you're right--in retrospect, that's a very clever pun.
The Times, being a family newspaper, characteristically renders the passage thusly:
She proposes that when the two friends had a falling out in a dramatic duel, Grindelwald did not fight but "conjured a white handkerchief from the end of his wand and" -- the passage then gives way to an obvious (in retrospect) sexual double entendre.
Prudes.
3--
thick-witted prudes, too.
they can see that "came quietly" is arch, but not see that
conjuring a white handkerchief from the end of his wand
is equally arch?
Still pissed about the lack of inclusion of Dumbledore's gayness in the actual books. It's totally cheating to add that in via authorial intent after the series is over.
It was thoughtful of Grindelwald to conjure up the hanky first so that clean-up afterwards was quicker.
Those gay people, so neat and fastidious!
It's totally cheatinggay to add that in via authorial intent after the series is over.
5--
the principle that authorial intent is sufficient for inclusion in the narrative seems wrong.
but so too the principle enunciated by the nyt critic, that it's not really in the book because it is not *necessitated* by anything in the book.
You people were all crack babies. It's terrible that the sins of the mothers, etc., but let's face the facts.
It's totally cheating to add that in via authorial intent after the series is over.
Nah. She's always said that she has an extensive backstory for most of the characters, and as this passage illustrates, it wasn't absent from the books, just oblique and backgrounded.
10--
howlin' dumbledore sings:
oh yeah! i'm your backstory man!
the men don't know, but the little girls, understand!
(sorry, did i get those two groups backwards?)
Dumbledore's backstorey is back-doory.
9: It's too bad your message to Harry Potter readers took all the bite out of this sort of commentary. Broke my heart to see you sell out, homes.
I, on the other hand, literally believe in a causal crack-HP connection.
She's always said that she has an extensive backstory for most of the characters, and as this passage illustrates, it wasn't absent from the books, just oblique and backgrounded.
But it doesn't matter if every character has an extensive backstory if that backstory is only in Rowling's head. And the passage doesn't really illustrate anything: if Rowling hadn't made a pronouncement on Dumbledore's sexuality it would likely be read without the double entendre. Rowling did the same thing when she was asked about what happened to a bunch of characters after the end of the series, and she went on to talk about who got what kind of job and what happened at the Ministry of Magic and so forth. This assumes that an interview with J.K. Rowling is itself part of the narrative, which is just bizarre. Look, if Rowling said next week that Snape had been Harry's father all along, she just never put it in the books but it was true and canonical nonetheless, wouldn't you feel a little cheated?
9: You take that back. There is no evidence whatsoever that crack consumption leads to Harry Potter readership, and any number of so-called "crack babies" have grown up to live normal, fulfilling lives.
no, but james might.
Yeah, but he was a little prick.
But it's not "only" in her head. Apparently there was a lot of speculation about Dumbledore being gay before she made her pronouncement, and now that she's said that he's gay, we can see the evidence for it. Something like Snape being Harry's father would be unsupported.
18: Ogged, there's speculation about every character in that series being gay. You've heard of slash-fic, right? And of course Snape being Harry's father would be supported; there was plenty of speculation on that from the fifth book on.
Look, if Rowling said next week that Snape had been Harry's father all along, she just never put it in the books but it was true and canonical nonetheless, wouldn't you feel a little cheated?
Sure, because that would be awfully important to the story, given that the relationship between Harry and Snape is central. Dumbledore's orientation, not so significant. Just like it doesn't really matter whether or not McGonnagal enjoys a bit of a leather fetish in her spare time or that Nealy Headless Nick suffered from a bit of performance anxiety. I sort of like the idea of her building a character and then tossing out, "Oh, he's gay, actually," after the fact, underscoring the idea that his sexual preferences really don't make much difference in the grand scheme of things.
Via Hit and Run:
Paul Croft got a tattoo of Harry Potter wizard Albus Dumbledore on his back - but is now being teased by pals after he was outed as GAY.
...
Paul, of Nottingham, moaned yesterday: "It's been terrible. I've always liked Dumbledore - just not in that way.
20: But Dumbledore's relationship with Grindelwald is critical to the last book. If Dumbledore was actually in love with Grindelwald, that does make a difference to the story.
21--
right--i was thinking the other day that sales of dumbledore-themed halloween costumes are probably tanking.
big discounts on them here:
http://www.costumecraze.com/index-harry-albus.html
21, 24: That's really depressing.
25--
yeah, in another part of the backstory, rowling was going to suggest that gay people suffer from systematic discrimination and irrational prejudice.
but nobody would have believed it.
But it's not "only" in her head.
But it is only in her head. It's not in the text. Readers might guess all sorts of things about the characters and their motivations, and some of those things might line up with the author's own extratextual assumptions about the characters, but that's all by definition neither here nor there.
27--
tertium quid datur. there are other texts beside 'the text', and those texts are outside of her head. that was ogged's point--she wrote the damned things down, some time ago, on paper.
Don't worry 'smasher --- after she dies, one of her relatives will co-author a definitive 37 volumes of backstory.
Look, you can say that Rowling's reading isn't definitive, and fine, I'm on board with that, but her position is supported by the text. I feel like we're about to get into a debate about what it means to be "in" the text.
24: See what happens when you cancel Halloween in the Castro?
Although I don't think that particular link is relevant. The Harry costume is also discounted 30%.
32--
teh gay is contagious!!
yeah, what do i know about sales. but i think somebody tracks this--i seem to remember hearing news blips in previous years ago about, e.g., the number of costumes sold that depict one political candidate versus another. maybe we'll hear about it after halloween--which cartoon figures had a good year, whether princesses are still the top-selling theme for girls, etc. etc.
Her position isn't alien to the text, sure. She didn't come out and say Dumbledore is actually a Jedi. Homosexuality could be consistent with the Harry Potter universe but so are any damn number of things you or Rowling can think of, but there you have it, those things are not "in" the text so they are categorically different and incompatible with the things that are.
29, 31: Whatever she scribbled down as backstory before she started the series doesn't count as "the text." The text is the actual series of books she produced, and the author's reading of that text isn't definitive. It's Rowling's assumption that her reading is definitive - to the point where she can tack epilogues onto characters in interviews, and drop major pieces of a character's backstory in a question and answer session - that irritates me.
If you just can't wait for those news blips, here are Amazon's best-selling boys' and girls' costumes. Although the gender coding may be a bit off.
Grindelwald simply conjured a white handkerchief from the end of his wand and came quietly.
And her I totally thought Grindewald would have an emo wand.
Look, you corrupted pomo youth, she wrote the books and had a backstory in mind or on note cards or whatever. What she says about the characters is likely (much more likely than my or your speculation) to reveal interesting things about what's in the canonical text of the seven books. She says that Dumbledore is gay, and lo, a bunch of passages suddenly make more sense and become more interesting.
36: Rowling's never-ending novel extends her celebrity for as long as interest in the series persists and establishes her dominance over understanding the narrative since, as she tells it, no one else knows the whole story—so no one has in fact read the text but her. She's like a postmodern George Lucas, expanding on original closed texts but through another, nonatomic medium—the Q&A!
37: Amusing that the nun's habit appears on both lists.
Would it make the corrupted pomo youth happy if Rowling preceded her pronouncements with "As I conceived the text, not that my reading should be privileged,..."?
37: Huh. It appears that moustaches and nun costumes are now unisex.
34--
"those things are not "in" the text so they are categorically different and incompatible with the things that are."
huh? anything not in the text is incompatible with everything in it? that can't be right.
36--
sure, let's let "the text" denote the seven published volumes. but something can be outside of "the text" without being merely in jkr's head. in fact, most things are neither: mt. everest, the king james version of the holy bible, etc. they are not in 'the text.' they are also not just in jkr's head. there are other places to be than those two. one of those other places is the collection of texts that jkr wrote as backstory.
41, 43:
of course:
male, female, nun of the above.
I must say I prefer the formatting sensibilities of this current incarnation of kid bitzer to previous incarnations.
46: And of course "nun of the above with a moustache".
I think I basically agree with stras and armsmasher. But I also suspect that most readers (myself included) don't actually read fiction in that way. To the extent that a book creates a credible universe with believable characters (not necessarily "realistic," but believable within the context of that universe), readers will think of the those characters as existing outside of (both before and after) the parameters of the story.
Hence: fanfiction.
47:
the contract specifies certain typographical conventions. it allows latitude in other regards.
in other words, some facts about kid bitzer are necessitated by the text. others are just in various authors heads.
nothing is anywhere else.
I assume there is still opportunity to add some accoutrements of gayness to the Dumbledore character before the final cut of the remaining films is released.
This question is as vexing as whether one may stir the crockpot on Shabbes or not.
52:
with a wand.
at a suitable distance.
provided that no white substances are conjured out of the end of it.
44: Harry Potter facts that Rowling dribbles out in Q&As and on fan message boards are not compatible with the facts in the text. Her backstory, which you say is written down, carries no more weight than her answers to bloggers or to bloggers' fan fic—it's unavailable, first, and it's also not part of the text, so it's not part of the text.
51: They've recast the role with Dame Edna and are reshooting all the Dumbledore scenes as we speak.
I don't understand "not compatible," Smashman. Anyway, y'all are taking the death of the author a bit too literally, aren't you? Yes, conventional ways of speaking make the author's pronouncements seem definitive, but even if we say that they aren't (which we all seem to agree about), we can still say that her reading is worth taking more seriously than most.
54: ah; now i'm thinking that we just mean different things by "not compatible with".
i thought you were making a claim of logical contradiction, as though the text said "d. is not gay" and jkr said "d. is gay".
whereas you seem to mean something different by "not compatible with." "not entailed by", maybe?
on this point, we're in complete agreement:
"it's also not part of the text, so it's not part of the text"
i'm totally down with that.
in fact, the thing i like about tautologies is: that they're *tautologies*! (which is what i like about them).
as to whether rowling's unpublished views carry more or less weight than those of a random fanfic author--i don't think we've made any progress on that question.
42: If Rowling said something like, "I thought of Dumbledore as gay when I wrote the books," that would be one thing. But instead she says "Dumbledore is gay," as if she's not just sharing her reading of the character, but revealing a choice secret hidden from the lowly reader and now revealed through the oracle of the fan interview. It privileges Rowling to the extent that it assumes there are hidden, immutable facts about the narrative, not incorporated within the text itself, to which only Rowling has access, and only Rowling can reveal. So when Rowling says "Harry goes on to do such-and-such at the Ministry of Magic, and does many important reforms," we're supposed to say, "oh wow, how very interesting, I'm learning something new," instead of "wait a minute, that totally didn't happen, you didn't write it in the damn book."
And of course what Rowling says is to some extent privileged. Having written the actual texts, she presumably also knows more about potential future actual texts than the rest of us. Which is obviously not to say that hers is the only reading.
They've recast the role with Dame Edna and are reshooting all the Dumbledore scenes as we speak
He shows a solicitude for making sure all the place settings match at the Hogwarts banquet that was never apparent in previous films.
Then there's the hilarious scene where Longbottom snatches one of Dumbledore's Bertie Botts Anyflavour Beans, then spits it out in disgust and says, "Eewww, jock strap!".
(As I shamefully reveal my own crack baby past.)
Those are good examples, Stras, because on the one hand, I think Rowling's pronouncement about Dumbledore is helpful, because it illuminates what is in the text, while I found the epilogue (and her pronouncements about where people end up) stupid because they're just undeveloped sketches that close off narrative avenues for no good reason and with no payoff. But, to keep the disagreement going, I think the "what happens next" stuff is different from the "he's gay" stuff.
then spits it out in disgust and says, "Eewww, jock strap!".
Or rolls it around thoughtfully and says "Mmmm, salty. Like a nut, but different..."
I'm explaining my comments more fully in other blog comments that you don't have access to.
Rowling does occupy a position of privilege because she can unlock the texts (cf., that rat bastard George Lucas). What bothers me is that she has crafted her characters with this fact in mind. It's not like she said that Dumbledore was a Sox fan, something totally irrelevant like that, and we're all having a laugh about it because these characters are fun and we can be silly. Even if his sexuality has no bearing on his relationship with Grindelwald—which we can't know and did not suspect to ask—it has political context in our universe, which is where she pronounced it. It's incompatible because it's a reader-side revelation rather than an author-side revelation but it nevertheless has a bearing on how we process the books.
I'm looking forward to having this conversation with my kids. Sit down, junior. I know kids have been telling you that Dumbledore is gay. We need to talk about an adult subject: textuality.
65: We need to talk about an adult subject: textuality.
Awesome.
62: The future stuff is more galling than "Dumbledore is gay," but that's a difference of degree, not of kind. It's perfectly reasonable to read Dumbledore as gay - in fact, even while reading the last book I thought the Grindelwald thing was slash fodder - but there are plenty of other ways to read Dumbledore's character and past. And since Rowling never bothered to actually include Dumbledore's sexuality in the book, it's irritating for her to say that he is gay, as if that weren't just her reading but the definitive Truth, because it closes off all those other readings.
So Rowling wasn't at Yale in the 80s. Sue her, why don't you?
64:
hah! *my* blog comments have a far richer and more subtle backstory than your blog comments do--not that i'd ever let you see it! and in that backstory, my blog comments totally pwn yours!
but i'm still not getting 'incompatible'.
I have been having quite the opposite problem lately. I have been reading the Laura Ingalls Wilder books to my children. I explained at the beginning that the books are intended to be autobiographical, but I keep coming across segments that are obviously fictionalized (anachronisms, various implausible accounts, events that were obviously contrived to make a political point). I keep having to explain to my children that, yes, Laura wrote the story this way, but maybe it didn't happen *exactly* like that.
And that's even before I have to censor the parts about the Indian savages.
So Rowling wasn't at Yale in the 80s. Sue her, why don't you?
Too good for her. I think I'll force her to sit in on my old art semiotics classes instead.
What counts as the text?
JK did write a note to one of the film directors saying that Dumbledore was gay. This was to cut off a hetero love interest that the film writers had created. This text had a very small set of privileged readers.
Maybe we could start introducing Harry Potter characters into Yoknapatawpha county. I'll stop calling y'all honky crack babies if you do that.
Sorry about the "honky", DS.
i'm already on record as believing that liw engaged in massive falsification in order to enable her father's drunken, shiftless descent into unemployability.
she contrived this golden halo around a palpable loser. interesting, though that she more clearly depicts the fact that one of her uncles is still suffering ptsd from the civil war. guy's a nutter, and she shows it.
also, what wilder said later on about her family? that was no part of the text.
This stuff is fun and interminable. Doylist vs. Watsonian, plus Yale.
74: On the upside, I've been called worse.
49:
No. Fanfiction confronts precisely this problem. As I understand the rules, fanfiction may not directly contradict canon. Where canon is silent, fanfiction may freely invent. Armsmasher's and Stras's concern for what constitutes "the text" is the same as the fanfiction writer's concern for what constitutes canon. In the same interview in which Rowling proclaimed Dumbledore gay, she also (IIRC) claimed Hannahdiana (sp?) ends up running the Leaky Cauldron. The question for the fanfic writer is: does this now prevent me from imagining a different fate for Hannahdiana?
My guess is that these Rowling dicta won't be counted as canon. So outside this thread, A&S will end up vindicated.
What a conservative bunch, to speak of "the" text for a living author. Some 19th century memoirists were famous for the endless revising with new editions-- PT Barnum and Frederick Douglass are the most famous examples. Nabokov revised considerably in generating English translations. Kundera is known for endless fiddling-- he relased the Czech original of Immortality years after the English translation, and is fiddling more as he translates into French now. Faulkner too.
'Smasher has it right: children should learn about these things from their parents. I don't want my kids exposed to po-mo textuality at school.
You haters just wish that the author were dead.
78--
"My guess is that these Rowling dicta won't be counted as canon."
yeah, but maybe hadith.
But it is only in her head. It's not in the text.
But text isn't the only way to tell a story. If Rowling wants to add a bit to the story, well, it's her story.
(The first draft of this comment used the phrase "oral tradition," but I knew that you people couldn't be trusted with that phrase.)
I explained at the beginning that the books are intended to be autobiographical, but I keep coming across segments that are obviously fictionalized
I think of those books as historical fiction, but with a loosely autobiographical framework.
The Ingalls family in the 1880 census (.PDF).
But text isn't the only way to tell a story. If Rowling wants to add a bit to the story, well, it's her story.
But that's just it. Once the books print, it's not her story anymore. It's the readers'.
79: I brought up Lucas! I've seen an author with a revisionist hand ruin my childhood once.
Once the books print, it's not her story anymore.
Except in that it has readers because she produced it, and if there are any future versions of it that achieve wide circulation, it will almost certainly be because she produced them. I love me some reader-response crit but it's possible to take it too far.
Not to mention that the people clamoring for this kind of information from Rowling are also "the readers".
I don't want my kids exposed to po-mo textuality at school.
Just last week, I had to petition the local library to take filth like Heather Has A Diachronic Reading off the shelves.
85: what's your take on the silmarillion? is that authoritative? can fan fic write a lor extension that contradicts something in the silmarillion?
cause to my mind that has pretty much the same relation to lor that jkr's backstory has to hp.
except that hers hasn't been published yet, tho it could be tomorrow. (a lot of tolkeiniana was in pretty bad shape, too.)
so: are claims that she makes in her written backstory non-authoritative now, but suddenly authoritative once they come out with their own isbn?
that seems like a weird place to make the divide.
I guess one reason that I'm not offended by Rowling's dicta is that I never thought she persuasively presented any kind of internally consistent universe.
She's not Tolkien or Herbert or Roddenberry. She's more like the editors of the New Testament.
87–88: I don't understand what bearing success has on the evaluative framework of reader-response theory. Surely you can posit a "reader" without reference to one or many readers: It's a position vis-a-vis the text, not a person.
Authors who continue to live are so inconvenient.
You haters just wish that the author were dead.
That's not the half of it.
I don't see any Yoknapatawpha County so far.
Predominantly-honky crack babies!
92: 88 is not an objection to reader response theory, it's an objection to the assertion, "Once the books print, it's not her story anymore. It's the readers'."
Is it "reader-response theory" or "reception theory"? We say "reception," favoring viewers over readers, but same dif I think.
She's more like the editors of the New Testament.
So Rowling's dicta are like the canonical epistles, no? Not worthy of incense and genuflection, but equal in truth value to the gospels.
Predominantly-honky crack meth babies
Both reception theory and reader-response theory are actually more of a cluster of theories that put forward some pretty diverse formulations of their object of study. "Reception theory" is nicer, though, I agree, in that it embraces audiences other than readers.
My kids used to read Where the Wild Things Are.
Then, I read that Sendak said the book was about the Cuban Missile Crisis.
Totally ruined the book for me and my children.
The Very Hungry Caterpillar? It is about wasteful consumption.
98: Her dicta would be the Gnostic Gospels, see?
97: i thought we called it rezeptionstheorie.
Both reception theory and reader-response theory are actually more of a cluster of theories that put forward some pretty diverse formulations of their object of study
Sure, if you want to read it that way.
I don't see that 88 answers stras's point. The readers may want more from Rowling but what she is providing isn't more text, it's just commentary that holds a position of privilege that it shouldn't.
holds a position of privilege that it shouldn't
Of course it should, particularly where matters of fact are concerned. It's just not necessarily the definitive or sole reading.
104:
Is that any different from Bono explaining what a song is about? Or any other artist?
104: and the answer to my point in 90?
why should mere publication confer authority?
suddenly what's no better than "in her head" becomes an undeniable "in the text".
so what is it when it's in galleys? after it's been bound, but before it has shipped?
The readers may want more from Rowling but what she is providing isn't more text, it's just commentary that holds a position of privilege that it shouldn't.
In my opinion, if you want to say that the text "belongs to the readers," you should also recognize that many of its real readers ask for, value, and use extra-textual statements like this one, and that this is part of what they are doing with the text that they "own." It's fine to say that this commentary "shouldn't" hold a position of privilege, but trying to legislate the privilege and status of canonicity that readers accord to it is at odds with the premise that the status you want it to have derives from the text's "belong[ing] to the readers."
This is the best discussion of Harry Potter y'all have ever had!!!!!
Bono (from the grave): "Well, 'I've got you babe' is superficially a happy love song, but if you attend carefully to the lyrics, you'll find..... 'The beat goes on', on the other hand,....."
The Very Hungry Caterpillar? It is about wasteful consumption.
There are some decent children's books of the hippie-dippie genre, but I have to confess a weakness for children's books from two or three generations ago (some of which are back in print under the Golden Book label, with the worst of the racism and ethnocentricism excised).
I'm not talking about the anodine "timeless classics" like Goodnight Moon and The Little Engine that Could. Those are the Restoration Hardware of children's books. I'm talking about heavy duty bourgeois didacticism like The Little Red Hen: those animals were too lazy to help, so they will get no bread!
109: and, oddly enough, the one with the fewest jokes about gay sex.
canonical unfogged: all about the sex.
actual non-canonical dicta: no sex, please, we're english majors!
Yeah, it's just hard to see why Rowling's commentary shouldn't hold a position of privilege. 88 is perfectly on point in that if you're going to get all reader-response (or whatever term you prefer), you have to account for the fact that many actual readers see the author in a privileged relationship to the text -- and given that the author is the author precisely because they produced the text, that is a non-crazy position.
69 is awesome. Comment 69. Watch it, you pervs.
111: ever hear malvina reynolds version?
"i've plowed and planted this grain of wheat/
them that works not, shall not eat!/
that's my credo!", the little bird said./
and that's why they called her red.
no sex, please, we're english majors!
AWB, are you going to take that lying down?
117: I appreciated it, though.
She's like a postmodern George Lucas
But unlike Lucas, she's not (yet, anyway) changing the actual text. Just offering a reading of it. If Lucas had said, "in my reading, Greedo shot first," he would have been contradicting textual evidence. But if he had said, "in my reading, Greedo was an injured party, having suffered in an abusive homosexual relationship with Han Solo," that would have been Rowlingish.
but trying to legislate the privilege and status of canonicity that readers accord to it is at odds with the premise that the status you want it to have derives from the text's "belong[ing] to the readers."
It's like Rousseau said: the readers must be forced to be free.
Totally ruined the book for me and my children.
You want disturbing little kids' lit, I give you The Runaway Bunny.
Listen up, honky motherfuckers! I'm going to write another book just because of you assholes, and you're all going to be in it. It's going to be called "Harry Potter and the Crack Babies". You'll rue the day that you doubted me.
Smasher, the leader of the crack babies will be named "K*****n". "The handsomest man in the capital -- but his brain had been fried before he was born."
Be wamed!
AWB, are you going to take that lying down?
As the actress said to the bishop.
115: no, but that's awesome. There's a book of more recent vintage called "Cook-A-Doodledoo", which takes inspiration from the Little Red Hen, but imparts lessons about sharing and teamwork. My daughter loves it; I have mixed feelings about it.
disturbing little kids' lit, I give you The Runaway Bunny
Disturbing? Really? I mean, there is the one line where Mother Bunny tells Baby Bunny "I will blow you," but that's about it.
125: I think it is a bit disturbing, but in a way that is ultimately reassuring to a little kid. The bunny gets to fantasize about all sorts of escapes from the maternal hold, secure in the knowledge that his mother won't really let him get away.
Rowling's commentary shouldn't hold a position of privilege
Listen up, all you Slytherins, all I'm saying is that Rowling does not speak new text ex cathedra when she comments on her own books. That's the "privilege" I mean to deny, and I should have said "doesn't," not "shouldn't."
she's not (yet, anyway) changing the actual text. Just offering a reading of it
See, I don't know. She's adding to the text. I'd say that Dumbledore's sexual revelation actually is a contradictory fact rather than a reading. I want to say something about presumed heteronormativity here but I have to respond to a letter to the editor.
127: See, that's what I liked about the revelation - that it flew in the face of "presumed heteronormativity." (Di Kotimy already pointed this out in 20.)
Baby Bunny just wants to be free!
presumed heteronormativity is a mugs game.
that said, it would have been better to have put it in as a (minor, matter of fact) aside.
I think it is a bit disturbing, but in a way that is ultimately reassuring to a little kid.
You want disturbing? Try Love You Forever: crazy mother sneaks into grown son's house to cradle him while he sleeps! A friend gave this one to us with a glowing recommendation, and it caused me to re-evaluate what I thought of the giver.
Worse yet, I attended a funeral last week (as I mentioned in a previous comment) where the son quoted from this book--apparently a favorite of his mother--in his eulogy, and there wasn't a dry eye in the house. I was like, "[Deceased's name], that wasn't really your favorite, was it?"
130: The bunny book that I find disturbing is Guess How Much I Love You?, where Big Nutbrown Hare keeps one-upping his own son, Little Nutbrown Hare. Mine's bigger than yours. That daddy bunny has issues.
Don't you all worry your pretty little heads about it. One day, after the coke habit erodes JKR's wealth, she'll say to herself, "I think I'll sit down and write a swimming pool," and give us a text which leaves nothing to the imagination.
I have been having quite the opposite problem lately. I have been reading the Laura Ingalls Wilder books to my children. I explained at the beginning that the books are intended to be autobiographical, but I keep coming across segments that are obviously fictionalized (anachronisms, various implausible accounts, events that were obviously contrived to make a political point). I keep having to explain to my children that, yes, Laura wrote the story this way, but maybe it didn't happen *exactly* like that.
The Mormon bookstore I went to the other day had a lot of Laura Ingalls Wilder. Conclusions to be drawn from this are left as an exercise for the reader.
I haven't read LIW since I was a child, and I think I bought into her whole rosy childhood and hardworking Pa depiction. It'd be interesting to see what I pick up on now. (I read the bits with the savages, too.)
The pun, by the way, has always been there. It's in the text whether Rowling makes her revelation or not. And it doesn't tell us anything about Dumbledore. It tells us something about Rita Skeeter. She has done Andrew Sullivan's gay-check and drawn the conclusion that Dumbledore is gay. She does not, cannot, know whether he is, in fact, gay. She does not, cannot, know, if he is gay, whether he's repressed, closeted or just really really discreet. But she can still make her innuendo-laden pun.
That ogged missed it until Rowling made her dictum is not relevant. That Skeeter's conclusion was correct, if one now thinks it was, is not relevant. Neither change the context of the pun. Neither, therefore, change our reading of the passage.
127: Heaven blesses the authority of a wise author, and only removes its Mandate when she amends unwisely.
I keep having to explain to my children that, yes, Laura wrote the story this way, but maybe it didn't happen *exactly* like that.
Wait 'till you get to The First Four Years, which Rose Wilder compiled from Laura's unedited diaries -- then your kids will get a sense of what a more unexpurgated version of frontier life was like. Disease, disability, poverty, death.
The Mormon bookstore I went to the other day had a lot of Laura Ingalls Wilder. Conclusions to be drawn from this are left as an exercise for the reader.
Do Mormons allow Jews to become The Other Chosen People, teo?
Mormons love Jews. But Mormon girls don't usually put out, so I wouldn't recommend them to Teo.
and I think I bought into her whole rosy childhood and hardworking Pa depiction.
Oh, me too. In real life, apparently, Pa was a bit shiftless (couldn't hold a job, couldn't stay in one place) and Ma really resented all that driving around the prairies in a covered wagon. Also, the books are supposed to have been written with an anti-New Deal agenda in mind.
But I love that series. And not even Michael Landon's smarminess was enough to ruin my original ideal of Pa Ingalls.
But Mormon girls don't usually put out, so I wouldn't recommend them to Teo.
AWB Jackmormon, you gonna take that lying down?
But I love that series. And not even Michael Landon's smarminess was enough to ruin my original ideal of Pa Ingalls.
Ditto.
Is 142 at all true? I thought Mormon girls are like, all rumspringa, all the time, until they grow up and become Mormon men.
But unlike Lucas, she's not (yet, anyway) changing the actual text. Just offering a reading of it.
But, like, in a way, doesn't every reading change the text, man? Consider Pierre Menard.
Pa was a bit shiftless (couldn't hold a job, couldn't stay in one place) and Ma really resented all that driving around the prairies in a covered wagon.
Nooooo. Soldiers came and made them leave the little house on the prairie with all of their belongings because feckless bureacrats promised the land to the savages. It's there plain as day in the book.
Not that I've tried to sleep with any Mormon girls, but it doesn't seem like a useful path to pursue.
142 is entirely true, IME.
That's why they're driven to proselytize: they can't reproduce.
Jackmormon, you gonna take that lying down?
Usually.
146: No, 142 is of course not at all true.
I've never tried to sleep with a Mormon girl either. I hear it can be done, but that it's kind of like finding a drink in Utah: requiring great cunning and persistence.
The general rule of thumb is, strict religious upbringing = sexy results, until it's time for marriage. Applies to Mormons too.
But Mormon girls don't usually put out
False.
Having read all seven (OK, so I skipped book 1, I read enough of it a few years ago) in August/September, I have to say that I just cannot believe anyone cares this much. I think it slightly modifies the reading of Deathly Hallows to make certain aspects of Dumbledore's past a little more tragic. That's it. Big deal. If it doesn't change anything I can't see any rational reaction more strenuous than "Oh, that's interesting" or "Oh, that's not what I'd expected." Christ.
As to granting the author some special privilege to keep and reveal as she chooses secrets or unrelated ephemera from the backstory or her planning, well, she did all the work writing it so I'm interested to hear what was going on in her head but off the page. If I'm so free to own the text once I've read it then I'm free to take or leave that information as I wish. If I grant her some special authority then I can take that into account - or decide that I own the experience of reading without her input. It's not like she actually showed up in anyone's house and scribbled in the margins: "Dumbledore's gay! Ha! Bitches!"
That said, she's said that when they were doing a read-through for a version of the screenplay for the next film, a writer had inserted a scene in which D fondly reminisces about a young woman and that Rowling did scribble "Dumbledore's gay!" in the margin of the script and pass it back to the writer as her reason for removing that scene or that line from the scene. As such, there's a possibly thorny monkey wrench at work in that she has never explicitly included it in the text but she has, in one form of the text, explicitly acted to exclude contradictory information.
IME, strict religious upbringing yields a bimodal distribution of promiscuity; the trick is in ascertaining which end of the distribution she belongs to. A good proxy indicator: she smokes.
155, 156: It seems we have some unexpected controversy on this point.
A good proxy indicator: she smokes.
Since Mormons don't smoke, this seems to support 142.
I'm only talking about practicing Mormons, btw. Jack Mormons are an entirely different matter.
159: Some of us went to high school with fair numbers of Mormons, both male and female, and therefore have direct experience contravening 142.
And smoking correlates with outward respectability, not actual scandalousness.
Are people taking Catholic stereotypes and just assuming they work for Mormons, too? Because I've never heard this "super-religious but also super-promiscuous" thing applied to Mormons.
Hot 16-year-old Mormon chicks tempt gentile dudes into early marriage with promises of sex. Presumably the guys do the same. That's what the secret dances in the church basement are all about. Sure, there are chaperones to watch for "close dancing" -- with guys who are not deemed eligible for salvation. Nudge-nudge, wink-wink.
Oh, if a Mormon girl smokes she definitely puts out. Smoking is a much less serious sin than premarital sex, but the dietary/smoking rules are much stronger as public markers of community membership and are usually much more difficult for Mormons to transgress.
"Super-religious but also super-promiscuous": charismatics above all. It's a revolving door, like the gospel / blues-funk-rock revolving door. (Sly Stone's survivors play gospel now.)
Emerson is lying to me as punishment for applying New Criticism to Harry Potter.
Are people taking Catholic stereotypes and just assuming they work for Mormons, too?
No, people are saying that the same factors behind the Catholic stereotypes also manifest among Mormons. At least, I'm saying that, because it's true. At least of Albertan Mormons.
You missed out on a lot of poontang in your youth if you scorned Mormon chicks, Stras.
(I haven't known as many charismatics but 166 rings true.)
I know scuzzy guys who hustle charismatic churches by policy.
It's not like she actually showed up in anyone's house and scribbled in the margins: "Dumbledore's gay! Ha! Bitches!"
Actually, this very thing did happen to me and what I had theretofore thought of as "my" text. It was unsettling.
139: Disease, disability, poverty, death. Yeah, it was rough out there on the veldt but one could in fact dial directly in the era of telephone exchange names if one wasn't on a party line.
154 is true only in the sense that both are easy to do.
Hm. Isn't Jackmormon Albertan Mormon in descent?
My ex-wife said that the sex-guilt and hellfire aspects of Christianity were absent from Mormonism. On the other hand, the conventionality and lack of individualism were oppressive.
I just read that "there can be such a thing as too much social capital. Communities can be too close. A rare problem in the U.S., but Lake Wobegon may be a case, and the Mormon church certainly is one.
78: The question for the fanfic writer is: does this now prevent me from imagining a different fate for Hannahdiana?
Not at all, because there's a lot more scope to inventiveness than that. After all, Rowling just said "Hannahdiana ends up running the Leaky Cauldron," (or something like that, I assume, not having read the interview myself). She didn't say "Hannahdiana got a job at the Leaky Cauldron after graduation, bought the place five years later, and spent her entire working life there until retirement at 68." A fanfic writer could easily assume that H. ended up running the place for two years, then became a silent partner in the business to go on maternity leave, and her child grows up to be the next Voldemort. Fan fiction authors often make up their own relationships or set stories at times of their choice and develop them further. Maybe this is just nitpicking the divide between future and backstory that someone else pointed out upthread, but anyway. The difference between backstory and future-story does seem relevant, and fanfic isn't constrained by the text all that much anyway.
My guess is that these Rowling dicta won't be counted as canon. So outside this thread, A&S will end up vindicated.
The ironic thing is, if Rowling had not said Dumbledore was gay, that's exactly the kind of thing that fanfic writers would make up on their own and get thoroughly mocked for. Had she not spoken up for another few years, Dumbledore's orientation probably would have become canon on its own. That's a disappointing definition of "vindicated."
No, people are saying that the same factors behind the Catholic stereotypes also manifest among Mormons.
Agreed. In high school and college, I was around a fair number of regularly church going Mormons. Sexual activity was not uncommon.
154: I was stuck in Salt Lake once for 8 hrs. on a Sunday waiting for a bus. I found one bar within four blocks of the bus station, and it was the scuzziest bar I've ever been in.
Since Mormons don't smoke, this seems to support 142
My data points supporting 158 are from protestants, since my ancestral peoples drove out most of the catholics and never allowed any mormons in in the first place.
For a while in my youth, our little town had a straightlaced Methodist pastor whose family was notorious in that regard: four daughters, each one hornier than the next. The eldest one took the virginity of at least four of my acquaintances. The next two both got pregnant by black guys (hard to do where I come from, believe me). The youngest was barely pubescent when they moved away, but I heard a few stories about her later as well.
Borrowing a concept from Bruce Schneier, the problem with a strict religious upbringing is that it constitutes "brittle security". Once the defenses are breached, they tend to collapse entirely.
Isn't Jackmormon Albertan Mormon in descent?
I looked into this a while back. I had assumed it was a funny story about a great-great-grandfather roaming up to Alberta and founding Cardstown and coming back to my great-great-grandmother... but no. The great-great-grandfather roamed up to Alberta, founded Cardstown, went back to Utah, married a second wife, and my great-great-grandmother was all, "Hells no, I'm staying here and in your home." So she stayed in the US as a happily married first wife, raising the kids, and never saw her husband again.
I don't think that really counts as Albertan Mormon in descent.
It's not like she actually showed up in anyone's house and scribbled in the margins: "Dumbledore's gay! Ha! Bitches!"
A good friend of mine has a strict policy against writing in the margins of his books. It traces back to the time that he borrowed his mother's copy of Animal Farm left over from her college days. Somewhere around page 112 she had scribbled in the margins "Napoleon = Stalin??"
I don't think his respect for his mother ever recovered from that episode.
137--
"She does not, cannot, know whether he is, in fact, gay. She does not, cannot, know, if he is gay, whether he's repressed, closeted or just really really discreet."
she does not, cannot, in a boat,
she does not, cannot, with a goat,
she does not like the deathly hallows,
she does not, even if d. swallows!
So now I found out everybody was having more sex than me in high school, even the other Mormons. Goddammit.
183: If it's any consolation, I'm sure a lot of it was bad sex.
184: That's no consolation. Even bad sex is better than no sex.
185: somewhat surprisingly, this isn't true.
Depends how bad, I guess. Didn't Kotsko have a thread about this on The Weblog a while back?
So now I found out everybody was having more sex than me in high school
Are y'all familiar with the study that used network mapping to comprehensively describe the sexual relationships among students at the pseudonymous Jefferson High School (diagram here)
My guess is that the pink dot second from the top right is the band slut.
181: I really hate margin scribblers too, and for precisely that reason. It's mostly done by undergrads with no clue, and mentally screaming "No you stupid fuckwit, that's not at all what it means!" or "DUH!" seriously messes with my reading enjoyment (unless I'm mentally screaming those at the author, in which case it's a different kind of enjoyment).
188:
Only one girl on girl? And no guy on guy?
the study that used network mapping to comprehensively describe the sexual relationships among students at the pseudonymous Jefferson High School
Interesting. Only two same-sex pairings that I can see, and only one of the four people involved (one of the two guys) had exclusively same-sex relationships.
And no guy on guy?
There's one, on the upper right-hand branch of the big chain in the upper left of the diagram.
192:
Gotcha. I'm blind to the gay man. Sorry guys.
And no guy on guy?
Look closer, they're there.
Also, the unidentified Midwestern high school is "an almost all-white school, and is the only public high school in this mid-sized city, which is more than an hour away from the nearest metropolitan area," i.e. not necessarily that place where gays are most likely to have discovered/expressed their sexuality at 17.
Oh I remember that one. Doesn't that one show the interesting fact that there are no squares, i.e., one doesn't date one's ex's ex?
Doesn't that one show the interesting fact that there are no squares, i.e., one doesn't date one's ex's ex?
You mean one's ex's ex's ex. Your phrasing would be a triangle, of which there seems to be one (part of the shape near the top right, including the only girl-girl line).
Even bad sex is better than no sex.
Having had a certain amount of experience with both, I'm of the opinion that neither is better nor worse than the other, just different.
195: Are you the habit of dating ex-girlfriends' boyfriends, 'Smasher?
Smasher's difficulty with logic puzzles finally bites him in the ass.
Somewhere on the arm that extends from the ring around 2:30 is the captain of the football team.
Also, there seem to be more pink dots with 3 or more blue dots than vice versa. Suck on that, ev psych!
Also, there seem to be more pink dots with 3 or more blue dots than vice versa. Suck on that, ev psych!
Sadly, in our world casual blowjobs are more standard (and more feasible) than the reciprocation.
Oh, I just clicked the link and looked at the chart. Ha. I have one of those for Unfogged. No, you can't see it.
201 If I remember correctly, the connections aren't `had sex with' but rather `had romantic relations with' (including sex, but not necessary) which is somewhat fuzzy, particularly in high school.
When I look at that chart I see lies and omissions.
I suppose the diagram for Unfogged would require more than just blue and pink dots.
It's unfair of me to ask this, since my high-school answer would be "dot," but what shape would your high-school experiences map onto, and where would you be in the shapes?
which is somewhat fuzzy, particularly in high school
Yeah, the really coarse hair usually doesn't grow in till somewhat later.
part of the shape near the top right, including the only girl-girl line
That's the one I took to be the band slut. I further conjecture that the male-female and female-female coupling took place simultaneously.
The lone pink dot near the bottom connected to four blues is intriguing. I'm thinking those guys all play MRPG's or take AP physics.
It's unfair of me to ask this, since my high-school answer would be "dot," but what shape would your high-school experiences map onto, and where would you be in the shapes?
Lithuania.
Vilnius.
206: somewhat undefined (no high school) but at the same age --- not a shape from those posted. Connecting a bunch of different graphs, I guess.
My exes are all hott lesbians I converted, you Aggies.
someone ought to fund a search for a fully-connected social group in the wild.
what shape would your high-school experiences map onto
Mine would be "dot" as regards fellow pupils at my own school. I had to go further afield to find girls who weren't familiar with the baggage of my geekdom.
Actually, that's not quite true. I would be one of the 63 dipoles, now that I remember the Finnish exchange student.
211: You fogot the "now" between "all" and "hott". And I think "drove there" is probably more the word you're looking for than "converted".
If I remember correctly, the connections aren't `had sex with' but rather `had romantic relations with' (including sex, but not necessary) which is somewhat fuzzy, particularly in high school.
"In Figure 2, and in all discussions presented here, all romantic and sexual relationship nominations linking students are included, whether or not the nomination from i to j was reciprocated with a nomination from j to i."
I don't know if you-all can get to the paper here.
You can also see it here but without the figures.
I had a lot of girlfriends in high school, outside the text.
206: I wonder what my high school would've diagrammed like. It was large enough to support, I think, a couple of those big chains with few or no points of contact between them; if so I'd appear on a spur of the smaller of those chains (the stoner/not-necessarily-jock subculture).
Also, it is specifically relationships among the students at the school. Those between an in-school and non-school person are not considere.
I totally had a girlfriend at this other school. In Canada. You guys don't even know.
I had a lot of girlfriends in high school, outside the text.
One from every Canadian province and territory, wasn't it?
I might or might not probably report one linkage, and the girl involved might or might not, depending on how we felt that day.
One of my college girlfriends subsequently became a lesbian and lives in a civil-union-type relationship.
You cannot imagine how my heart rues when I think back on those days and realize she totally would have been down with a three-way.
216: From the original paper:
on and on, back into the murky, tangled, and largely invisible past of partners'
past partners' past partners for however long the time-ordered chain of past fluid-exchange relationships
may be.
225: don't assume it would be great (it can, but sometimes [often?] really isn't)
216: still dot, 'fraid.
I was not very mature in high school, and knew it; thinking now with the benefit of hindsight over who liked me and would have been compatible, etc, which I indulge in as much as anybody, is pointless, because I'm simply not the same person in these respects I was then.
it can, but sometimes [often?] really isn't
I recall reading something from Kundera (The Joke?) where the narrator makes the same argument. After contriving through a complicated scheme to get with wife and mistress in bed together, he comes to realize that it's more work than play.
All the same, I always thought that was a risk I would be willing to take.
On the Mormon thing: Regional differences, maybe? (Proximity to Utah?) I didn't know many Mormons growing up, but the ones I knew were extremely straightlaced and not at all promiscuous. Nothing at all like Catholics, who were much more numerous and quite promiscuous..
Regional differences, maybe? (Proximity to Utah?)
That would be consistent with what recent findings in the sociology of religion suggest: that the more sacrifice is required to be part of a sect, the stronger the commitment to the sect will be. Being a Mormon in Utah doesn't really require you to go out on a limb the way it would in, say, Tennessee.
Perhaps, but I was thinking of it the other way (more promiscuous the further from Utah), which would account for the apparent difference between Mormons in New Mexico and Alberta.
Those findings are consistent with my experiences with Judaism, however.
232: I suppose we'd have to first establish that there really is a difference, a task to which our respective anecdota probably aren't suited.
the more sacrifice is required to be part of a sect, the stronger the commitment to the sect will be.
And this would also lead to the "brittle security" mentioned in 179, if the sacrifice is mainly in terms of "resisting temptation". If you give in to one temptation, well then, might as well go to hell for a pound as for a penny.
234: Yeah, that would be a necessary first step.
Without seeing the questionnaire that they gave students, it would be hard for us to know how serious a relationship would have to be before it would count as a "romantic relationship" under their standards. I don't know what kind of dot I would be. It seems like the standards might be pretty stringent when you consider that the chart we've seen includes not just sexual but also romantic relationships.
There are a bunch of subtle cultural variations among Mormons that would help predict how likely they are to engage in HS sex. There's certainly a stereotype of the Utah Mormon not being especially committed to the faith. To the extent that stereotype is true, it extends to other places in what I think sociologists call the Mormon Cultural Area -- basically Western Mormon settlements founded on the orders of Brigham Young. That area includes, besides most of Idaho, some of Wyoming, and a bit of Nevada, places in Alberta, Arizona, and even a few towns in New Mexico on the border with Arizona. (My mom's dad was from a very Mormon town in southwestern NM.)
There are also degrees of orthodoxy even among churchgoing ("active" is what they call themselves) Mormons in a given community, and degrees up uptightness about sex. A friend of mine grew up Mormon in a non-Mormon part of the West; her parents drank, although they also went to church, and she lost her virginity in high school. Class probably plays into it as well -- Mormons tend to be very middle class, and thinking back on the Mormon kids I knew who were having sex in high school, a number of them were lower-middle-class. My part of town wasn't affluent, but I imagine there's an upper-middle-class flouting of the rules, as well.
Without seeing the questionnaire that they gave students, it would be hard for us to know how serious a relationship would have to be before it would count as a "romantic relationship" under their standards
Yeah, I really want to see a refined graph with different line formating for different types of relationships: "dated for a while, but broke up before it got past first base"; "gave a blowjob which was subequently regretted by both parties, but by one a little more than the other"; that kind of thing.
Also, the one study I remember seeing of rates of adolescent Mormon sexual activity showed that it was in fact lower than the U.S. population at large, but not tons lower. The data were from the early '70s, though, and my sense is there's been more emphasis in church rhetoric on the sinfulness of premarital sex since then. (OTOH, the internet, gay wizards, etc.)
Now that that's settled, how do I freak out Mormon missionaries? I see them all the time in the poor neighborhood near my house and they are begging for a freakout.
My mom's dad was from a very Mormon town in southwestern NM.
Interesting. What town is this? The only Mormon towns I'm aware of in NM are in the northwestern corner.
Imagine the nouns, pronouns, and verbs agree with each other in 240. A lovely fantasy.
Virden. Right across the border from Duncan, AZ. Both tiny places where they grow cotton. Animas, NM is another; a friend's mom was from there, and we turned out to be related.
229: It can be an awful lot of work, and the potential for wierdness is multiplied etc. It can be a lot of fun, too, I'm not saying it can't. I think the sort of situation you were alluding too --- that someone migh `go for it' as compensation for the fact that she'd maybe rather be with girls anyway, probably isn't a recipie for success.
maybe i just misread you though.
The class thing is interesting; the Mormons I knew growing up were all typically middle class.
Now that that's settled, how do I freak out Mormon missionaries?
Ooh yes, let's have that discussion. I'm thinking you would play along as a willing convert, but with a Borat-like streak ("So, is felching allowed under Mormon doctrine?)
Virden.
Never heard of it. I'm not that familiar with that part of the state; I've heard of Animas, but I didn't realize it was Mormon. The main NM Mormon town I'm familiar with is Bloomfield. I think there are some smaller ones up in that area as well, but I can't think of any offhand.
Now that that's settled, how do I freak out Mormon missionaries?
Offer them coffee.
Growing up I absorbed the unspoken attitude that it was actually not okay with God not to be middle class. New converts who weren't middle class enough had a hard time fitting in with the congregation. (I'm sure this isn't true of Mormons everywhere, but I think it holds pretty well in the western U.S.)
I think of racist-against-Navajos Mormons when I hear "Bloomfield."
250: Yeah, that jibes with my (outsider's) impression as well. Solidly, even insistently, middle-class people.
I think of racist-against-Navajos Mormons when I hear "Bloomfield."
Yeah, that just about sums the place up.
As opposed to Farmington, which is mostly racist-against-Navajos Gentiles.
How to freak out the missionaries: Ask them if they have any signs and tokens. Offer to buy them. Laugh satanically.
What are third-world Mormon converts like, then?
185-186: Having bad sex is pretty bad, but having had bad sex is pretty good.
Ask them about "that underwear," whether Mitt Romney wears, whether they're wearing it right now and could you see it, please? Just a little peek.
255: Any particular way to press my advantage of being an American in a place where they never expected to see one?
Also, aren't garments for married people and missions for unmarried?
Having bad sex is pretty bad, but having had bad sex is pretty good.
I would argue that closer to the opposite is true, at least from a male perspective: There's no such thing as bad sex before you ejaculate.
There's no such thing as bad sex before you ejaculate.
This as well is not true.
I can see how it could sometimes be indeterminite before hand.
257: If it was with someone beautiful or famous, maybe. Or maybe not...
But I can think of bad sex episodes I'd happily go back in time and undo. Only a couple, though, I guess.
I don't have direct experience with third-world Mormon converts, but in the former Soviet Union just after the collapse of Communism, plenty of the new Mormon converts were just poor because most people were poor. In that case, though, the converts were mostly pretty well educated, even if the collapse of the Soviet economy had impoverished them. There were also quite a few who saw Mormonism as a way of moving up a bit on the class ladder, mostly because of its close association with U.S. culture. And the people who were selected for leadership positions were the ones who most quickly assimilated the U.S. businessman's vibe of the church hierarchy; I believe this is true even in places like Latin America where there have been several generations of local Mormons.
what shape would your high-school experiences map onto
I'd be in the big twisty one, and in our comparatively large suburban high school (697 in my graduating class), it would be bigger and twistier. Virginity stayed with me throughout most of the romances, but within its bounds I could nominate at least half a dozen, one of which was with an actress who was using me to pivot away from the quarterback, which connected me to a lot of other people who were probably more connected than I was otherwise.
She might not nominate me, and I still regard her as the one that got away, but whatevs, we made out. Today she is the star of a series of "family-friendly" movies that put her before Christian crowds, where she dodges questions artfully.
Having had bad sex does have the advantage of making fairly mediocre sex shine by comparison -- kind of the way you enjoy a crappy movie better when you went in with low expectations.
I was thinking that the map looked comparatively tame, and then I realized that it was only for the six months preceding the interview, not for all of high school. That changes things. I didn't get around that much.
This as well is not true. I can see how it could sometimes be indeterminite before hand.
Well, my position is inherently impossible to prove, but in my experience, even a sexual encounter as inauspicious as this one is more than tolerable right up to the moment you get off.
Only then does the recrimination and self-loathing set in.
Today she is the star of a series of "family-friendly" movies that put her before Christian crowds, where she dodges questions artfully.
Hmm, did you go to the same high school as Mrs. Ruprecht?
259: Maybe the Romney thing would press your geographical advantage; or ask about the Krakauer book.
Garments are for people who have (I swear this is how it's said) "received their endowment" -- a particular ceremony in the temple (an episode of which is the context for 255 being funny). You have to do it before a temple marriage or before serving a mission; it's optional for unmarried Mormons older than 21 or so.
260: I was thinking more along the lines of "a year down the road", but for immediately after, you're exactly right.
Je ne regrette rien!
Garments are for people who have (I swear this is how it's said) "received their endowment"
So, to freak out a missionary, I should ask if I can receive his endowment?
There's no such thing as bad sex before you ejaculate.
Would that it were so.
265 is a good point.
bad sex is a bit like bad kissing. You sometimes fool yourself by saying `how bad can it be, really?'; and then you find out.
the link in 267 does not begin to plumb the depths.
did you go to the same high school as Mrs. Ruprecht?
Good call, but the movies that Mrs. Ruprecht's classmate has starred in are anything but family-friendly. In fact, I'm sure that at least one of them has been cited by the Dobson crowd as an archetype of what's wrong with secular Hollywood.
Garments are for people who have (I swear this is how it's said) "received their endowment"
Presumeably to avoid quibbling involved if one were to claim to be endowed.
the link in 267 does not begin to plumb the depths.
Preach it, brother.
I have had plenty of recriminations, but no encounter so bad that a few months later it could not be reviewed mentally to provide amusement and even a slight frisson. And by "reviewed mentally", I mean "wanked to".
I'm talking only about bad sex with someone you hardly know or won't do again. Bad sex in the context of a long and faltering relationship is much more depressing, even in hindsight.
Presumeably to avoid quibbling involved if one were to claim to be endowed.
"You are? Let me take a feel."
There's an urban legend about guys at BYU who haven't been on missions (and are thus unendowed) wearing wide rubber bands around their legs just above the knees to simulate the coveted "garment line" and attract marriage-minded young women.
Is it possible that men have no idea what it's really like to have horrible sex? Certainly, for women, there is quite often sex that is intolerably bad, and, even ruling out painful sex, is so boring that only an herculean force of will and a fear of scarring anyone's psyche makes you endure it.
It's entirely possible for sex to be traumatically bad, even (or perhaps even moreso because) with someone who objectively epitomizes a sexual ideal for a large number of people.
279 see 186. etc. Perhaps it is possible for some people? I can't imagine that it very likely.
You shouldn't have tried to take it all at once, Abe.
280 is an interesting example of anonymity lending credence to a claim.
283: We do know that one Tommy Lee is a frequent reader.
234 strikes at the very heart of Unfogged's raisin d'etre.
I suggest that DS be terminated with extreme prejudice. If he hasn't learned yet, he never will. We need our raisins around here.
Is it possible that men have no idea what it's really like to have horrible sex?
Yes, of course.
would that this was the problem, ogged.
I once dated a runway model; the first couple of times we had sex we were both really messed up. The first time we had sex while both sober I realized that a) she had absolutely no physical interest in sex b) had become pretty good at pretending and c) after talking a bit figured out this stemmed from deep issues around sexuality and really long term (since childhood) abuse.
that was not fun.
Isn't there a stereotype of very attractive woman who basically just lay still during sex? I should check my stereotype list.
287 sounds like an experience I had, except it wasn't nearly as serious. I was basically surprised that despite being a seemingly funloving and hippyish person who talked about sex all the time, when the time came for it she approached it in exactly the same way that I would imagine from someone who had no expectation of enjoying it and was instead expecting to be providing sex to the man in exchange for some other sort of favor or gifts. So as a result I was not turned on in the least and we didn't actually have any sex.
So anyway, one reason why men may not have as much experience as women with horrible sex is that men cannot physically have sex while not aroused.
187: Scientific research isn't supposed to be "fun".
There is, but not what I was talking about. More feigned enthusiasm followed by crying jags and maybe puking. Much easier to pull off seamlessly when really high.
I'm wary of steering this conversation toward less than fun ground we've explored already in the past, so I'll pose this in the form of a statement and not a question: People who have troubled sexual pasts can have healthy and hott relationships. It takes a lot to raise low expectations of sex, especially once they've plummeted to the basement, but it isn't impossible.
More feigned enthusiasm followed by crying jags and maybe puking.
I'm sorry, that made me laugh. Comically bad? Anyway, sounds pretty terrible. Better than being shot in the head though, you have to admit.
289: It seems like that doesn't matter much to some men though. I knew a girl who told me sex with one of her exes was pretty much useless, but that wasn't so bad because he didn't mind if she watched tv.
292: This is definitely true. On the other hand, it does nothing to counteract the claimed existence of bad sex.
Ogged's 288 is an unfair stereotype. It raises expectations too high for sex with very ugly women.
People who have troubled sexual pasts can have healthy and hott relationships. It takes a lot to raise low expectations of sex, especially once they've plummeted to the basement, but it isn't impossible.
We were only talking about your exes 80 comments ago, 'Smasher. We all remember that they learned to love again.
Ogged's 288 is related to the "skinny girl --> loose vagina" theory, something I saw in an interesting but douchebagular article (New York magazine, maybe? Esquire?) about how men are sick of women gossiping about penis size and it's high time to start gossiping about vaginal looseness as well. The phrase "like fucking a glass of water" is burned into my memory, yet it does not help me in googling for the article.
about how men are sick of women gossiping about penis size and it's high time to start gossiping about vaginal looseness as well.
That's crazy. To the extent guys talk about sex--and that varies an awful lot--they have been gossiping at least as crudely as women about deficiencies and endowments for a long, long time. Including vaginal tightness.
294:
I met him at a party and he told me how to drive him home
He said he liked to do it backwards I said, "That's just fine with me
That way we can fuck and watch TV."
Also:
So show me yours I'll show you mine tool time youll lovett just like lyle
And then well do it doggy style so we can both watch x-files
Oldie but goodie.
285: If anything happens to me, you know who to blame.
289: one reason why men may not have as much experience as women with horrible sex is that men cannot physically have sex while not aroused.
So are we ruling out experiences where the sex is dull enough to make it hard to maintain... interest?
298: related to the "skinny girl --> loose vagina" theory
The what now?
Since women aren't apparently reading Unfogged right now, can we huddle and get a few of these theories straight? I've never heard that one about skinnygirl vajayjay.
So are we ruling out experiences where the sex is dull enough to make it hard to maintain... interest?
Seems like a bad definition to me. If you can't maintain ... interest how are you going to claim it wasn't bad? Or is it claiming it isn' t sex if you don't get off. (hear that guys? That's the sound of millions of women adjusting there `how many people have you had sex with' numbers downward by about half)
300: yeah, i know it's not original --- but that really isn't what she meant, I think.
Well you know, 302, you know, with more flesh, you know, there's more of it at, say, the armpit, so it stands to reason, you know, that fat girls, you know, it's tight down there too, you know? I think this was the wording of the guy who explained it to me.
Steric hindrance, you know.
302: it's a stupid theory, don't worry about it. Come to think of it, pretty much all such theories are stupid.
Seems like a bad definition to me.
Zigackly.
Ned's making it up.
I swear I'm not a writer for "Esquire". I'm sure you can come up with sufficient google terms to find someone expounding this theory.
you can come up with sufficient google terms to find someone expounding any theory.
if needed, the act of googling may cause them to pop into existence.
I've never heard the skinny girl thing either. I'm going to call this one: Busted.
I am not "Greg the Boyfriend" either. But he read the same article.
The skinny girl theory is an important discovery, and Ned has been so kind as to clue us in on it.
Perhaps he discovered it himself. Wonderful!! Why is he being attacked?
I'm certain Ned isn't making this up, either.
And while it's stupid, it's about par for that particular course.
You mean crude stereotypes about the opposite sex aren't always true? Gee!
You mean crude stereotypes about the opposite sex aren't always true? Gee!
Yeah, shocked the hell out of me too. If you can't trust that stuff, what the hell can you trust?
I notice that no one has disputed Ogged's stereotype in 288. Maybe because it is so obviously based on conjecture rather than first-hand evidence.
If you can't trust that stuff, what the hell can you trust?
You should probably get more information from Esquire. And Men's Health.
Actually, both 288 and the other one sound like the sort of compensatory thing that high school students would make up as a sour grapes thing. Can't get with the hot cheerleader? Oh, they just lie there. Thin attractive girl out of your league? Oh, she has a huge vagina, wouldn't have been a good fuck anyway.
thing. thing.
Also, to be fair, these stories may also be promulgated by non-skinny and non-hot girls in order to level the playing field.
God, that's hilariously idiotic. You want chubby for your chubby.
I'm having a day when I loathe the patriarchy with my heart and soul, and this thread actually made me feel better. Like the guys here aren't assholes.
The Heptones recorded "Feel like a fat girl tonight" a while back. Nice harmonies.
Ned, you may learn someday that there are magazine articles you should not admit to having seen.
The first house I bought had a boxful of 1970s Playboys in the attic. I really liked the interview with Walid Jumblatt.
288 is also true of beautiful guys. Not all of them, but I've slept with some gorgeous boys who tended to just lie back and look smug. Pricks.
And need I add to 325 that when I asked them about it, they said they were feminists.
I've slept with some gorgeous boys who tended to just lie back and look smug.
The female superior position does have certain, errmm, advantages for the woman, does it not, even if she has to expend a little more effort?
327: Eh. You can do most of that stuff in any position, if you're crafty.
I always think of myself as being in the superior position. That's why I expect my underlings to work hard.
That's why I expect my underlings to work hard.
I hear the peasants are revolting.
327: Not inevitable by any stretch, but awareness of this "advantage" can inspire a certain laziness in a partner. Results not rapid enough? "Hey, honey, why don't you get on top?" At which point one might be inspired to start thinking, "Uh huh, or why don't I just do it myself?" And that's my TMI offering for the day.
(I usually feel like I have little to offer on the sex talk threads -- but if we're talking bad sex, why, I do indeed know a thing or two!)
You expect your underthings to work hard? I do not understand this idiom.
333: She's worn out several motors.
What's with the 6 million unique codes? If women need that much variety, I'm glad I'm not trying any more.
What's with the 6 million unique codes?
You don't want the person across from you on the subway to activate your undies when she goes to activate hers, do you?
From the link in 334:
# Japanese camera motorThis is the punchline to one of those jokes, right? "In Hell, see, the sex toy engineers are British..."
# Designed and manufactured in the UK
You don't want the person across from you on the subway to activate your undies when she goes to activate hers, do you?
Some people might enjoy the possibility of such a thing. That's why we also sell devices that have non-unique codes.
She's worn out several motors.
Maybe it's time to upgrade to "The Oyster Duo, with dual pluggable bullet".
Also, "The Octopus Hidden Male Vibrator" would make a nice stocking stuffer.
Some people might enjoy the possibility of such a thing
It's the next generation of toothing.
I suppose that these codes could be added to the Myspace "winks" and so on.
I suppose that these codes could be added to the Myspace "winks" and so on
meet
awareness of this "advantage" can inspire a certain laziness in a partner
340 is mildly hilarious, including the disambiguation at the top.
Although created as a hoax, bluetoothing merged the very credible concepts of short-range wireless networking and desire for sexual partners.
Not only are those credible concepts, they have been proven to actually exist, or so I believe.