a sports team cannot be shocked by this behavior.
I more imagine Ogged as the type to push somebodies boundaries verbally, but grabbing someones dick? No way.
I'm totally imagining your cock right now, gswift.
Seriously, I can't imagine playing a game like this.
Oh, please. Like Unfogged isn't one long virtual game of gay chicken.
You're not so much with the distinctions, are you, B?
"Oh, please. Like Unfogged isn't one long virtual game of gay chicken."
Wait, that was ogged touching me? I thought that it was Bitch! Darn it.
I'd think that that whole male-identified feminist thing would have made that clear a long time ago, O.
Sometimes you've just got to be stupid and that's it.
Mouseover.
I beg to differ Will. Maybe "any guy whose been on a sports team." But I was on several teams and this grabbing of one another's crotch game just never occurred.
I'm totally imagining your cock right now, gswift.
Make sure that mental image is circumsized.
I thought you were a girl Di Kotimy?
My point is that sports teams regular do/make each other do incredibly uncomfortable things. Crotch grabbing doesnt surprise me.
You know, if you boys were more interested in science, your natural curiosity would have led you to mutual dick-fondling a long time ago.
Huh, I would have thought you'd rather we imagined you as super sized.
You know, if you boys were more interested in science
Chemistry major here. And yet, no dick fondling.
136, there's a constant battle between curiosity and repulsion, much like what you women experience with dog penes.
I would have thought you'd rather we imagined you as super sized.
That part was a given.
Ned, are you saying men are dogs? I'm surprised at you.
gswift isnt exactly the name you want women to be thinking about. Maybe glastlongtime would be better.
you women experience
What? Longing to ride horses, maybe, but I don't think the dog-penis thing is even close to universal.
135: Will, I'm cyber-kneeing you in the cyber-balls for that. Yup, I'm a gal. And yup, I played lots of sports before I evolved into a slug. But nope, in all the years from little league on up to college teams, never once did any of my teammates try to make anyone on the team uncomfortable. I so do not get it.
145, Neither is the inquisitive spirit about the genitals of our fellow men.
Maybe glastlongtime would be better.
I'm kind of stuck with Swift, it's my actual name.
This sort of thing does happen, Di Kotimy. And in sororities even more than sports teams.
148: If you were a feminist, you could have changed it when you got married.
DI:
Ouch. I am surprised. You must be under 30, after college teams got cracked down on for hazing. Every athletic team at my college, male or female, harassed each other.
If you were a feminist, you could have changed it when you got married.
My wife prefers my surname. Cooler, and much less common than hers.
Will, I was thinking she might be over 50, from an age before Title IX, when women's sports were an unserious affair.
Sure, let's go with that under 30 thing. This being the internet, I think I'll be 24. Maybe I just dwell in Pleasantville, but for my teammates, bonding did not require harassment. Holding your teammate's pony-tail while she purge the half-liter of Goldschlager from her stomach was more than enough.
By "unserious" I mean something entirely positive, that they were not as brutally competitive, and not modeled after men's sports to the extent that they are now.
All the best athletic teams involve crotch games. They're closer units. Michael Jordan, I've heard, was a fiend.
I have mostly played sports with boys, and tried to get in on the horseplay and shenanigans. The one gay guy and I on our softball team are known for our ability to totally freak out the other team by participating colorfully in the trash talk.
I am not buying it Di.
A true teammate would be taking a picture of her puking, not holding a pony taile.
The U.S. women's soccer team? Don't kid yourself.
Soccer players are the worst. Exhibit 1 = Heebie
158: Um, I'm sure if that had happened the pix would have surfaced by now... Right?
123- how does one get access to the Flickr pool? I've seen instructions in the past, but failed to act on them.
Get a flickr account and then have smasher or ogged invite you.
Oh, okay. Invite me, smasher or ogged.
You need to send them naked pictures first, though, to prove you're you.
I was on teams, not college but HS, albeit nearly forty years ago. There was horseplay, jokes, intimidation, teasing. But deprecation in those days was comparing to girls, or to weak, ineffective men—terms still in common use—but I don't remember fear of homosexuality, either your own or other guys', being part of it. Too provincial and unimaginative, I guess.
I was on teams, not college but HS, albeit nearly forty years ago. There was horseplay, jokes, intimidation, teasing. But deprecation in those days was comparing to girls, or to weak, ineffective men—terms still in common use—but I don't remember fear of homosexuality, either your own or other guys', being part of it. Too provincial and unimaginative, I guess.
Well it isn't concept art, but I don't think the "provincial and unimaginative" attack really works in comparison with calling someone a girl.
Actually, this sort of thing can be very imaginative.
165: happy to. Whose naked picture should I send? I have a great one of Harry Potter.
Yeah, how would a naked photo prove I'm me to Ogged? All it would prove is that the rug matches the curtains.
All it would prove is that the rug matches the curtains.
Which is exactly what he needs to know. I mean, come on.
170: If you're not you, then it would provide good blackmailing fodder for whoever you are. Also, JOKE, DUH.
It was my understanding that on a bear the rug and curtains are not separate, but part of an undifferentiated whole.
AWB:
I thought rugs were out of style now.
Hardwood floors are expensive to keep looking nice. A nice trim area rug will do the job.
I've heard it is difficult to get a small Persian to go there.
All the hardwood floors in my house are dinged and scratched.
We're just clumsy around these parts.
If you're clumsy on the floors, you ought not be allowed in the house.
At least take your damn shoes off; you're tracking mud everywhere.
Wait, what are we talking about?
Looking through college photos: yes, I have a photo of one of my friends humping another in a parking lot. If I remember how the picture happened, I was taking a picture of a friend, and another one ran up and humped him. Sometimes I think young men are like kittens: prone to jump around and be batshit insane.
You want guests to wear slippers to avoid that mud problem--a kind hostess will provide them herself, but a thoughtful guest will come prepared.
182:
Stop trying to justfy all that time spent under the bathtub facet! Trying to get the mud off, right.
Some guests fucking hate slippers and insist that you have the floors pre-treated to automatically repel mud. Ridiculous.
Not a bad idea to scotch-guard, though. Just in case.
As I said a hundred posts or so earlier, this sort of thing is "fun" because it's homoerotic frathouse bullying, and it's no surprise that men raised in a sexually-repressed, frattish environment - like, say, America - enjoy bullying each other like this. By suddenly grabbing another (ostensibly straight) guy's cock, you get to simultaneously:
- establish dominance over that guy in about as crude a way as possible without actually urinating on his territory
- indulge in some light gayness without getting called on it
- challenge the heterosexuality of the guy getting groped
Best of all, by framing this as a "game" rather than an aggressive act of sexual humiliation, the bully gets to insulate himself against any such obvious accusations. He's not a bully, he's just playing a joke; he's not gay, he's just having a laugh at the queers; and if you get pissed off at having someone grope your genitals without your consent, well, your problem is you're the fag because you're obviously too turned on to get the joke.
A coat of wax can make hardwood floors delightsome.
I'm a little uncomfortable just reading that, text.
Is the argument that women never play around with faux-lesbianism?
But sometimes that Scotch-guard makes the floors lose their structural integrity and they start to retain water, and then who wants to walk on them at all? No one does.
tequila guard might be more important than scotch.
196: If they do, no one ever filled me in.
196: Sometimes they do, and for exactly the same reasons (when it's not actual gay interest or for male spectation). I find women can be ridiculously sexually aggressive without expressing actual sexual interest. It's a way of carving out hierarchies.
I solved for mud and got babies. Help.
199: Okay, maybe I'm alone in experiencing this, but I've been sexually bullied a lot by girls.
AWB -- What does woman on woman sexual bullying look like? Not the same grabbing each other's crotch thing the guys apparently do, I assume? I truly can't imagine it, though my naivete is legendary.
boob or butt grabbing or other fondling. Kissing, etc.
Will, is that woman on woman bullying or just a run-of-the-mill male woman on woman fantasy?
201: You're gonna need professional help with that, hon. Unfortunately the industry's highly regulated, so depending on where you live it might be hard to find someone.
I've never had another woman grab my tit. I do have friends who'll occasionally do a li'l goosing though.
The issue here was men playing gay chicken, taking it to the point where one is uncomfortable.
It is my belief that women do similar things, kiss or fondle to the point of making one uncomfortable. It is al just playing around until one person says, "Stop there."
193: This seems like a plausible account, and I believe it must happen a lot, now. But I believe it must be fairly new, within the last generation or so, since gay became so high-profile. I was also an enlisted soldier, and never encountered this form of bullying there either.
What's the basis of your belief, though? Seriously, never had a girlfriend kiss or fondle me for the fun of making me uncomfortable. But then, my teammates also didn't haze. I'm starting to wonder if I live in the same universe as anyone else here.
211: Honestly, I don't think women compete or tease each other this way. For one thing, the aggressor would be shamed far more than the aggressee.
I don't really understand it; it just happens. Girls I know will get up in my face like they're squaring off for a boxing match and then kiss me really hard, in an unpleasant way, holding me by the back of my neck. I'm open about not being totally straight, which maybe means I am every woman's mannequin-head to make out with, but it's totally non-consentual and completely unsexy. Or they'll just ask, publicly and hostilely, "Why won't you fuck me?" and I will explain, nicely, that I think they're being hostile and that one catches more flies with honey, etc. This, of course, results in further hostility.
I.e., I'm totally into sex with chicks, but I'm not into getting power-raped by someone with a bone to pick.
I think it's a lot more common for girls to just flirt with each other a little bit than it is to cross the line into groping.
In other news, I am proud to be the 69th member of the Flickr group!
"Or they'll just ask, publicly and hostilely, 'Why won't you fuck me?'"
This, totally.
217: Not that I'm really adding anything that Strasmangelo Jones didn't already say in 193, but I really can't see any motivation for these sort of games beyond the "power rape" thrill of bullying.
216: Sounds like you're hanging out with jerks.
AWB gets hit on constantly by confrontational, arrogant women and men!
I don't think the behavior in 217 is analagous to the ball touching games or whatever. The thing about those games is that they are totally not-dominating.
223: Not constantly, just exclusively.
Humanities grad students. With many brushes will I be tarred, but not with that one.
224: I'm not buying the "totally non-dominating" claim. The "game" was being referred to above as "gay chicken." You apparenly "win" by being the one who wasn't made to feel uncomfortable. That sounds like a form of domination to me.
A little research, people. Gay chicken. You have to watch the whole thing, because the dynamic changes.
In fact, there are over 300 gay chicken clips on youtube.
Jesus, these are hilarious. This guy masturbates his friend in an effort to prevail.
I sent you guys a bunch of pictures of kittens fighting.
Jeez, those videos look like rapist training to me.
The entire point is to push another person past their comfort level to "win."
So gay chicken makes sense to me now. Guys are always playing stupid who-can-do-unpleasant-thing-x-the-longest games, and this is a twist on those. Not that I'm going to play.
Those links are a bunch of imitators. Here's the professional gay chicken combatants.
And then you mock and shame them for saying no.
Dude, you should warn people with links like that.
Rape is, yes, often an extreme form of the bullying act.
244: In all seriousness, I think that pressuring people to go beyond their comfort levels sexually is a Very Bad Thing to do.
You're defining "sexually" pretty broadly, B.
I'd never heard of gay chicken until today but I do remember playing a game (with guys and girls) that involved one person having to try to keep from smiling/laughing for as long as possible and the other person doing whatever they possibly could to get them to smile/laugh. Early rounds usually started with funny faces, etc. but later ones would end up with guy on guy lapdances and such.
I define groping someone's genitals as sexual.
Although I do think that any kind of physical shit that keeps going when someone says stop is bad--and as a corollary, I think that non-sexual physical affection is really important, but that the way to be comfortable with it is to know that the other person will stop if you get uncomfortable.
That seems a little extreme, B. Some of the impulses, very broadly construed, are on a continuum with some of the impulses you'd need to decide to rape someone, in that yes, a rapist probably wants to make his victims uncomfortable, but the differences seem strong enough that 'rapist training video' seems needlessly hyperbolic. What's wrong about it is how much contemporary masculinity is defined as 'not gay', not that they're polishing up their rape technique.
For one, these sorts of games are usually tacitly consensual, in that a guy certainly wouldn't pull it on a stranger, but a buddy or teammate as part of some bizarre bonding ritual. It seems to have more in common with stupid boasting or stupid challenges like holding wasabi in your mouth until someone quits than straight bullying.
I define groping someone's genitals as sexual.
You are, generally, allowed to stop well before that. Unless your friends are dicks, they'll respect the idiosyncratic boundaries you give them.
I'm not saying, for god's sake, that the specific men in those specific videos are going to go out and rape someone. I'm saying that a culture in which part of masculinity involves pushing people past their comfort point is a rape culture, and fucked up.
Cala is right. This is not something you do to your enemies (to a bully, the people he bullies are his enemies). This is something you do to your friends.
Presumably it's a process of establishing subtle, ineffable levels of dominance within the group of friends or something, but it's within the group of friends.
I can see how there is some desensitization that happens when you get used to the act of touching someone who is giving all physical signs of not wanting you to do it. When you see panic in someone's eyes, it's usually good if that inspires you to take a step back, not feel like you can "win" somehow with a hand in the pants.
Yeah, and a lot of date rape is shit guys do to women they like. Come on.
I'm saying that a culture in which part of masculinity involves pushing people past their comfort point is a rape culture, and fucked up.
By this definition, every culture that has ever existed is a rape culture, and fucked up. And because rape takes place in every culture, that statement would be correct. And it's not just a part of "masculinity", it's part of "adulthood", or to kids of both genders it's part of "not being a baby". So what are you saying?
I'm saying that a culture in which part of masculinity involves pushing people past their comfort point is a rape culture, and fucked up.
How is it any different from any other kind of teasing that is intended to make the teased say,"Stop"?
256: I think it depends a lot on how you do it. Mocking kids for being a baby is, imho, shitty. And you can encourage people to challenge their boundaries supportively.
254 makes sense, I hadn't thought of it in terms of "desensitization". I agree that it isn't good for people to get better and better at pressuring others into things.
Look, I'm reacting specifically to the videos Ogged linked. In two out of the three, the "losers" are clearly uncomfortable long before the game stops. And the winners are hostile and mocking about it. Shit, the first guy turns really mean and ugly after he "wins."
257: Teasing is great, but once someone starts seeming unhappy, you stop--whether or not they actually *say* stop, right? What LB said in 254.
I am not LB.
I think we underestimate the natural aversion to suffering that people have. It takes a lot of socialization to make an "adult," and 9/10s of that socialization is learning not to respond to compassionate impulses or personal desires for comfort and safety.
Is it really desensitizing? The game wouldn't exist if the taboo weren't strong, and since the game is consensual and by definition ends when one person becomes uncomfortable enough to act, I don't really see the problem.
Not desensitizing to teh gay, but desensitizing to the desire not to make another person feel violated.
Part of the problem is with what you mean by "consensual," right? E.g., clearly the guy in the first video, with the hat on, did NOT want to play. And I'd say that yeah, pushing past someone's body language when they're uncomfortable is not a healthy thing to do.
Yeah, but there's another sense in which it heightens the awareness of discomfort.
265: now you're objecting to boy's games in general. Fine. Pointless.
I mean, think about sports. You want to push yourself, but you also want to be very attentive to your body, because you *don't* want to push yourself to the point of injury. Learning to read and respond appropriately to body language is pretty important.
There's an argument to be made that a lot of boy's "games" are fucked up. But no, I'm not objecting to games in general, and I think you know that.
Christ those are uncomfortable to watch. Those games are a suckers bet. Some of those guys seem obviously bi or closeted.
I, for one, feel like my friends in Cleveland, who hosted frequent makeout parties, did me a disservice by making me feel, now, like it's perfectly appropriate to kiss people. I don't do it, but it often occurs to me that, in another time and place, I'd totally smooch someone with whom I was having a friendly conversation, and I restrain myself.
It wasn't violent or wrong for me to do so to begin with, but while some people don't think of kissing until there's magic in the air or whatever, I tend to think of it along with, "Oh, is it Thursday already?" That's desensitization.
In other news, I wager that Ogged and I are both getting a bit tired, and that if we keep arguing about this one of us will get pissed off.
First one to lose their temper loses!
pushing past someone's body language when they're uncomfortable is not a healthy thing to do.
It teaches people to stand up for themselves. Otherwise you just get a bunch of pansies.
Now, now, Cala. You can play the winner.
I can't believe you have a sibling, B. That's the first place you learn to do this shit.
Otherwise you just get a bunch of pansies.
Seriously, I kind of had that though with some of those vids.
Ugh, wedgies? Boys are sick.
Girls just tease each other until someone develops an eating disorder.
The fact that it's a big part of our culture and we all do it doesn't mean it doesn't help perpetuate rape, doofus. There are for instance arguments (which I believe) that teaching girls, in particular, to be nice and accomodating when they're not happy about something trains them to ignore their sense of self-preservation and makes it easier for them to become victims.
The fact that it's a big part of our culture and we all do it doesn't mean it doesn't help perpetuate rape, doofus.
That it's a big part of our culture and there are a deplorable number of rapes does not mean that the first contributes to the second, either. I'm not altogether crazy about the way this sort of teasing manifests, but I think blaming it for rape is a bit much.
Those arguments sound pretty obvious/convincing to me. We all hear about the college-kid date-rape defendent who sounds pretty sincere when he says that the woman didn't show nearly as many signs of distress as he thought a woman being raped would show.
In that way, if everyone consistently displayed obvious unhappiness when they were feeling unhappy, we could detect the true assholes as those who try to produce unhappiness in others and push others to leave their comfort zone.
We all hear about the college-kid date-rape defendent who sounds pretty sincere when he says that the woman didn't show nearly as many signs of distress as he thought a woman being raped would show.
I don't know what this means. If she said "No" or something similar, that's pretty much the only sign she needs to show. She doesn't even need to say it with a voice tinged with distress.
If she doesn't say it in a voice tinged with distress, she doesn't sound like she's in distress.
I think what we're saying is, consent is given or denied by more than the presence or absence of the word "no." It's usually first denied by a look of fear, a body that twists away, tensed muscles, etc. Sensitivity to these cues is an important thing for people to develop.
Who cares? She said, "No." Even if she said it with malice, it means "no."
If you've internalized the "No means no" message, then "No" means "no". If you haven't, then, like every other word in the language, it depends on the context. 285 explains it better.
It's usually first denied by a look of fear, a body that twists away, tensed muscles, etc. Sensitivity to these cues is an important thing for people to develop.
Which they will or they won't by normal human socialization. But saying "no" makes everything nice and clear. If you're uncomfortable--in any situation--say so. You can expect people to read your emotional semaphore, but you're likely to be disappointed.
If you haven't, then, like every other word in the language, it depends on the context.
At this point in time, if one hasn't yet internalized it, he has no business dating.
If you've internalized the "No means no" message, then "No" means "no". If you haven't
... then, at least in contemporary North American culture, you're a headcase.
This thing about the word "no" on its own being sufficient is a red herring. If you just say one word in that situation, you're behaving abnormally. If you say "Seriously, I'm really uncomfortable right now, I'm not at all horny, and I want you to stop", then any well-intentioned person will stopppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppSubcloning via limiting-dilution plates in conditioned media
For each of these subclones (counted yesterday), spun down a 250K-cell pellet for DNA, and 500K-cell pellet for RNA:
23 1D5 1G5 2A5 2A6 2D4 2D5 2D6 2G6 2H6
26 1A5 1B7 1B8 1C8 2B5 2B6 2D8
Subcloning via limiting-dilution plates in conditioned media
For each of these subclones (counted yesterday), spun down a 250K-cell pellet for DNA, and 500K-cell pellet for RNA:
23 1D5 1G5 2A5 2A6 2D4 2D5 2D6 2G6 2H6
26 1A5 1B7 1B8 1C8 2B5 2B6 2D8
My keyboard is falling apart.
Yeah, and if people say no, as in "fuck no, I don't want to play" and you tease or pressure them into it, then you're learning to ignore no.
Yeah, and if people say no, as in "fuck no, I don't want to play" and you tease or pressure them into it, then you're learning to ignore no.
If you're unable to distinguish between, for example, teasing someone by keeping a ball away from them, and sex, then you probably shouldn't be dating. Most people don't have that problem. Generally, people are pretty sensitive to the difference between fucking and other things. That's all anecdotal, though.
Well yeah, rapists shouldn't be dating. Saying that doesn't solve the problem, though.
If you just say one word in that situation, you're behaving abnormally.
If you don't, at minimum, pause for clarification on hearing the word "no," you're behaving abnormally.
Tim, you're just baiting someone to say "Rape isn't just about sex, sometimes it's much more about exerting power". So I'll say it. Even date rape, bearing some vague resemblance to a couple's normal sex life, is often by a man against a woman he despises.
But I completely agree with the third paragraph of 291.
I genuinely don't understand what the fuck people are saying now. So a guy rapes a woman and says, "Well, look, I grew up playing gay chicken, so how could you expect better?" That's a defense? Or even mitigating?
I can't believe I go away for a while, and come back to find that you people have crapped up a perfectly frivolous thread with seriousness.
Also, 291: Damn, dude. Do something about that. Can't be having outbursts like that right here in public.
Even date rape, bearing some vague resemblance to a couple's normal sex life, is often by a man against a woman he despises.
I have no idea how that bears on anything.
"Most people" is a pretty meaningless defense. Most people don't rape, sure, but even if one in every 500 people I meet lacks the ability to know what's going on in sex, then I've met a damn lot of rapists. And based on my experience of the dating pool, there are a ridiculous number of single guys who think it's perfectly appropriate to touch and poke and squeeze and shame a girl who is giving every signal that it's not okay until they get the Clear "Don't Rape Me" Response. No one wants to have to constantly be pulling out the "Don't Rape Me" line.
I've been in enough situations with otherwise totally nice and friendly-seeming guys, with whom I'm getting long just fine but with whom I'm not interested in having sex, when they've gradually moved from one kind of unwanted touching (shoulder) to another (knee). I can pull away, make an unhappy face, show my displeasure, still not wanting to give the big "Don't Rape Me" line because it's overdramatic, and found them unperturbed. By the time I give the explicit "Get your fucking hands off me," it's because I've already been totally molested. Are you saying that, in the middle of dinner when the guy gently puts a hand on mine, even when I'm only mildly bothered, I should say "NO. DON'T DO THAT," and walk out? I'm just saying, it's always complex, and even for a woman who's really clear and confident (which is not that common), it's nearly impossible to know when is the appropriate moment to say, "Get the fuck away from me."
Gay chicken. Somewhat frustrated.
And based on my experience of the dating pool, there are a ridiculous number of single guys who think it's perfectly appropriate to touch and poke and squeeze and shame a girl who is giving every signal that it's not okay until they get the Clear "Don't Rape Me" Response.
Didn't you previously say that you normally attract assholes? I don't know how we're supposed to program around that; they're assholes.
. Are you saying that, in the middle of dinner when the guy gently puts a hand on mine, even when I'm only mildly bothered, I should say "NO. DON'T DO THAT," and walk out?
Or you could say, "Slow down, cowboy" or some such similar. If he stops, keep eating. If he doesn't, yeah, definitely walk out.
That is, I think the "no means no" rhetoric makes something that's actually very complex for the rapee sound like it's very clear to the rapist. "Well, she acts like my hand is a cold wet fish when I press it to her various body parts, but I'm just going to keep sticking it wherever I can until she says the word "no." Okay, it might distinguish between "rape" and "not rape," but it doesn't help to prevent the kind of soft sexual assault that most women experience on a fairly regular basis.
kay, it might distinguish between "rape" and "not rape," but it doesn't help to prevent the kind of soft sexual assault that most women experience on a fairly regular basis.
You're allowed to say "Quit it" well short of penetration.
I don't know how we're supposed to program around that; they're assholes.
I guess I'm just asking for it then. I'm totally pwned there. I guess people who get molested by assholes get what's coming to them.
I'm totally pwned there. I guess people who get molested by assholes get what's coming to them.
I'm not saying you're asking for it. I'm saying that there are such things as "assholes" and we shouldn't deform the culture, or make strong judgments about it, based on them. They're assholes. I'm saying that most guys will, in fact, respond to twitches. Of those that don't, most will respond to "Quit it." If you're claiming otherwise, we strongly disagree. If we're worried about 1 in 500--gawd, I don't know, but you may just have to walk out of the restaurant (that's not snark). It's hard to program a solution to the hidden asshole.
SCMT, it's not like "assholes" = "rapists" = a certain type of disease-brained men who might could be avoided entirely. Every man has made unwanted advances at a woman, even if only following her around at a party, or asking her out awkwardly. Often this involves unwanted touching, and the woman finds ways to deflect these unwanted things and resolve the awkwardness without making a big stink about it. In a world where men are the pursuers and women the pursued, the woman can't react as if it's a potential rape every time a man does something stupid that makes her feel awkward. Even if they're in a private room, she doesn't want to have a hair trigger like that.
All I'm saying, Tim, is that every single woman I know older than 23 has been touched inappropriately by strangers in unwelcome ways. You may never have done this, and good for you; keep it up! But you can't assume that every man in the world has a clear awareness of boundaries, or that everything done up until the word "no" is heard is something that woman is totally happy to have done to her. The women I hang out with are not undereducated self-loathing girls afraid to say peep to big powerful men; they're strong, confident, self-aware women who take care of themselves really well. But men who touch women in ways they don't want to be touched are really good at making it very hard for them to know when the situation has gotten dangerous enough to respond to.
There's a continuum between assholes and non-assholes. Most of us are assholes in the right situation. For me, sometimes I am when I'm giving a speech to younger people who I imagine are hanging on my every word. Some men can be assholes at an early stage in a romantic relationship, but soften up later on once they have to become vulnerable in private situations. For some men, it's the opposite, they become assholes when they gain the certain amount of power that comes with being trusted.
every single woman I know older than 23 has been touched inappropriately by strangers in unwelcome ways.
Really, strangers? I wasn't talking about strangers. In that case, I'd react with the hair trigger right away.
In a world where men are the pursuers and women the pursued, the woman can't react as if it's a potential rape every time a man does something stupid that makes her feel awkward.
And, in fact, that's what usually happens--she gives indications she's not interested, and he leaves her alone. So things seem to be working. If not, she scales up until he leaves. Are there going to be awkward moments in life relating to sex? Yeah. It's a learn by experience process. But people, in general, do seem to learn.
I'm trying to navigate a situation like this with a guy I know from school. At times, it seems like he's just someone with a crush who sometimes drunkenly puts the moves on me. But at other times, he seems kind of scary and obsessed, unable to control himself and potentially dangerous. He's smart, good-looking, and not someone I wouldn't date if he didn't creep me the fuck out on a regular basis. So when I say hi to him at a party and he turns my handshake into a hug, the hug into a kiss, and the kiss into a vague feel-up, at what point do I say, "Don't you ever fucking touch me again"?
But men who touch women in ways they don't want to be touched are really good at making it very hard for them to know when the situation has gotten dangerous enough to respond to.
Yeah, I know what you're talking about. I'm not sure what to do about that. Those guys aren't oblivious; they know what they're doing and just don't care. That requires intervention, somehow.
So when I say hi to him at a party and he turns my handshake into a hug, the hug into a kiss, and the kiss into a vague feel-up, at what point do I say, "Don't you ever fucking touch me again"?
That's a pretty good example. I can totally see that happening. Again, I don't know. But either (a) he knows it makes you uncomfortable and he doesn't care, or (b) he somehow doesn't realize it's inappropriate. It's not, it seems to me, analogous to "gay chicken"; that is, it's not true that he's hugging you and making you uncomfortable as a form of teasing.
That's sucks, dude. My sympathies. Guys are pigs.
There are certain checkpoints at which the advance should not be continued unless it's reciprocated with enthusiasm. Going for the feel-up, when only the handshake has been reciprocated, sounds like it would have bypassed at least 2 of those checkpoints. The problem is that these "signals not to proceed" manifest not as the woman actually doing anything, but as her not doing anything, so a guy who is sufficiently delusional can easily convince himself that no signal has been sent.
In this situation he is relying on you -- nay, begging you -- for a more direct, unequivocal, verbal signal. Unfortunately this is awkward, but sometimes necessary.
My mistake, the "more direct" signal doesn't have to be verbal. Sharply moving his hands back to where they're supposed to be seems like it would suffice.
It's also complicated by the fact that the first five or six times I saw him, he told stories about various women rejecting his advances and how it shows that they are racist, afraid of him as a black man. And I agreed with him; based on his description of the situation, it sounded like there was some latent racism under their responses. Now, of course, I'm hamstrung because I am genuinely afraid of him as a man, and by the fact that I used to flirt with him before he got all grabby with me. He feels like I've consented to this kind of relationship, and I'm not sure how to de-consent. I've already slapped him once (in response to a particularly egregious situation), and said no, in friendly ways, many times.
That is, I think a more dramatic response would be both undesirably socially hostile to him in our friend-group, and also something he wouldn't take seriously as a criticism of his behavior. I'd been hoping we could have an academic-to-academic conversation about it, but it always escalates beyond that point.
He feels like I've consented to this kind of relationship, and I'm not sure how to de-consent. I've already slapped him once (in response to a particularly egregious situation), and said no, in friendly ways, many times.
Holy shit, you're getting into restraining order territory.
Well, he doesn't contact me. He just shows up to things.
Does he do this to other people? It seems like he may have actually internalized the "no" message, and is aware that you will not respond favorably to his advances, but he is now getting back at you by teasing you in front of mutual friends. Is that possible? This would be a manifestation of the bullying urge rather than the caveman-like MAN WANT WOMAN urge.
Yeah, restraining order territory. That generally results from cases in which bullying has replaced sexual desire, or it results from insanity.
he told stories about various women rejecting his advances and how it shows that they are racist, afraid of him as a black man.
IME, these types of stories are always total horseshit. It's something non white assholes tell themselves and others to avoid admitting they creep chicks out.
Frankly, since I have no idea what I'm talking about, it was pretty pretentious to include the word "generally" in that sentence, so now I'm going to bed.
Anyhow, my point is, this guy is obviously pretty clueless about where the consent line stops, and I can imagine him thinking that consent is everything that happens until she says, "No, don't touch me," which has to be done anew in each situation, because one has to let a girl change her mind. Consent is whatever he wants to do in a given moment until he is told to fuck off, and making that telling difficult makes the consenting stuff extend further.
Gswift is right in 326. It may be that more people think of him as an "asshole who happens to be black" than you realize, and would not sympathize with his claims to be a victim of racism.
So does he do this to all the girls? If so, band up with them to plot against him. If not, it's somewhat scary.
324: He doesn't do it to anyone else. I think he's pretty unaware of how other people see him, in part because he's really neurotic about how people see him (asks about it constantly, etc.). The last time we were at a thing together, he brought his new girlfriend, whom he ignored horribly while he hit on me. The fact that I was obviously trying to get away made the girlfriend even more upset and she disappeared. Dude seemed totally oblivious, didn't even notice when she left the bar and went home. I should have gone with her, but he doesn't have the right to take me away from my other friends.
328: If you've slapped him--beyond repeatedly telling him no--and he remains aggressive, at a minimum, you should say,"What the fuck is wrong with you?" That's just wrong. And be around or near friends when you say it.
"No, don't touch me," which has to be done anew in each situation, because one has to let a girl change her mind. Consent is whatever he wants to do in a given moment until he is told to fuck off
Then the next time needs to be "I'm done telling you to stop touching me. Do it again and I'm calling the cops." Make him believe it. He knows damn well who the cops will believe in that situation.
330: My friends have seen him doing it to me and have decided to stop inviting him to things. It's hard to keep him from finding out and coming (and begging everyone to know why they didn't tell him about it). I dunno. None of us know when or how is the right time to say, "You have a problem."
Thanks for the commiseration. It will end up fine, I'm sure, but I just wanted to put forth that there are people out there for whom clear ideas of consent are not really a hindrance. It makes me think of that article about the designer who raped his models--he seems like the same kind of guy, confusing his own desire for others'.
332: When I tell him no, he apologizes profusely and baroquely, begs me to forgive him and offer friendship, backs up ten paces, and then starts moving back toward me an hour later. Yes, it's really psycho. He's not a lothario; he's just convinced himself that it's a normal crush.
Set him up with one of the women who's always nonconsensually kissing you.
Lesson learned: There is entirely too much sexual frustration in my graduate program. Everyone needs to spend some time jerking off before school-related events where alcohol will be served.
Here, at the Gay Chicken's Headquarters, we have been told again and again that these poor homosexual chickens are not being treated as well as the heterosexual chickens. Well, we have decided to put an end to that. We are speaking out publicly on behalf of these unhappy chickens. You may ask, "How are the gay chickens not being treated fairly?" And hey buddy, I'll tell you. Homosexual chickens everywhere are the butt of jokes in the chicken workplace, they are made to stand in the back of lines at the food processing plant, and they even are bullied by the larger chickens just because of their sexual preference.
As if to make us proud, there's a disclaimer at the end: "The owners of this site are not gay." Thus it comes full circle. Jerk.
326: Yes, exactly. It's also the kind of situation wherein whether the reaction is racially-motivated or not doesn't matter that much. Even if someone spots you the argument that her reaction to you is on some level racist, that still doesn't give you license to push the boundaries. Some people will not like you for shitty reasons. Such is life.
But men who touch women in ways they don't want to be touched are really good at making it very hard for them to know when the situation has gotten dangerous enough to respond to.
Huh? It would seem to me that the first part of that sentence describes actions that are sufficient to elicit a response - wtf does "danger" have to do with it?
But then, I was brought up in a different era, when little girls' daddies taught them to smile sweetly and tell the young gentlemen to remove their grimy meathooks or be prepared to suffer a swift kick in the balls. [Or maybe that was just my Daddy...]
Seriously, I don't understand how "strong, confident, self-aware women who take care of themselves really well" wouldn't respond, at least euphemistically, with something on that order. I found "touch me and die", with an edge in the voice, worked well in my salad days. As I hung out with immature nerdlings sporting pocket protectors and James Bond fantasies youths suffering from socially-appropriate-interaction deficiencies, it was at times useful.
This thread was about a men's issue (gay chicken: hilarious or no) and was totally hijacked by women who pointed out how it affected women too.
I do think that is funny, but only a little tiny bit.
"Lesson learned: There is entirely too much sexual frustration in my graduate program. Everyone needs to spend some time jerking off before school-related events where alcohol will be served. "
Get the Department Chair to send out a memo.
This image kind of reminded me of the image in this post, for some reason.
341: Kind of true. I leave as an exercise for the reader what did not happen when you pointed it out.
340: Because friendly social interaction these days often incorporates touching that's awfully close to sexual? If the standard greeting in a social group is a warm hug, the warm-hug-with-groping is tricky to object to without looking unreasonably touchy -- they don't look all that different to someone not getting groped, and the groper can plausibly plead accident.
If you don't mind being hugged by your friends and acquaintances generally, it gets socially difficult to single out a particular guy who isn't allowed to touch you -- it looks less like impartial enforcement of your physical comfort zone, and more like individual hostility. At some point, if someone's making you uncomfortable, you have to get hostile to make it stop, but it's not surprising that people are reluctant and avoidant about doing that.
what did not happen when you pointed it out
...at three in the morning...
Hey, we've got readers in other time zones, any one of whom could have berated him for getting huffy. And even in EST, I've been up and ready to comment for hours now, particularly now that I'm Blackberry enabled. (Well, kind of. I can comment from Opera, but I don't really have the hang of navigating with Opera yet, so it's tricky.)
Since we're on the subject, hijacked or no, of women getting harrassed, I would just like to relay what was shouted at me as I was waiting to cross the street at a mostly-empty intersection during late-daylight hours the other day: "Suck my dick, bitch!"
Anyone who thinks that sexual harrassment is about sexual desire and not misogyny and instilling fear is fucking kidding themselves.
any one of whom could have berated him for getting huffy
That would have been weird though, seeing as he didn't get huffy.
I think LB has fallen prey to the unfortunate and untrue stereotype that women are emotional, so the tenor of the comment really isn't at issue.
That would have been weird
Sure would have been, if it had happened, which it didn't.
It was actually pretty awesome, because I got pissed off and yelled out "What? What'd you say, motherfucker?" Dudes looked kind of scared as they sped away.
I love leblanc. (In a totally appropriate, non-threatening way.)
ZOMG, people, the kid in the middle is totally gay. (Note: I stopped reading around 100; if he showed up in the thread with pictures of his wife and kid then, I'm sorry, but this picture just became the illustration to accompany "how to spot a secretly gay husband" in the Unfoggepedia.) Actually, I just took a second look and I'm not totally sure. Still, I like the idea of the Unfoggepedia enough to leave this paragraph in on preview.
On the topic of gay chicken, that's totally not a homophobia thing. That's sexual play. Whether someone is doing it to demonstrate "how comfortable they are with their sexuality" or because they're curious or because they're bored, I'm pretty sure that any reasoning that results in "touching another dude's junk is a homophobic act!" is faulty. Call me crazy, but seriously, touching another dude's junk is not homophobia. I never knew of this as a formalized activity but I can tell you I got a heaping helping of straight guys over the course of college who basically wanted to see how far it could go before it got weird, or if it would get weird at all, and who were intrigued by the idea of just being playful with whatever degree of fluidity there was in their sexuality. I'm pretty sure this is why there were same-sex-but-heterosexual games of strip poker in college, because young people are horny and curious and sometimes they will take whatever is available as a means to engage those desires.
teofilo, don't worry about when. You'll get a card in the mail, it's kind of like Selective Service registration, just fill it out and send it back and you'll be called on when your gay nation needs you.
"teofilo, don't worry about when. You'll get a card in the mail, it's kind of like Selective Service registration, just fill it out and send it back and you'll be called on when your gay nation needs you."
Ok, that made me laugh out loud.
I got a heaping helping of straight guys over the course of college
Everybody was hella drunk so I can't remember who ended up winning, but I do know that gay chicken makes your ass hurt for a couple of days.
360: I wasn't there, obviously, but it sounds like everyone was a winner.
So my problem with the "gay-chicken-is-rape-training" argument seems to boil down to this: either it's an interesting claim, but false, or utterly trivial. No one's saying that practicing gay chicken leads young men to ignore the signals of their female dates and they end up date raping them. Because that seems to be obviously false. So let's not fight the strawman. What do we have left? Doesn't seem to be a good argument, either, for saying "this is how men learn to ignore non-verbal signals" because the whole premise of the game is paying attention to those signals so you know how best to annoy your buddy. And it seems pretty significant that this isn't done against strangers (silly Cala, that's why it's training for date rape.)
Alright, fair enough, it's not a claim about training
.
So now we're left with this sort of nebulous claim about a rape culture, to which of course, everything contributes. The thing is, there is an interesting issue here, about how games of chicken, or more generally, games of competitiveness over stupid things create masculinity. And of course, masculinity and ideas of it lead generally to rape. But that's really a stretch of the word "training" ("not training" would be closer), and there's maybe some interesting concrete claims about straight men and why being gay would be a good subject for a game of one-upmanship.
I think early heterosexual activity is similar to gay chicken:
"how far will she let me go?"
When I was a young man, I wasn't really thinking that the girl might want sex more than me. It was a constant wonder of what she would agree for us to do. (Although, ultimately, my de-flowering occurred bc of my gf was the one pushing to go farther.)
I think young men think of young women as the gatekeepers of whether sex will happen.
AWB, speak up to the grad student annoying you. His problem is that he gets drunk , clueless gropey, not that he's black, right? You could probably even tell him some variation on that if you're really annoyed with him ("hey, you know how you were saying all those girls didn't like you because you were black? I'm thinking it's because you think grabbing their boobs is a good way to say hello") or just move his hands.
You know, I do get a sense of what Bitch is talking about, and AWB picked up, although I'd think of things like this as creating an expectation of 'willingness to be victimized' as proof that you're a good sport, rather than exactly as rape training.
The 'Where do I draw the line, and stop tolerating something that makes me frightened or unhappy and start defending myself' question is a real one -- back in college, the bad experiences people I knew had, some of which culminated in undesired sex, happened to women who felt as if they'd missed the window where they were allowed to object: self-defense felt premature until it seemed to be too late.
A game like this is a statement that defending yourself makes you a weak loser -- winning means letting people do whatever they want to you. And if people take that expectation away from the game, and expect people to demonstrate their strength and gameness by their willingness to take abuse, that can turn into social pressure to accept being victimized.
This is all overserious, there are probably only fifteen people out there in the real world playing gay chicken, and Pants is probably right that it's mostly about mildly bicurious guys getting a chance to fondle each other without having to admit that they're not there for the hunting. But I do think the "Don't be a wimp, take the invasion of your comfort zone without flinching" ethos exists, and it does result in expecting people to allow themselves to be victimized in arenas where it's not all in good fun.
364: Cala, she's slapped him already, as well as communicating verbally. It's not that she isn't communicating, it's that he's not listening.
. And if people take that expectation away from the game, and expect people to demonstrate their strength and gameness by their willingness to take abuse, that can turn into social pressure to accept being victimized.
This would be a better argument if we were worried about the number of young men being date raped.
I can see how it would create that atmosphere of "if you say no, you lose!" but I also have to assume that there is a context to the game being played by those fifteen people and it should be taken into account. If it's a sincerely all-in-good-fun, no-shame-in-saying-no laff(tm) fest, that's one thing; if it's some guy who's just going to touch you no matter what and is going to pressure his friends into letting him fondle them, well, that's at least sexual assault.
Yeah, somehow I missed the slap. Jesus. Shunning, or having a girlfriend jump in if he shows up; maybe being called on it by someone who isn't the recipient of the grope would help.
But I do think the "Don't be a wimp, take the invasion of your comfort zone without flinching" ethos exists, and it does result in expecting people to allow themselves to be victimized in arenas where it's not all in good fun.
I'll grant the ethos and the tiny grain of truth (it's pretty trivial that masculinity has something to do with rape.) What I'm not seeing is the causality for that second expectation, because you only do gay chicken in an arena where it's pretty much explicit that it's in good fun. If anything, your account of it should mean that men more likely to be victimized, because you win at the game by being the one that doesn't flinch.
I think it's a lot closer to pushing the boundaries on sexuality than it is to anything like teaching people how to ignore others' comfort.
Seriously. 368 is the right spin on 365 (and probably the intervening 200 comments I haven't read). AWB can speak up (and maybe has), but I bet most assuredly there's no "shame" is begging out early in gay chicken. The "loser" gets bragging rights about being the least gay, etc. All three times in human history this game has probably actually been played, I'm sure there was no lingering "take the invasion of your comfort zone without flinching" sentiment after the game. I'd be surprised if it weren't the "winner" who typically ended up taking the most post-game ribbing.
We never played "gay chicken", but in chigh school me and my friends would often dry hump each other. I always thought it was about proving comfortability with homosexuality, since none of the "gay people are bad" people every played, and they always got really creeped out.
Also in high school i wore pink shirts (both polo and button up) and got called 'gay' for doing so at least once a day.
During my brief stint at a severely geekified residential high school, we had a speaker come and talk to all the young men about how to check your testicles for suspicious lumps. Thereafter, it was not uncommon to grab an unsuspecting guy's junk as you passed in the hall and loudly announce: "TESTICLE CHECK!"
At the time it did seem the very pinnacle of humor.
367: But if you think of it as training guys who really aren't rapists, and would back off at the words "Don't Rape Me", to keep pushing women and get hostile and indignant when the women try to gently reject advances, because only weak wimpy people who don't know how to play object when someone makes them uncomfortable, then it makes sense, right? Gay chicken teaches (can teach, might teach, I don't want to overstate this but it's hard to talk with the continual caveating necessary) that a woman who says, in your words "'Slow down, cowboy' or some such similar" is a weak loser who's unworthy of your respect. And she can pick up that opinion, and is going to be more reluctant to establish her boundaries, if she knows that's going to get her treated with contempt.
371- it sounds like maybe you are gay.
371: The pink polo shirt seems to be a more recent trend for straight guys, so much so that if I saw a guy wearing a pink polo shirt, I'd think frat brother rather than gay.
Gay chicken teaches (can teach, might teach, I don't want to overstate this but it's hard to talk with the continual caveating necessary) cannot possibly teach that a woman who says, in your words "'Slow down, cowboy' or some such similar" is a weak loser who's unworthy of your respect.
Again, I think the idea that there' any sort of shame in losing this game is fiction.
A (male, straight) friend of mine told me this story about his graduate program (in one of the twee corners of the humanities): one of the gay grad students came up to him at a party and basically gave him a little tongue, contrary to my friend's desires. Then the gay guy was all "what's funny about this is that if you complain about it, you look like a homophobe." It was one of the more obnoxious leveragings of otherness.
Also, like every other man-game involves responding just as viciously to any attack. If someone insults your mom, you insult their mom & grandmom. These games aren't about learnign to 'submit and not object to violations.'
Gay chicken teaches [...] that a woman who says
Color me doubtful that gay chicken teaches anything about women whatsoever.
That crossed with a bunch of stuff. I'm not committed to saying that gay chicken actually fits into the rape thing. But there is social pressure on (mostly young) women not to establish and defend their boundaries, because it makes you a prissy coward, and that pressure, which comes from all sorts of people most of whom aren't rapists, makes rape easier and more likely.
I never knew anyone who played gay chicken in real life, it's probably mostly about the fondling, and so on. But I could see how it might, possibly, fit into that same pattern, of pressuring people to demonstrate strength, or coolness, or something by accepting abuse.
I think it's a lot closer to pushing the boundaries on sexuality than it is to anything like teaching people how to ignore others' comfort.
Exactly. It's about finding the edge of one's friend's cockcomfort zone and checking out how things look from there.
I think that we should enroll AWB in a convent so that weird shit stops happening to her.
380 et al: on the other hand, it puts men in the position of being viscerally aware of the discomfort involved in having their boundaries crossed. One might think this is beneficial with the same degree of breezy plausibilty.
I originally had the core concept of 383 on my 381 but felt like it might be too flippant.
Also, 377 makes me very angry and sad. Thanks, anonymous tongue-slipper, for setting the movement back by a few decades.
Perhaps someone here has the answer to this question:
Have girls become more of the initiators of sexual activity?
Certainly, someone must have studied this issue.
I ask because I hear a lot of people talk about how the girls are doing a lot more of the overt pursuing than when I was a teenager.
I swear i was on the cutting edge of that trend. I've quit wearing polos the last few years, and teh pink ones were the first to get mothballed.
I'm only gay in my mancrush on morrisey. And my purple underpants.
383/384:
Isn't that the issue that we see when a man assaults another man bc of an alleged gay touching or come on?
The reaction seems muted.
She'd look so damn cute in one of them nun outfits. After she escapes the convent and its unspeakable horrors, she could become the Maria Monk of our time.
there is social pressure on (mostly young) women not to establish and defend their boundaries, because it makes you a prissy coward
That's the thing about teasing, though, at least with guys--it's about learning to defend your boundaries without seeming like a prissy coward. Which is not a trivial skill.
RMcMP, I think the core idea itself is not at all flippant. I remember being freaked out by the ripped men on fitness magazine covers and then feeling a lot more empathy for women who feel encroached on by unrealistic physical ideals, and in general vivid awareness of another's role can make appropriate responses more likely.
Tongue-guy is just demonstrating that gay people, like all other sorts of people, are capable of being complete jerks. No more soft bigotry of low expectations for teh gays!
I'm blaming date rape on teh gays from here on out.
But there is social pressure on (mostly young) women not to establish and defend their boundaries, because it makes you a prissy coward, and that pressure, which comes from all sorts of people most of whom aren't rapists, makes rape easier and more likely.
We're abstracting a lot of relevant stuff out--the sort of community you run with, etc.--and you're much better positioned as a woman to know what women are taught, but the above seems descriptively inaccurate. I've known a few women like leblanc--that is, aggressive and even happy to defend boundaries--and no one I knew seemed to think they were prissy cowards. Maybe "man-hating shrews," but even then, that was an opinion limited to those people that the women really disliked for good and relevant reasons. In part, I guess I want to say that it's probably useful for women to know that there is more support for them when they defend such boundaries than apparently is realized. As a general rule, in a dispute between a man and a woman about whether a man's behavior was inappropriate, tie--at least among the people I know--goes to the woman. That's part of the reason we've had so many prior threads that discussed male fears about being accused of inappropriate behavior.
It is like men always have to say whats on their mind and what they're feeling.
380: Like I said, I don't think this gets us to "it contributes to rape culture" through any other route than "general features of masculinity contribute to rape culture" which is true, but trivially so, in that there's no real response to that except to frown meaningfully so everyone knows you're appropriately solemn about rape.
After a cursory scan of all 3-zillion comments here I'm really confused now: fratboy-types take goofy pictures like that because gay chickens date-rape them? Gay hens or gay cocks?
390: I'll buy the "vivid awareness of another's role" thing but I still can't really see as non-flippant the resulting suggestion that guys should molest one another to learn what it's like to be a victim, which is what I was going to suggest.
Naturally, guys should molest one another for my entertainment not their own education.
And I hate the men's magazine covers and you're right, that was a way for me to gain some tiny sense of what it must be like for women who can't turn around for the unrealistic images being shown everywhere, in everything.
But there is social pressure on (mostly young) women not to establish and defend their boundaries, because it makes you a prissy coward,
Is this new or is it a geographical thing? Maybe there's something to be said for raising a girl in the Deep South; my daughter was expected to remain polite even as she shot someone's balls off if he didn't back off at the first hint.
398: Further details. I was unaware that door-to-door meat salesman was an actual job.
Unless that's a euphamism, I'd love it if someone can to my door offering me fresh meat.
Unless that's a euphamism, I'd love it if someone came to my door offering me fresh meat.
Unless that's a euphamism, I'd love it if someone came to my door offering me fresh meat.
Unless that's a euphamism, I'd love it if someone came to my door offering me fresh meat.
Whoa. I blame the matriarchy!
Would you like to sample my fresh meat, Brock?
Remember, if you say "no," that means you're gay.
Ogged, there's nothing gay about enjoying another man's meat.
341: Just to kill the humor here, Tweety, I have to point out the rather obvious distinction. Yeah, sure, gay chicken veered into rape culture and the issues of defending famale boundaries. But AFTER we pretty much all spent a couple of hundred comments acknowledging that gay chicken didn't seem to make much sense and trying (pretty sincerely for the most part) to understand why exactly anyone would play this "game."
When the leading explanation seemed to be something along the lines of guys using humiliation of each other to establish who the alpha dog is, a couple women pointed out that the described dynamic really seems to be a muted form of bullying, which is the same sort of dynamic that leads to things like rape and sexual harassment.
If this were going to be a "hey, you guys did the same thing," thing, then we would have needed a couple of women by around comment 14 or 15 saying stuff like, "Maybe I've never played gay chicken, but it's totally the same thing as when women make catty comments about each other's makeup."
That's the thing about teasing, though, at least with guys--it's about learning to defend your boundaries without seeming like a prissy coward. Which is not a trivial skill
I'll grant you this, but confess I've always been lousy at it and resentful of it. And unless you're going to put the time when this teasing/training occurs way back in childhood, when charges of prissy cowardice are thrown about very indiscriminately, that's not what the person like me who reacts badly to teasing gets treated as. More like "stuck up" "not one of us" "not to be trusted" "asshole."
If this were going to be a "hey, you guys did the same thing," thing, then we would have needed a couple of women by around comment 14 or 15 saying stuff like, "Maybe I've never played gay chicken, but it's totally the same thing as when women make catty comments about each other's makeup."
Or, you know, #260, which is when the apparently objectionable comment went up. Don't let me slow your roll, though.
I enjoyed Chopper's meat after UnfoggeDCon.
You don't have to kill the humor, if you don't want to.
If I were going to address this seriously, and I'm really not, I would say that trying to get rid of alpha dog-type games among guys is a fool's errand, and further that I don't think those kind of games have much of anything to do with a "rape culture," per se. I suppose at some point gay chicken could be used for bullying, if that's what you were trying to accomplish. But I think it mostly is not used for that, and I think 9 times out of 10, if two guys were playing gay chicken and one kept going past the other's comfort zone, the discomfited one would punch the other dude in the arm or wander off for more beer, and that'd be the end of it.
In any case I don't think it has anything to do with how those guys would treat women. But that's just me, carry on.
P.S. I obviously realize that, even if 341 were an exactly accurate description of the situation, it wouldn't be remotely the same as dudes hijacking every online conversation about feminism ever. Obviously.
415 -- So wait. The "objectionable" coment is the one that starts off, "Look, I'm reacting specifically to the videos Ogged linked... " Yeah, uh, egregious hijack that.
392: Eh, this is argument by anecdote, and I'm not certain that I'm right, nor am I certain that you're wrong. But my sense is that while you're right that in each instance where a woman objects to her boundaries being encroached upon, she's probably going to immediately get backed up by the people around her, that there's still a social penalty for objecting. Someone like, say, m.leblanc, with a strong sense of self and capacity for verbal and social self defense, ends up with some people who don't want to know her -- and while you can say that you wouldn't want to know those people anyway, if there enough of them that's a penalty regardless of what jerks they are.
It totally doesn't bother me that women want to mention their experiences that are similar. I guess golden rule only gets you so far, though.
415 -- So wait. The "objectionable" coment is the one that starts off, "Look, I'm reacting specifically to the videos Ogged linked... " Yeah, uh, egregious hijack that.
Jerks not wanting to be friends with you is a penalty? That is a state of affairs I've spent many years cultivating.
419: I was talking about the thread to which (I thought) you were referring, in which B complained about someone bringing up waiting for an AIDS test to waiting to find out whether you're pregnant. This one. I think the ensuing thing was what ST's jokey comment alluded to.
423: Hah, that is funny! Who wants to be friends with jerks!
But if you've got a social group with some jerks in it, and everything goes smoothly when you're not around, but their jerkiness turns into an issue when you are, you don't just lose the chance to socialize with the jerks -- you're more likely to find that the whole crowd is uncomfortable with you.
(To keep on caveating -- this is soft, anecdotal stuff; I don't know that it always works this way; probably it often doesn't. But I do have the impression that there are real social penalties beyond losing the chance to hang around with assholes for enforcing your boundaries.)
Dude, my male college friends used to do this stuff all the time, what with the crotch grabbing and so forth. That's not to mention my suite mate whose preferred method of waking me up in the morning was to actually climb in bed with me and commence dry-humping until I had to choice but to get up. (stir? rise even?)
The thing is, this circle of friends included about an equal number of females, with whom we were about equally close, but this sort of thing *never* extended to any inappropriate touching or pressuring of them. At all. So if these guys were learning anything about pushing sexual boundaries or about saying "no" being a sign of weakness, or whatever, I remain skeptical that these lessons crossed the gender boundary. Desensitization to the one taboo did not entail desensitization to the other.
Saying that something 'plays into rape culture' is a pretty vague statement. I'm sure there are some possible interpretations of it that are immune to the criticism I just made, but I'm not sure that's actually to it's advantage. Like Cala said above, this one goes from demonstrably wrong to trivial pretty quickly.
But I do have the impression that there are real social penalties beyond losing the chance to hang around with assholes for enforcing your boundaries Roger that for men, although you may mean mostly women trying to be accepted as equal, an additonal complication.
But if you've got a social group with some jerks in it, and everything goes smoothly when you're not around, but their jerkiness turns into an issue when you are, you don't just lose the chance to socialize with the jerks -- you're more likely to find that the whole crowd is uncomfortable with you.
Yeah, I buy that. I don't know that there's a solution to it, though. It's a function of the fact that, particularly when young, most people don't care about someone else's feelings so long as they're having fun.
Oh, yeah, and I'm mostly just being humorless™ here. I do think that Pants' view of the game as mostly harmless homoerotic fun is probably right. The rape culture thing just didn't seem to me to be self-evident bullshit; while I can see why you'd call it distant, the connection clicked for me.
383 might be correct for the right kind of guy.
I don't understand some of you people. You're watching videos of a "game" in which two men deliberately make each other sexually uncomfortable, and the person who is the most aggressive "wins." And yet, there's no resemblance whatsoever to rape, and it's just like any other kind of friendly teasing.
Not buying it.
Something that might be complicating the discussion is who's actually talking about the videos. I didn't watch them, just took your characterization at face value. And I think a bunch of people are talking about roughly similar games that don't necessarily have the same feeling about them.
True--I mean, before I watched the videos I was all, haha, typical stupid guy games. Afterwards, I was like, holy shit, that's kinda fucked up.
Not buying it.
Maybe it's a guy thing that you're just not going to get, B. As almost everyone male has said, this sort of teasing is really common among guys, and has been for most of our lives. From what women have said, that's not true for women. So it's not entirely surprising that you don't get it.
I don't understand some of you people.
This isn't news to anybody, B.
433: Honey, please. I know that men tease. I get along with boys. I hang out here, for christ's sake. I'm saying that there are kinds of teasing that cross a line.
Be careful that vagina dentata doesn't take your fingers off.
Seriously, when it starts showing up in the NYT it's time to not be doing it any more.
Dude, my male college friends used to do this stuff all the time, what with the crotch grabbing and so forth. That's not to mention my suite mate whose preferred method of waking me up in the morning was to actually climb in bed with me and commence dry-humping until I had to choice but to get up. (stir? rise even?)
Strange, I no longer feel bad that I missed out on The College Experience.
Although if my suitemate climbed into bed with me and began dry-humping, my preferred Gay Chicken countermove would be to start pushing back and moaning "harder, faster, deeper" until he had no choice but to run away.
my preferred Gay Chicken countermove would be to start pushing back and moaning "harder, faster, deeper" until he had no choice but to run away.
And this, I am guessing, is exactly the essence of Gay Chicken itself.
Re #341: Hey, it's okay when women hijack a man-focused thread with their analogies to non-identical situations. What are you, some kind of misogynist?
Anyway, both examples, either of the offenses or of the hijackings of discussions of them, really only prove one thing: you don't have to have a dick, or a cunt, or be intersexed, to be an asshole...
Or to celebrate double standards that favor "your" side over the other. Isn't "wrong" what gives no advantage to whoever's doing the moralizing?
David, you're not funny. You might be trying, but you're failing so spectacularly you're sliding into troll territory, and trolls here are required to bring baked goods to shared with the rest of the commentariat.
Since you're a cross between someone attempting to be funny and someone succeeding at being a dickhead, we'll split the difference and allow you to bring in packaged junk food. My vote's for almond M&Ms.
I can't help asking if anyone still thinks I was wrong to criticize David's first comment.
Now, now, B. You bring me some M&Ms, too, dammit, while you trot about in those cute little toe socks.
A couple hundred posts after my 193, I've read nothing that's convinced me that "gay chicken"/unwanted crotch-grabbing isn't a rather transparent form of sexual bullying. The commenters who keep asserting that this sort of thing is more or less innocuous seem to be either people who have done some of this in the past, people generally sympathetic to the institution of mindless bullying (ahem), or people who are very generously misreading the crotch-grabbery in question as a grand experiment in broadening sexual horizons on the part of enlightened, consciousness-expanding frat boys everywhere. This really has less to do with attraction than it does with dominance and sexual humiliation.
As far as rape-training goes, it makes sense to me that the kind of asshole who fails to respect the sexual boundaries of the men in his peer group is more likely to be the kind of asshole who fails to respect the sexual boundaries of the women in his peer group.
Stras, maybe you can explain how it's bullying when two people consent to play a game together.
446: I've been surprised by his development, I must admit. I didn't think you were wrong to start with, but he seemed earnest enough to try to reach out to.
I've read nothing that's convinced me that "gay chicken"/unwanted crotch-grabbing isn't a rather transparent form of sexual bullying.
Well, gee, that changes everything.
449: Because it's rarely two people "consenting" in any meaningful sense of the word. It's usually one person - or a group - pressuring another person to play the "game," with the understanding that to not participate entails its own form of humiliation and bullying. Look at the picture you linked to: the guy in the middle doesn't want to be there, and he doesn't want to have his picture taken, and this wasn't his idea, but there he is anyway. And it's the same story with most of the videos you linked to. These are sexual shaming rituals, initiated by guys who target other males perceived to have an equal or lesser social status, who are going to be more easily compelled to go along.
Well, gee, that changes everything.
Oh, wank wank, Tim.
If someone can't handle the pressure of a bunch of people at party saying "do it, do it," that's entirely that person's problem. Like Matt F has been saying, part of what these games teach is to stand up for yourself. And I think you're wrong about the picture and video. The guy in the middle is just funny looking, you lookist, and the guy in the video who is being pressured to participate seems like the coolest and probably most popular of the three.
452: There's a broad disagreement on the facts here.
Look at the picture you linked to: the guy in the middle doesn't want to be there, and he doesn't want to have his picture taken, and this wasn't his idea, but there he is anyway.
Is that guy you, stras? Because given his hand placement--notably more direct fondling than the other two--I think his expression only indicates that he's fucking around. But, look, if it was you, my apologies. I misread it. And I genuinely think people should be respectful of boundaries.
"It's usually one person - or a group - pressuring another person to play the 'game,'"
Data? Anecdote? Armchair sociology based on photographs and YouTube clips of drunk people? Or do you really play that much gay chicken that you can say "usually" with confidence?
I can see that this thread is going to end with stras being kissed by a lot of people.
The link in 438 had no mention of pink shirts.
Yeah, the "gay chicken as rape training" argument doesn't seem to be making much headway. I'm puzzled by the discomfort B professes to have with the videos, which seem instantly recognizable to me as a variant of a thousand other forms of male horseplay. (And sorry, stras, but horseplay and bullying are actually distinct things, your repeated argument to the contrary notwithstanding.)
Yoyo, the phrase "pink shirts" is mentioned in the title of the article, the title of the browser window that contains the article, and the first paragraph of the article.
Also, there was a picture of a dude in a pink shirt.
And now that I've looked at the article..."I went to Trinity, which is the epicenter of preppy partying in the Northeast," said Anthony Martignetti...W, exactly, TF did my parents have me visit that place as a high schooler choosing which college to go to?
463: Did you wear a lot of boat shoes?
my reasons for being in the middle will remain forever a mystery.....
If someone can't handle the pressure of a bunch of people at party saying "do it, do it," that's entirely that person's problem.
That's entirely that person's problem? Isn't it at least partly the problem of whoever feels the need to compel them to do something they don't want to do? I guess I really don't want to generalize the logic there.
The guy in the middle is just funny looking, you lookist
I'll admit this is very much open to interpretation.
So about this straight-guy-haha Gay Chicken thing (which is news to me): what happens when the groper finds or creates a stiffy? Should he be flattered or insulted? I'd want to know how a straight guy got good enough at groping to ME wood.
And Cala, re 444, please relax. 1) I wasn't the first person to point that out, and 2) your net.copping shows there's too much starch in your shirt. As to my "quip" about "celebrat[ing] double standards that favor "your" side over the other," what about that makes you take that as "misogynistic" more than "misanthropic"? Do you think I excuse women from my general cynicism about humanity because women aren't human, because men aren't, or because women can't take it? If you think I exempt men qua men from my "wit" you're mistaken, as you might see. And I don't define "troll" as "someone whose so-called wit I object to," do you?
And bitchphd, re 446, I don't think you were wrong: you're as entitled to your opinion (however mistaken or misguided I might think it) as much as I am (ditto). The problem I'm having now is that you and Cala seem to be playing a Thought Police Tag Team game here, "Aha! I told you he was one of Those! (Oh I feel so vindicated!)", which (as I see it anyway) is rather unnecessary if not completely de trop. I'm not out to get you, not because you criticized me, or because you're a woman and/or a feminist, or for any other reason; I will however exempt you personally (and you too Cala) from my so-called wit (or from any less than worshipful comment of any kind) if you clearly can't take it, if you'll agree to do the same for me -- just to be fair as I don't do anything I can't take in return. (And please be mindful that one point of chivalry was to spare the unarmed in general, not only the female among them.)
I'm sure if given a chance I'll say a few things somebody will object to for some reason, as I'm sure I'll eventually say something damn near everybody on here will object to. Nor is there any need for anyone to emphasize my objectionability, as I'm really quite capable of doing that myself (sometimes without even meaning to).
The guy in the middle looks like any photo I've seen of men of my dad's generation (or their dads'). We're a funny-looking bunch, with out-standing ears.
466, bullies will always exist. Young bullies could be thought of as a mechanism for training people to deal with older bullies later in life. This doesn't mean that bullying is ever good.
And sorry, stras, but horseplay and bullying are actually distinct things, your repeated argument to the contrary notwithstanding
Bullying and horseplay are distinct, but I'm saying that much of what's being described in this thread isn't horseplay.
With 456 and 457 I'm out of this thread.
446: Since my initial response to your response to David was based on a false assumption on my part, the point is moot.
His post wasn't unacceptable, taken out of context, but in the context of the thread it sort of appeared out of nowhere as an attempted threadjack. And in fact, if you're trying to say that his recent trollingness justifies hostility towards him, then you shouldn't have tried to characterize his initial comment as a typical example of male butting-in behavior, because it was actually a typical example of troll butting-in behavior.
464: I didn't, and don't, know what boat shoes are.
467: I re-emerge from my brief to demand cake. Pastries of any kind would be acceptable, but cake is really what's appropriate here.
Something in a Black Forest would be nice.
Stras, a serious question: aren't you (part) Arab? Isn't Arabic teasing culture much more brutal than American teasing culture? (I honestly don't know. I know Iranians are a lot rougher about teasing, and I'm assuming Arabs are similar, but maybe not.) Not that this should make you insensitive to brutality wherever, but I'm a little surprised that you're so bothered by what seem like fairly typical American guy games.
All I know is I haven't had a good bagel in months.
471: Preppy Tevas.
470: Don't leave on my account. I was just curious how you'd know that it was usually bullying.
Ah, I did wear Sebagos for a time in middle school.
Maybe my parents had an abortive plan to turn me into one of the Best and the Brightest. Unfortunately, the money was there to send me to a mediocre prep school with a half-off academic scholarship, but not to send me to Trinity or Tufts.
I haven't watched any videos, but I'll add to all the other voices saying this doesn't sound at all to me like bullying. On the other hand, I particpated in a vaguely gay-chicken-like form of bullying in second-grade. In second grade, in the time and place where I grew up, being "gay" was a serious seriously taboo, although few if any of us really knew what it meant, other than that gay guys kissed other guys. So we had this weird thing where four or five of my friends would pin some guy down to the ground, where, through his kicking and screaming, I would proceed to kiss him. In our minds, this somehow made him gay. (I don't quite understand why I was not tarnished by gay cooties in the process, but, hey, second-grade.) This was usually done with a large cheering crowd gathered round.
Now that I think qualifies as bullying, and if that's what teenagers were doing I'd be troubled. In second grade, well, in some ways I was as much the victim as the perpetrator.
Brock, your game sounds like it was much more deserving of the name "smear the queer," which we used to play in second grade, but which was basically tackle tag, as I recall.
473: Jesus, ogged, I'm part Arab, but I'm not, like, authentic or anything. Hell, my parents, as I've mentioned before, are giant flaming Christian Zionists. A lot of my relatives were seriously, culturally Arab, Eastern Orthodox, Palestinian nationalists, thought the Five Jew Bankers ran the world from their orbiting Dreidel of Doom, etc., but I was actually raised to believe my relatives were crazy (because, after all, we would obviously get Israel, covered in gold and emeralds, when Magical Kung Fu Jesus came back to kick ass with his Angel Squad).
This subject's a little personal with me because I was (ha ha) a huge nerd growing up, and got all the attendant abuse, and I've seen plenty of situations where "horseplay"-style crotch-grabbing went straight to obvious-humiliation-of-smaller-weaker-kid-we-don't-like crotch-grabbing. I freely admit that this deeply colors my previous statements with both too much emotionalism and too much anecdata.
I know Iranians are a lot rougher about teasing, and I'm assuming Arabs are similar, but maybe not.)
1001 Ways to Call an Arab a Pussy: By Ogged
Ok, got it, stras. Thanks.
p.s. u r gay
Wikipedia recognizes smear the queer, although the section sounds like it was in fact written by a second grader.
Oh, and to note again: I didn't pick on nerdy kids. And I remember almost being beaten up for getting between a marine to be and a nerdy kid once (luckily, the marine to be and I were on friendly terms, so once he got me in a headlock he was reluctant to go much further, and the fires had cooled). I beat up on the mouthy kids. So yeah, I would have picked on you anyway, stras.
I know Iranians are a lot rougher about teasing, and I'm assuming Arabs are similar
Funny story about this: my great-grandfather used to hang a scimitar over the kitchen table, and when my grandfather misbehaved, he would take it down and brandish it/hit him with the flat side/chase him with it, etc.
Apparently, school children are now discouraged from calling the game "smear the queer."
The politically correct name is now "Kill the Islamofascist" or "Maim the Muslim."
Anecdotally: I never played any of these games, when I was even aware of them, and not because I was a young gay-rights activist or because I was the nicest kid in the world, but because they were about sex and sex was sinful.
Smear the queer! Ah, the memories. But I don't think that involved kissing. And unlike smear the queer, my thing wasn't in any way a "game", it was just bullying.
What's the upper age limit for Smear The Queer? I was definitely playing in jr. high. Pretty sure last game was before I was able to drive.
"because they were about sex and sex was sinful."
Was?????
What's the upper age limit for Smear The Queer?
Dunno. We played it in the small Illinois town I lived in until fourth grade, and then I moved to the Chicago area where our playground was blacktop and the game of choice was Scramble, which is basically a chaotic every-man-for-himself game of dodgeball.
My honey told me that back in Iran before the Revolution, any kid who ran away from being bullied was called a Jew. I was fascinated by that at first because I just don't associate Jewish people with cowardice (nor his Iranian circle with real anti-semitism), but have since connected the dots with the nasty old "cringing Jew" stereotype.
490.--I'm no longer so clear on sin, I'm afraid.
Spare the scimitar, spoil the Arab, I always say.
I was (ha ha) a huge nerd growing up, and got all the attendant abuse, and I've seen plenty of situations where "horseplay"-style crotch-grabbing went straight to obvious-humiliation-of-smaller-weaker-kid-we-don't-like crotch-grabbing.
I suspect that describes a fair number of us, as well, so at least you've found your people! (Specific types of bullying may vary with gender, region, etc. Warranty not honored in CA, DE, or FL.)
That Wikipedia entry was useful, because I do remember playing "Kill the man with the ball", which seems like the same thing.
"Smear the queer", however, was not a game, but manifested largely as a way for bullies to threaten non-bullies. It was like "Kill the man with the ball", but with no ball, so in other words it just entailed a group of bullies chasing some kid around and forcing him to the ground but not actually beating him up. Sometimes, to give it a veneer of respectability, one of the bullies was the one forced to the ground. But generally a bunch of bullies would be hanging around doing nothing in particular, and would invite a passing non-bully to play "Smear the queer", with an undercurrent of menace clearly implying that the non-bully had better get lost if he didn't want to be the queer and get smeared.
Synopsis -- "Kill the man with the ball" - horseplay.
"Smear the queer" - bullying.
Results may vary at other middle schools.
485, 494: This is how not-Arab I am: Wikipedia informs me that the sword from my anecdote is properly called a saif. Ogged, meanwhile, as a full-blooded Persian, will have naturally festooned his own abode with a variety of shamshirs.
495: No doubt, no doubt. Despite always being one of the bigger and stronger kids, I was a devoted "pacifist" throughout elementary school, and at some point decided the best response to bullying was to pretend I enjoyed the abuse, which led to no end of Suplexes onto blacktop with me guffawing like I'd just won the ice cream lottery.
On the other hand, how many other people on this thread can claim to have been bullied by the children of Nobel Prize winners?
347: Not to get analogical, lest I be banned, but... many years ago, after I'd first moved to LA, I threw a party. I invited Writer X and his spouse, because I knew them and liked them. I did not invite Writer Y and his spouse, despite the fact that Writer X and Writer Y were co-authors, because I knew and did not like the Ys. I was told by several people that this was Social Death in our literary circle; it was not done to invite the Xs and not the Ys. But why the fuck would I ask someone over to socialise whom I detested? [I realise one has to do that at weddings and family reunions, but otherwise...] It wasn't social death, the Xs came and the Ys did not, and a fine time was had by all. It was not only not Social Death, but the first of a series of parties that people flocked to, as the Ys were never invited and that turned out to make a lot of people much happier.
My point, of course, is that, often some inchoate fear of social discomfort inhibits people from doing things that make themselves both more comfortable and more secure - and I just don't see any reason why indicating that one does not wish to be touched - even in an "ordinary greeting" sort of way - by a given member of a group should be something to fear. AWB may discover that there are other women who would prefer that this guy not approach them. [And there's always the 'Oops! You startled me - so sorry I spilt my drink down your pants' gambit. Hot coffee works wonders as a negative-sanction training prop.] If her social cadre is already failing to invite this clod to get-togethers because he is a problem, it is way past time to tell the guy he does.
I just don't buy that "strong, confident, self-aware women who take care of themselves really well" can't figure out how to shed that acquiescing-in-order-to-be-polite mentality and stand up for themselves.
"My point, of course, is that, often some inchoate fear of social discomfort inhibits people from doing things that make themselves both more comfortable and more secure - and I just don't see any reason why indicating that one does not wish to be touched - even in an 'ordinary greeting' sort of way - by a given member of a group should be something to fear"
Preach it, sister.
Seriously, let the jerks fend for them-fucking-selves. If you're hanging out with a group of people that would rather you feel uncomfortable than a jerk not attend the function, fuck them: find some better friends.
My bitter, Weinerless victory.
I will never 500! again.
498: Kissinger's kids are bullies? Who would have thought it?
If you think I exempt men qua men from my "wit" you're mistaken, as you might see. And I don't define "troll" as "someone whose so-called wit I object to," do you?
Let's be clear about that. It's not that I object to your wit. It's that there isn't any wit there to object to. There won't be any wit there, even if you start sprinkling your ramblings with emoticons.
I send the motion for Black Forest Cake.
I was told by several people that this was Social Death in our literary circle; it was not done to invite the Xs
And especially, you don't want to name your dogs after them. That's just in poor taste.
Maybe people meant that SocialD was going to play if you didn't invite them
Olivia Newton-John is a bully? I can't believe that.
Re 471: Ned, you're so cryptic I'm not sure what you're talking about or why.
And re 445, hey Sifu, undoubtedly your remark went over better because you're far better hung wittier. That happens a lot, unfortunamente.
And re 505, Cala, let's be even clearer: you're just plain better than I am and you know it. I'm glad one of us does. So far all I've seen from you is the tight-assed censoriousness of the superciliously doctrinaire, which besides being eye-rolling makes me think you're very young. So here's some free advice: ignore me. Nobody's paying you and/or putting a gun to you head to force you to read what even I characterize as 'my so-called wit.' All you've proven to me is that you like to get offended, and that you (and Ms. PhD) have one particular subject you like to get offended about. But wait, maybe it's that you (or y'all) think you recognize me from somewhere else (maybe long ago and far away) and the ideologicality and/or net.coppitude are just smokescreens for some personal grudge from say 1997? I'd prefer it not be the latter because I'd rather not give a damn who you really are, but I've been all around the Net for so long it's entirely possible. (Maybe I should change my monicker to something nobody would connect with me, like FunnyGuy or maybe Hitler?) Not that I care mind you: my only objection to you is that you keep popping up with objections to me, and in a way that convinces me it's your problem to boot. (Lexapro ain't that bad, maybe you should try it.)
As for me in general, I have good days and bad days, good subjects and bad subjects, and people who make me all gooey inside by how they pet my puppy and people with whom I'm at instantaneous loggerheads (assuming I know what "loggerhead" means); but then I'm not here (or anywhere on the Net) for Professional Networking, nor to get laid or run for office, nor on a bet or a dare, so I can afford to be less rigid than some might like. Even so, I won't go around in a pink garment of any kind as pink looks silly even on little girls -- I much prefer lavender pastels myself.
446: B, I would have given him the benefit of the doubt on the first comment. In retrospect, I bow to your superior instincts.
510: I do believe you have severely misjudged Cala.
Christ, I think we broke the troll. He's gone plaid!
You know what blog comments really lend themselves to? Brevity. Seriously David, you on meds? Because you seem to develop a lot of momentum when you type.
510 is off the charts. I'm not even sure waffles could save it. And waffles are delicious.
censoriousness of the superciliously doctrinaire
Hot damn. Don't hurt yourself.
Dude, someone clue me in on what happened in 1997.
514: You know what blog comments really lend themselves to? Brevity.
Ahhh, the touching naivete.
But yeah. David, man, let it go.
I do think his suggestions for possible changes of handle are judiciously chosen and clever. Because heaven knows that posting under a name like 'David', you can build up a long history of people with grudges against you.
I hear the Philistines still haven't forgiven him.
1997: Katrina and the Waves win the Eurovision song contest.
You know what blog comments really lend themselves to? Brevity.
Now I really am imagining your cock.
Perhaps we should start playing gay chicken with the trolls. At least with those who come without cake.
"people who make me all gooey inside by how they pet my puppy"
Looks like David already initiated.
I can't come without cake. Fortunately, I found me a baker.
528- no, the thread ended at 358. The rest is just afterburn.
I can't come without cake
"He smears the semen on the second Cake of Light and eats it as the Eucharist."
That's gotta make for some messy foreplay.
Also: Hostess? Poor substitute. Tastykake, now you are talking.
"But wait, maybe it's that you (or y'all) think you recognize me from somewhere else (maybe long ago and far away) and the ideologicality and/or net.coppitude are just smokescreens for some personal grudge from say 1997? I'd prefer it not be the latter because I'd rather not give a damn who you really are, but I've been all around the Net for so long it's entirely possible."
This is amazing. I like to think that in some other life I would be exactly like this.
The commitment to parentheticism alone!
It's late, but this is another one of those 'Americans are from another planet' threads.
I don't remember anything remotely analogous to gay chicken type games/teasing among guys when/where I grew up. Not even a little.
I suppose it's the sort of thing I might associate with rugby playing posh types, maybe.
539: It mixes well with blazers, though.
ttaM is repressing those memories.
541: Yeah certainly "lack of oddly homoerotic games" is not a pejorative I'd have ever thought to lob at the english educational system.
P.S. To everybody: got a couple beers in me. It might get weird. So you know.
Are they censorious beers of supercilious doctrine?
re: 54 and 542
not a pejorative I'd have ever thought to lob at the english educational system.
Yeah, but I'm *Scottish*, remember.
Do the Scots not play Soggy Biscuit?
I don't believe it. I thought all the English were gay; that's what movies about English schools tell me.
545: remember? Did I know that already?
In any case, kilts? Traditional undergarments associated with such? Mmm.
547: mmm.
532. That Crowley link made me think of this book http://www.amazon.com/Strange-Angel-Otherworldly-Scientist-Whiteside/dp/0156031795
The guy's house was around the corner from mine.
Actually, kidding aside, US-style 'frat' type male bonding culture isn't really recognizable where I am from and this is something I am conscious of in discussions here at Unfogged. This applies both in terms of relations between men and in terms of relations between men and women
All kinds of other stupid shit goes on, and other forms of bullying and/or dominance behaviours, but the surface form it takes is very different.
re: 548
Oat cakes hand-ground using the femurs of sheep tend to be impervious to all liquids.
re: 551
It's come up in the past, pre-Tweety-era.
551.3: Bo-ring. I'm not sure I even believe there was a pre-Tweety era.
So banned, I are.
Arr!
551: Not to be an enabler or anything, but the infamous music post was pretty much a watershed moment in the history of the Poor Man. Cry havoc and let slips the Dogs of Blog, say I.
Sifu, maybe you know this already, but my first encounter with The Editors was an argument about Hitchens and Mother Theresa at Apo's site. And now we're lovers. Weird how things work, eh?
I don't say it without some trepidation, it's true. But the trepidation is half the fun.
558: I do not. I am, when one refers to the political blogosphere, an eternal n00b. URL?
I imagine The Editors is a fabulous lover. True?
559: Well, get trepidatious, kid, because I have a beer in front of me RIGHT NOW!
Here, let me know if you want that redacted after the fact because it's from the old days when everyone used different pretend names from the ones they use now.
539: So, just rum and the lash nowadays?
I wasn't very politic then, it seems to me now. I still think Mother Teresa was a horrible person.
Yeah, me too, apo, but Hitchens is still an unbelievable asshole.
Looking back on all that makes me nostalgic for the old days. You know, when our love, like the Iraq war, was just getting underway.
561: Hah, the cat of The Editors' identity is pretty damn well out of the bag.
You were defending Hitchens?
That's a different era, no lie.
Does Hitchens have less of a claim to sainthood than Mother Teresa?
"Ideologicaladocius."
Damn, I been outdone again.
Okay, tellya what, if Thelma & Louise want to hunt me down and kill me I promise to hold still, but I was just thinking that our public displays were getting unseemly and that we might have some pity for the onlookers (if not for me) and do something else. (I much prefer Twinkies myself.)
As for the Soul of So-Called-Wit, rapiers are for gentlefolk; I'm more comfortable with a cudgel, but machetes are nifty if they're on sale at Wal-Mart. I'll work on the brevity, but it might not be pretty: they'll hear me pound on the keyboard halfway to Purdue.
And Tweety, I'm blushing.
So. 563 & 564, I agree.
Deflatedly,
NotDavidReally
Also, I miss those halcyon times before even an effort at spell-check was made.
Hitchens also did a great job on Kissinger and Lady Di. What a tragic waste of talent.
Yeah, I sort of liked Hitchens for his willingness to say mean and mostly-true things that others wouldn't say. Then that thing happened, and everything changed.
The thread in question wasn't two years after that thing?
I should say, I am innately disposed to like Hitchens (wordy prose style? Talented sophist? Baby!), and never read him before The Change, so fucked if I know what happened to him to create the sodden, warmongering hypocrite we know so well.
Also T. Ed's initially supported the Iraq war, so, yeah, all you fuckers were nuts.
Is Hitchens an honest traitor or just an opportunist? Or maybe it's something that happens to middeclass Trots when they get too old for "coeds"?
572: I'm going for an aguardiente myself. Since I bought it on impulse I might as well drink it, though I do prefer fine Kentucky bourbon. (What is that Meat Loaf line from The Pleasure Drivers?)
What a tragic waste of talent.
He's still a fantastic writer.
I haven't the slightest what an aguardiente is. Some kind of musical notation?
My beer is delicious. A traditional IPA, brewed with Belgian yeast: delectable, alcoholic: excelsior!
My armchair analysis is that Hitchens was all gung-ho about going after al Qaeda and the Taliban, completely consistent with his lifelong hatred of religious fundamentalism. That much, I can make sense of. But how a guy as obviously bright as he is got suckered on Iraq (and, more generally, throwing in with the most ostentatiously fundamentalist administration in living memory) mystifies me. I'd chalk it up to Johnny Walker, but I suspect that's a bit too convenient.
574: fucked if I know what happened to him to create the sodden, warmongering hypocrite we know so well.
The contrarian schtick happened to him. It was inevitable that he would eventually pick the wrong windmill to tilt at, and would be too small to admit he'd fucked up.
aguardiente
South American Jagermeister, isn't it?
I'd chalk it up to Johnny Walker, but I suspect that's a bit too convenient.
Maker's Mark, perhaps.
579: Never has smallness been parlayed into such a massive empire.
582 - always, with the cock jokes. Sheesh.
"That much, I can make sense of. But how a guy as obviously bright as he is got suckered on Iraq"
578 to everybody in DC. Guys?
Hitchens was always in Cockburn's shadow, which when you think about it is not a really great place to be. When they were alternating weeks at The Nation, a friend of mine called him Cockburn Lite.
You know Hilzoy's line about how Bush's life experience has prepared him perfectly for the task of filtering out evidence that he's fucked up? I wonder if Hitchens is in a similar position, with his enormous experience pressing on despite people telling him he's full of shit and, in his case, the intellectual self-confidence to assume that everyone else is crazy.
Aguardiente. I've got the Cristal from Colombia. I was hoping it'd be more like the Lebanese arak we get around here.
IPA's good too, it's that or Imperial Stout, but I gotta be in the right mood for hops. And re 581, Maker's Mark is too mild for temperate sipping.
"Imperial Stout"
What the? FL, you don't live in the same ciity as I do, do you?
In re: temperate sipping: Laphroaig, or if you can't hack that (like me) Macallan.
TtaN, back me up here?
I've got Smirnoff Twisted Green Apple. Don't you all clamor for one at once, now.
588: FL s/b David, ciity s/b city, Beefo Meaty s/b The Somewhat Drunk Dude.
As I've said elsewhere, I'm a connoisseur of bullying having been on the receiving end of it from a young age, but in my youth it was not explicitly focused on homosexuality or the fear of it. I think people were desperately afraid of being sissies, of being weak and ineffective guys, crybabies. But the word Gay wasn't even used, and the words that were used that were then pejoratives for homosexuals, "fairy" and "queer" never had a sexual connotation in our circle. They referred to the dreaded effeminacy. Of course for older boys the association would be clearer, but well into my adolescence I, and I think most if not all members of my cohort, had no idea. I don't think I had any idea of coitus itself until I was about 13. I believe all this is different now, and the modern dread of being gay is probably somewhat more informed, at least about what it is.
588: The main problem with where I live is that it's usually too hot to really enjoy any of the ~35 bottles of single malt I own. Maybe I should just ship them to Hitchens.
I like a Sam Smith Imperial Stout, mm. I also like to sip Maker's Mark, whether temperately or not I shall not say.
592: Dear God, man. Next meetup at Gonerill's, wherever that may be.
592: Put some ice in it. I swear. I know it's wrong. It's awesome.
Hey Gonerill! Gonerill! Where are you? How much is shipping to Kentucky?
To waste 35 bottles of single malt on a shite like Hitchens would be a crime on par with the Lufthansa Heist.
Several of those bottles are cask-strength private bottlings from distilleries that no longer exist, too. Maybe I'll have one now and damn the weather.
Gonerill before you take that drastic of a step can we at least figure out if you live close enough for any of us to come over?
I once went drinking with Hitchens, after a reading from the Kissinger book, which I'd reviewed for the daily here. The word 'louche' comes to mind. I have to admit, his verbal skills and mental agility never wavered despite stupendous quantities of drink (and despite his having showed up for the reading evidently lubricated already). This was over a year before 9/11, and there were intimations of his rightist/contrarian slant then, apart from his obvious Clinton hatred.
Just in case this becomes an epic thread:
Jackmormon was here!
Ok, continue on. I've got to go to bed now.
I can't afford to be a connoisseur of imported whiskies. But then I don't have to: I live within an hour's drive of MANY distilleries. In fact, the whiskey I drank as a young adult in "BaltoWash", Pikesville Rye, is made according to an old Pennsylvania recipe just down the road in Bardstown KY and shipped to its "natural" market (where I had it): one cannot find it on the shelves anywhere else. I was thinking of having it specially ordered till I found out Rittenhouse 100 proof is better.
Actually, apart from really liking them I started collecting Single Malts because it was a vastly more cost-effective habit than wine. I don't know so much about American whiskey, though.
591: I remember that too, but I think that the accusation of homosexuality was latently there. (Ha! Latently! Joke!) It's just that people didn't really know or want to know what homosexuals actually did.
There was a lot of flaming gay stuff in the culture: Tennessee Williams, Truman Capote, and above all Liberace.
The teachers in my HS watched out for kids who seemed sissyish and steered them into male activities. One guy who turned out to actually be gay did a lot of weightlifting and got pretty hunky.
Yeah, in those days weightlifting wasn't thought of as gay.
Smirnoff's Green Apples are a much less expensive vice than wine. I was perfectly happy drinking smirnoff's Ices. But, noooooooooo my gf had to introduce me to the horribly addictive, horribly expensive world of red wine.
I miss you Berringer's Red Zin!!!!
Hey, I'm familiar with red wine, too. It comes in boxes.
Seriously, Gonerill: damn. Need a new best friend?
Heebie, I think we need to stage an intervention on your choice of alcohol. It will be a terribly classist activity, but you'll come out a better person.
I'll come out a poorer person. No thank you very much.
I drink whiskey too fast to collect it, so I just try to keep a bottle of Lagavulin, and a bottle of decent bourbon (Knob Creek or Woodford Reserve) around. I think the real value is to be found in cognac and armagnac, though.
Heebie:
Stick with wine in a box. I am still only at the low, low red wine level ($15-$20 a bottle). I was just as happy drinking wine in a box. But, you just cannot go back.
At the $15-$20, friends still try to get you to the $30-$40 level. It is a quick descent to budget-busting wine hell.
(Admittedly, I have just consumed 4/5 of a bottle of two-buck chuck, so I'm not in the best position to criticize at the moment)
606: I like the Black Box Cabernet OK--decent table/cooking wine, and it doesn't go bad.
Capital expenditures aside, making the stuff can be a cost-effective way to keep up the red wine habit if you've got access to decent grapes.
611: $15-20 is way too rich for my blood, outside of special occasions. I've found some nice reds from Puglia for under $10.
Also: net.cop! Shades of Usenet circa 1994. Were you a douche back then, too?
I think you can find very good wines at $10 to $20 a bottle. I have no desire to move above that level. No. I really do not. I do not care about how much better it can make the meal. I am not going above $20. Ok, maybe just this once.
Hey you know what is a very tasty and relatively inexpensive vice? Old Grand-Dad bourbon.
(But I have a plan to make a pilgrimage to KY sometime and those of you who live around there will need to give me recommendations. Old Grand-Dad is nationally available.)
But I have a plan to make a pilgrimage to KY
Ghey.
Vodka -cranberry is an excellent and inexpensive vice.
I've never really tried scotch or cognac. They both seem too high falutin to me.
There is a Spanish wine called Sangre de Toro that costs just under (or occasionally just over) $10. It tastes good and you get a little plastic bull hanging by a ribbon from the bottle top.
I got a special kick out of watching Sideways while drinking Franzia.
622: [url=http://www.scotchwhisky.net/distilleries/oban.htm]Oban[/url] is the water of life. Seriously.
There are lots of very good wines in the 9-12 dollar range, especially from Spain. But there really is a big jump in average quality around twenty bucks, and another big jump around 30.
(Not to mention the big jump around $500)
Chilean and South African reds are also pretty good bets as cheaper wines go.
I am very happy at 9-12 with the occassional 20. $30 is great on someone else's tab.
Apo, for the record, I will happily enjoy a fine bottle of wine with you. Your treat. Hey, I have an idea. Shouldnt NC Prosecutor be treating us all to fine wine to celebrate his nuptuals?
"I once went drinking with Hitchens"
Why? Was he paying?
Re wine, I hope they build that Trader Joe's, I've heard good things about Two-Buck Chuck.
I've grown to like ~$10 bourbons; Old Charter 86 proof 10 year old is delicious. The $15-20 a bottle stuff is for special occasions or as gifts for neighbors who turn 50 (and who ain't got no money neither; this guy's come to prefer Old Milwaukee beer). The best American whiskey I ever had was 13 year old Van Winkle Family Reserve Rye, but I was out of my mind to spend $40 on one fifth of anything (especially something so tasty I drank it too fast).
Talk about flaming, when I was a teenager my favorite Rock Star was David Bowie. But I thought the Rocky Horror thing was stupid.
Box wine's okay if you put ice in it.
I'm trying an Argentinian Malbec tomorrow.
DS:
What South African reds do you like?
"What South African reds do you like?"
Winnie.
633:
"Beaten over a long period of time. slight hint of jail and dirt"
632: In the fifteen dollar range I've had good experiences with Spice Route and Ken Forrester. It's really the Chileans that have been my mainstay, though.
Concha y Toro carmenere is always a good bet, or Miguel Torres Santa Digna reserve.
And 634, very droll. That's the Mother of the Nation I'll have you know...
I'm picking up some rum tomorrow -- any strong views on the high-end Cruzan varieties?
Heebie, stay away from the Two-Buck Chuck, which I hear has gone downhill anyway. You can find many a tasty bottle in the $10-$20 range.
616: I suspect we're dealing with the old Usenet troll TheDavid here. And I still don't see any dessert around here, which I was looking forward to because I haven't had Black Forest Cake in a very long time.
Does one win a prize for comment number 634?
Oh that was 640. Damn I'm slow tonight.
586: IMX smart people can cook up the most exquisite bullshit to feed themselves and Hitchens is even more adept than most. Smart people have the most spectacular and interesting train wrecks too.
639: I thought old trolls had a sell-by date. Apparently their lunacy can be preserved for years, rather like Twinkies. (No word on whether trolls have a gooey kreme center.)
Two-Buck Chuck I think is up to $4.99 anyway. Don't know too much about wines, except that if you're making sangria, don't worry about the quality of the wine as you're going to douse it with sugar and fruit.
Apropos of nothing in this thread, all the women in my social circle are like Greek goddesses: beautiful, damaged, awesome, confusing, unattainable, fascinating, and quite, quite mad.
Sounds like something happened this evening, Jimmy. Are you being forced to lust after them only in your heart?
Or does "damaged" mean "their arms fell off"?
643: Um, Cala, I thought we'd stopped. If you must keep on, do hunt me down and kill me (quietly so my neighbors will sleep through it). I'm jes' gettin' too old for incessant feuding.
645: Nothing major. Read a blog post from one, anticipated trepidatiously a nondate with another, saw the faint wake of a third. All of which would mostly be innocuous, except for my own neuroses, thank you very much.
I was responding to Magpie.
644: Have they golden apples?
Yeah but they can't pick them up on account of the no arms.
No wonder they're mad all the time then.
Yes, actually, Cala, one does.
643: Yup. Some of them have the gooey kreme center; others (Drudge) morph into slightly different and more toxic forms. The need for online attention is forever, apparently.
I will find out where she has gone
And kiss her lips and take her hands;
And walk among the dappled grass,
And pluck till time and times are done
The silver apples of the moon,
The golden apples of the sun.
Ah, Yeats.
Mr. Former President, 644 sounds like most of my ex-girlfriends. Except of course for "unattainable", that might've been better for me. Speaking of Hitchens and those who've met him, Nicola Six from Amis fils' London Fields was very very familiar, almost as if he'd been watching my "romantic" misadventures. (Of course that was before one could gossip about me behind my blissfully ignorant back in private email.)
Re 650, had the armless goddesses no dental insurance? One takes a deep breath and chomps down hard. Were they afraid of ruining their makeup?
Nope, two buck chuck is still two bucks at TJs. Which also stocks a number of other quite drinkable wines for under/around $10.
But yeah. Oban. Or Laphroaig. Gonerill, if you want to get rid of your fancy pants scotch, I'll take it off your hands.
Yeats nothing. It's Roethke all the way.
How well her wishes went! She stroked my chin,
She taught me Turn, and Counter-turn, and stand;
She taught me Touch, that undulant white skin:
I nibbled meekly from her proffered hand;
She was the sickle; I, poor I, the rake,
Coming behind her for her pretty sake
(But what prodigious mowing did we make.)
Of course they'd needed arms for that chin-stroking stuff.
[I just now found Roethke selections here!]
Not in somewhere East (MA?) it wasn't, according to a friend. (Blue law states don't allow TJs to sell wine in PA, unfortunately. Which blows.)
In 655, I mean bobbing for apples, really.
656: TJs has a $3.99 Viognier that could, like, blow people up.
Macallan is a better scotch than any of those.
You know how I know? It's my ethnic heritage.
I like Scotch. But I also feel about Scotch how I feel about cupcakes. The cupcakes enthusiasm in big cities seems like an hysterical claim of youthfulness. Scotch drinking feels like the same thing, but for oldthfulness. But I like it: Laphroaig especially. $29 at Trader Joes.
Macallan is a fine choice... if you're, you know.
Conventional.
Also: has anyone tried the Trader Joes Scotches? I am tempted.
Also: Pennsylvania is the awesomest state to buy alcohol in. You have to go to a beer mart or a package store to buy beer. You have to go to a state liquor store to buy wine or spirits. It is awesome.
But I also feel about Scotch how I feel about cupcakes.
Filing this in my collection of "phrases I never, ever expected to see."
Collector, eh? What else you got?
660: Viognier? I'm not fond of most whites I've had but I might like that. Maybe I'll see if the Liquor Barn has one within my reach. Besides whatever Viognier TJ's features as we don't have one here yet, anybody have any recommendations under $10? The lady down the street likes white wines and she's still only 47.
a bottle of two-buck chuck
Everyone keeps leaving out the "up-".
"Macallan is a fine choice... if you're, you know.
Conventional. Not into drinking old-ass pond water."
Good point.
Oh, there's all sorts. "Academy Award-winner Jamie Foxx," who my brain still identifies with this show. "I think the correct solution would be to hack the wings off as many pigeons as possible before joining them together to create one large wing." Politically, things like Do you want 'Freedom Fries' with that? and China is more popular than US. (There's a billion of these.) "Robyn's attempt at writing an outrageously braggadocious hip-hop track." Et cetera,
In Scotland the reliable single malt choice for people who don't like Laphroaig or Lagavulin is generally Glenmorangie. Or at least, when I was growing up, that's what people would generally ask for in pubs when asking for a single malt.
re: 555
Yes, except in a few parts of southern rural Scotland and in Wales. And rugby league isn't posh either, but I meant rugby union, anyway.
671.1 is definitely awesome. Fair enough, more awesome than Macallan.
Comity amongst the Scotch tribes? Can't last.
Thank you for showing us your collection.
To me rugby is more fun to watch than either American football or soccer, and it looks like it would be more fun to play.
I thought everyone drank Drambuie in Scotland. Or is that just the kids?
Yeah, I lied, sort of. Two-buck chuck is $2.99 in MA. I'm unsure if this is local taxes or just having to ship it cross-country.
"Dreidel of Doom" would be an awesome name for a klezmer/death metal fusion band.
Hopefully with lyrics about dreidels functioning as drill bits into their souls.
Ok, so it seems that either no one drinks rum, or that the rum drinkers haven't been able to organize themselves sufficiently over the last several hours to respond. Or they've succumbed to the anti-carp hysteria.
Or they've succumbed to the anti-carp hysteria.
Nope, not a rum drinker. I can't handle any brown liquors, only clear ones.
I never liked scotch. welp, don't have to worry about that anymore (inshallah.)
OT: Hooray for Zadfrack! Surely the dive shop on Coki Point has to be one of the less likelier sources for an Unfogged comment.
I never developed a taste for scotch either. I used to drink rum, but now it seems over-sweet to me.
Charley, I like Mount Gay, but I don't think it's especially high end (it is a bit higher end than Bacardi) and I forget what Cruzan means.
679 -- there is a rum I really like but I don't remember its name. I just sort of know where it is on the shelf of the liquor store where I shop. Sorry.
Mount Gay! That's the one I like. Thanks Katherine.
I really like the idea of drinking scotch or bourbon. Just not the execution.
I still like it in silly drinks -- daquiries or pina coladas and such. But you don't need good rum for that, anything reasonable will do.
I don't really have a discriminating palate for anything alcoholic other than not liking thin, tasteless beer. I figure developing one just leads to a lifetime of discontent and expense.
682: I just figured out that you were announcing where you were, not where you thought Zad was. Yay, vacation!
Charley, I'm not a rum drinker--I bought a bottle in Puerto Rico last week, but I don't even remember the name and I haven't tried it yet--it will most likely wind up in desserts. However, I was assured it was the best rum from Puerto Rico--I'll try to remember to look at the name on the bottle tonight.
690: Frying bananas until brown and carmelized in butter, and then deglazing the pan with a little rum, can be the basis of a very nice dessert.
Dark & stormy's, people. W/ Stewart's Ginger Beer. The finest liquor-and-soda drink there is.
Oh, those are very nice, as are Moscow Mules. I like ginger beer.
Also very good with mango juice & a little seltzer--nice and sweet and tropical without the trouble of doing a daiquiri or pina colada or what have you. Also good for spiking mango-strawberry lassi.
I find scotch pretty awful, to the point where I vaguely suspect that people who like it are just pretending to be tough. I had some rye once that was actually pretty good, but I'm really too much of a lightweight for that stuff.
Dark & Stormy's are good, I prefer that ginger beer that has the cat on the bottle, don't know the name. My favorite liquor and soda drink is just rum and club soda. Re 684, I would be depressed if Mount Gay is not high-end since it is the most expensive liquor I buy. (I too do not know what Cruzan means.)
And I'm gone for the day again. Life must be easier for people with self control.
For the red wine folks, I had one recently at a friend's that was (I believe) a zin, merlot, cabernet blend called Menage a Trois. Tasty, under $10, and just so darned fun to ask for by name.
Cline makes a good zin at around the $10 mark that you can get at TJ's. The Penfolds there are pleasant too.
For the red wine folks, I had one recently at a friend's that was (I believe) a zin, merlot, cabernet blend called Menage a Trois. Tasty, under $10, and just so darned fun to ask for by name.
Cline makes a good zin at around the $10 mark that you can get at TJ's. The Penfolds there are pleasant too.
(And 693 gets it exactly right.)
Life must be easier for people with self control.
I wouldn't know.
I'm proctoring final exams all day! You'll never shake me!
I'm here for work: I just have some time to kill before my plane.
rum: gosling's black seal. you can take that to the bank. mt. gay also nice. off to watch latest james bond on dvd.
Poizin is a good, fun Zin.
I've had Menage a trois. I agree with the recomendation.
Pinot Evil is fun too.
Mount Gay is also the most appropriate liquor to serve at a Mineshaft event, it should be noted.
Oh, we're back on wine? I second the recommendation for Miguel Torres Santa Digna cabernet, it's one of my favorites. I didn't realize it was exported -- excellent. I also recomment Casa Silva cab, if you can find that.
(I so hope there is a porn movie set in Barbados, called "Mount Gay".)
690: IANARC, I just drink lots of rum, but some people seem to think that Don Q, the Puerto Rican white rum, is about as good as it gets for the mid-range stuff. (And, of course, what's the point of spending a lot of money on white rum?) They've started carrying it at Surdyk's, so I've had some, and it's pretty good, I think.
I liked this thread back when I was playing gay chicken with cerebrocrat. What happened?
683: Rum is the only drink from which I've gotten the classical cartoon hangover. That one included the little demons behind the eyeballs with the jack-hammers, the sensitivity to the noise of individual molecules colliding, and everything else. However, we did solve all the problems of the universe that evening so it was worth it. Only the details are a little foggy.
Why, you got one to spare?
(Just noticed there are a couple on offer at E-Bay.)
Well you were asking if anyone wanted one -- I took that to imply you had one you were looking to get shut of.
Well, when you infer, you make a ass out of you and me.
Also: "Get shut of"?
"Get shut of"?
Sure, what's wrong with that? It's a perfectly respectable idiom.
Awesome. The lesson in this was that by knowingly implying things I don't really mean, I can learn new dialectal idioms. Are you from the past?
No, it's still in use. My recently-deceased grandfather and still-living father both use it in conversation, as do I.
(I mean to say, my grandfather used it in conversation up until some time before he passed away, which happened recently. Not that he currently does.)
Mount Gay used to be relatively hard to get, when it was still a family business. Then it was bought by Hueblein and is available in every grocery store. Finest summer drink, Mount Gay and tonic, squeeze of lime. Prefer Oban or Lagavulin over Laphroig, which is a little too peaty. Macallan is nice, if conventional. Two Buck Chuck was decent when it first came out because there had been a glut of Napa grapes that year, which the vitner bought wholesale and blended with his usual Lodi crap. Nice for two bucks. He has used all that wine now, and is back to his usual plonck. Spend the extra three bucks and go Chilean.
I don't think there are any bottles of wine anywhere in Pennsylvania for less than eight dollars. Boxes of wine are where you get your value.
I'm in the mood for a mojito. And I just said I didn't like rum! I'm unpredictable like that.
Love Oban. Try Bowmore for a somewhat less-peaty Islay. Caol Ila was a recent discovery -- wonderful flavors.
I'm not really a whisky drinker. I like the taste but it gives me the most hellish heartburn. Curl up and want to die chest pain.
My local distillery in Scotland, where I grew up, was Rosebank, but they don't make it any more and bottles are increasingly expensive.
To the person who thought s/he might try TJ's scotch:
Only purchase Glen Ord if you have objects in need of degreasing, such as engines and exhaust-fan flues. Or if you need paint remover.
OTOH, Two-Buck-Chuck is a decent cooking wine for beef dishes.
A few years back I had an I think 12 year old not-very-peaty single malt, probably from the Highlands somewhere, Glensomething or Glen Something, that had been finished in a white wine cask and was advertised or reviewed as "a Scotch for the ladies." I think got it for like $20 on sale. It too was too easy to drink to sip slowly, but I might buy it again if I could only recall what the hell it was called. My favorite single malt so far was one connoisseurs might turn up their noses at 'cuz it was (I gather) only 5 years old, McClelland's Islay: very peaty, rough enough so that chugging made me gag, and so peaty that it benefitted from an ice cube or two (which ordinarily I take as defacement: if I want my whiskey cold I refrigerate it and if I can't enjoy sipping it as it pours from the bottle I'll usually call it swill).
But still it's easier here in KY to find decent bourbons, of which I can say that there's really no reason to spend more than $20 on a fifth: IMIAO "single barrel" bottlings are more often miss than hit, snooty "small batch" things are usually over-rated and contrary to the general pattern Elijah Craig 12 year old is better than the 18 year old. Of the bourbons in easy reach I opine, e.g., that anybody who prefers the 80 proof Wild Turkey should stick to white Zin.
Having to go on the wagon would suck. Since I gave up tobacco 7 years ago sampling new-to-me whiskeys has been my favorite hobby. (One clue to my current state is that when I indulge in long paragraphs containing several parentheses I'm most likely cold sober.)
Of Gay Chickens, well, I'd make him prove he was at least 18. But then I'm from a planet where "troll" meant an old (35+) guy who wandered over from the Senator to drool in his lap watching the Hippo's dance floor. And speak not to me of baked confections, I must lose 20 pounds again as it is.
