You are awesome wrapped in awesome with awesome on top and a scoop of awesome on the side.

Hilarious!

And happy V-day!

Ha! I love it!

My little valentine to everyone who reads the site enough to find a Gottlieb/Sessions Stepp/IWF joke flat-out hilarious.

Do you mind if I post this in my own blog? I'll link to this post with it.

Thanks :)

HA! I love it! Absolutely BRILLIANT!

Yes! Take me back! Please...

LOL Will Barney Gumbel ever find the right woman to settle down with? Brilliant idea!

Quite brilliant. But I can't help but ask...how is random hook ups a better alternative to being stuck in a relationship with someone you don't love? I mean, why sleep with the same pathetic loser for the next 10 or 20 years, when you could sleep with 30 pathetic losers in the same amount of time? That seems kind of silly to me. And it certainly doesn't encourage guys of that sort to be less loser-ey. It probably enforces it the mindset that they don't have to respect women as long as they can get them into bed.

“how is random hook ups a better alternative to being stuck in a relationship with someone you don't love? how is random hook ups a better alternative to being stuck in a relationship with someone you don't love?�
Random hookups are great if and when that’s what you want. “being stuck in a relationship with someone you don't love� is never great. And what make you assume the 30 people I slept with are pathetic losers??

I am in awe. That is brilliant. You should send it to everyone running the anti-VM campaign.

Chefmatt, I don't think Ann has "loser" guys in mind when she thinks of random hook-ups.
Though if they are completely random I guess it'd be hard to tell.
You do have a point though.

Very funny...except...

"Anchor Babies" is generally a slur on the children of non-US citizens. Is there another, more accepted use of the term now? That one seems like hard one to reclaim...

how is random hook ups a better alternative to being stuck in a relationship with someone you don't love? I mean, why sleep with the same pathetic loser for the next 10 or 20 years, when you could sleep with 30 pathetic losers in the same amount of time?

ChefMatt--because all the random hookups aren't going to be pathetic losers. There are plenty of guys that a woman might want to sleep with but not be in a relationship with. And, also, the single woman still has hope, hope that she might find the one man (or woman) that is the right one. In the meantime, there's nothing wrong with getting a lot of booty! What hope does the married woman have? That she can some day get divorced?

fun. Thanks for the humor.
~GoGo

Yikes, sage, I see that I've totally misused that term. Of course I was thinking it meant having babies to save or cement a relationship.

I may post an updated version that doesn't accidentally use a term that's typically used as anti-immigrant hate speech.

Apologies to anyone who was offended by that!

I just uploaded a new version of the image. (See above comment...)

Time to get away from hook-ups and on the path toward passion-less lifelong commitment!

But I can't help but ask...how is random hook ups a better alternative to being stuck in a relationship with someone you don't love?

Interesting word that got added there.

Nobody really selects partners at random. Rather, "random" is the word that gets used when we don't acknowledge someone else's criteria as valid. (What would "random" even mean? Deciding to get with every tenth person you met? Even with something like spin the bottle, you choose who's participating.)

Barney: My friend [Moe] and I have a bet. Are you Mary Tyler Moore?

Patty: [maces him]

Barney: Aaugh! [belch] Ooh, wow! It really you!
-----------
Woman: Excuse me, did something crawl down your throat and die?

Barney: It didn't die!

I don't quite understand how all the discussion I've seen on that Atlantic article cites the alternative as hookups. I mean, there's always serial monogamy. But personally, my favorite thing about being single (and why I don't want to get married) is the awesome freedom that comes with it in virtually every decision I make. It's an even better selling point than sex with hot strangers.

Blogged about it

That's real cool! I just went to a Guerrilla Girls workshop yesterday on activist poster-making...this would be an awesome flyer!

I notice that in the original article, the author characterizes this hypothetical man as "Mr. Good Enough," while you in your response characterize him as "The Loser." There seems to be a lot of middle ground between the original and your response to it. (Coming from someone who considers himself to be "Mr. Good Enough." I'm neither arrogant enough nor stupid enough to consider myself Mr. Perfect, and I don't believe in soulmates, but I don't believe that a rational examination of my character and accomplishments would label me The Loser. Be that as it may, I'm married, so given that I'm not The Perfect Guy, my wife apparently "settled.")

Granted, some of her examples sound a lot more like "The Loser" than "Mr. Good Enough."

Stanna,

The hookups are where Laura Sessions Stepp comes in. See:

http://www.campusprogress.org/soundvision/1462/moral-panic-comes-unhooked

It is by our own divine Ms. Anne.

-Iz

avast2006,

Exactly, it is about what Gottlieb is saying, not what she says she is saying.

I'm not Ms. Perfect, and so I'm not looking for Mr. Perfect. (Although my guy is pretty perfect for me!) I find perfect people annoying. I do like good people, even with their flaws, but Ms. Gottlieb seems to think any husband (even an ex-husband) is better than no husband. Which is pretty disrespectful to men and women. (Like people were saying in the other thread, who really wants to know that their spouse never loved them and married them to gain social acceptability? Ewwww.)

Ann, you are amazing. I love this and I love you. I've spent the entire morning hacking and guzzling cough syrup in an effort to fight this awful bug, and this just totally made my day.

Kudos, lady.

I read this and laughed so hard and thought: Could a blog get any better? And then I read the comments and saw sage question a phrase Ann used, and then I read Ann's apology and correction for it.

It seems like such a small thing, but in the blogosophere, I think I can count the number of times a commenter has called a blogger on something and the blogger not only responds but apologizes and makes the change! Thanks for making my day with your complete lack of obnoxious ego and stubbornness Ann :) You're just one of the many reasons reading this blog is soooo refreshing...

avast2006, just because you're not perfect doesn't mean your wife settled for you! Nobody's perfect - we all realize that. I think the reason most of us are outraged by that article is it's saying you should marry someone you don't even like that much - as long as your wife genuinely loves you and you love her, neither one of you "settled." :)

Great, great counter balance, ann:)

ahahaha ann, you made my (v)day!

nice job.

Damn you, Ann. If this campaign catches on, my girlfriend will be increasingly bored by the intellectual challenges and abundant orgasms that I'm offering her and she'll LEAVE ME and hook up with some lesser twit.

If that happens, I'm holding you personally responsible. ;-)

Boo for women who perpetuate gender holes! That poster was funny..So every man who has read the Vagina Monolagues is a loser? Not funny.

yay! thank you for this. i *am* putting it on my blog (with attribs. and a link, of course).

major props.

"Return that months-old text message..."

PERFECT

It's a cute idea, but I think that perhaps you should consider whether or not the term "loser" is something you want to use. In our culture, just as women are treated like sex objects, men are treated like success objects. A "proper" women is supposed to be sexy and use this to attract a mate. Articles for women about becoming more attractive always focus on physical appearance. By contrast for men, the focus is on making money, becoming famous or popular, or achieving the appearance of these things. A man who does not achieve material success, who drives a crappy car or can't afford nice clothing or who worse yet can afford these things but instead spends his money elsewhere (video games, computers, other hobbies) is branded a loser.

Calling a man "loser" is the equivalent of calling a woman "bitch" or "slut". It's an unfair and unkind value judgment which reinforces the established gender roles of our society. It has no objective criteria, it's used almost exclusively to describe only one sex, and it's mean.

Now, I don't mean to imply that you share these societal values or think that earning potential is the most important thing in a mate. I don't know you well enough to make any such assumptions, and hopefully many feminists are willing to let men take on different gender roles just as they themselves want to change the expectations for their sex. But when you use the term "loser", it gives the impression that you do support the idea that men should be success objects.

In summary, I don't mean to rain on your parade since I appreciate that you're doing something creative and responding to anti-feminist silliness, but I find the term "loser" to be hurtful and, frankly, offensive.

Wow, way to totally miss the point, fellas.

To me, the word "loser" does NOT mean unsuccessful. It means just what it says: loser. Someone who expects you to take care of them like mommy did, and who won't reciprocate basic adult love and respect because they are too selfish to realize that they're not the only person of importance in a relationship. THAT'S what loser means to me. I could personally give a rat's ass if some guy drives a fancy car or has an affluent career or makes bags of money - if he fits that other criteria I outlined above, he is a loser, plain and simple. It has nothing to do with materialism or any of that other nonsense. There are certain expections, but I think even most men would agree that, for example, some guy who is in his 30's, refuses to get a job, still lives in mommy's basement and whose #1 main ambition in life is to smoke as much dope as possible and play as much Playtation as possible, IS A LOSER. Period. It has less to do with a "career choice" and more to do with personal responsibility.

And yes, I personally know someone like this, and have recently removed this toxic person from my circle of friends because I couldn't stand his loser-ness any more! And just for the record, my life has never been better. :)

If you think that being called a loser is as prevalent and damaging as being called a bitch or a slut, you must be smoking some pretty good sh*t. Having been called all three, I'll take loser, thank you. Yes, financial expectations on men suck and are wrong. Yes, what should matter in a relationship is financial responsibility, not high finance. Catch a clue, no one here has any desire to perpetuate that.

Heaven forfend that we critique tripe that is aimed at us--pick a man, any man--and that denigrates you as well. No, it is far more important to predict what sort of ridiculous straw man you are setting up and do an end-run around it.

Oh, and about the vagina monologues thing in the background, that is from a poster put out by the IWF with a dejected cupid in front of a v-day marquee.

I am so not offended by the word loser. I think it's very appropriate, because if they're willing to "settle" or don't care that their wife was, then they are a loser.

And yes, 30 "random" hook ups are far better than 20 years in a miserable relationship. I've slept with maybe 15 people, most of which were one-nighters or casual. I've met just as many people since being in a relationship that I'd love to have sex with (but not date). If I ever split up with my partner I don't think I'd get back into a monogamous relationship. But I love him very much, we've been together for 4 1/2 years and I want to stay with him. Funny what life hands you :)

Ismone, arguing about what you mean when you call someone a loser is about as good a defense as people who say "Well, I don't really mean something bad when I say bitch." And it's not at all surprising that you aren't as bothered by being called a loser as you are by being called bitch or slut. You're a woman. If a man is called a bitch or a slut, he can laugh it off. Same thing if a woman is called a loser. They aren't gender neutral terms. They're much more loaded when used to describe one gender than the other.

"Loser" is not as prevalent as "bitch" or "slut", I will agree, but it's still pretty prevalent. Everyone knows what it means, and it even has it's own hand sign. And it is just as hurtful.

I didn't in any way say that she shouldn't respond to or critique the stupid stuff which is aimed at women. In fact, I went out of my way to say that I was glad that she was responding. But not all responses are equally good and using hurtful language can undermine what she's trying to communicate.

I've gone back and read the Atlantic article twice now, and I'm not seeing the "take a man -- ANY man" idea that people are protesting against. I do see "it's worth double-checking to make sure your standards aren't unreasonably high," but that isn't the same thing as "ANY man, even the mama's boy living in her basement and spending her Social Security check on online porn, is better than nothing."

I also see something to the effect of "If you think the pickings are slim at the age of 30, consider how much worse they will be at 40, when even the marginally marriageable men have been removed from the dating pool." Objectionable or not, this is logical. At age 40, "Where have all the good men gone?" should have an obvious answer: they're celebrating their tenth anniversaries with women who recognized their good qualities (and to whom their bad qualities weren't deal-breakers). The ones who still haven't been removed from the pool via marriage usually have some obvious reason why, and it isn't because they're otherwise perfect spouse material, but have been holding out for Ms. Right. The pool really is smaller the older you get.

It's entirely possible that out of this pool, remaining single would be preferable. It also is entirely possible that someone you rejected out of hand at age 25 starts to look looks pretty darn good in hindsight, in comparison to what's out there today, and considering changes in priorities wrought by the passage of time.

I think you're really from another planet if you think men being called a "bitch" (in either sense, you're a whiny litte bitch, meaning, you're a girl, or you're x's bitch, meaning, fill in the blank) isn't worse than being called a loser. Now, if you're talking about playful insults among a group of men, that's another thing altogether.

Being called a loser (like being called stupid, which also isn't nice) has nowhere near the sting. And as you admitted, it is nowhere near as prevalent. And I don't buy that it has the connotations that you give to it, I think it is just a negative thing to say. When Jim Carrey calls someone a "la-hoo-sa-her" with the funny little L sign (which I haven't seen since the 90's, and I have been known to hang out in large groups of guys where the male to female ratio was 1:15 or 2:7.5) he ain't talking about finances, he's talking about social ineptitude or a general lack of suavite (yes, I am pretty sure that is a made up word.)

The reason I think you're off base here is because it is a thread jack.

And avast, if the touch of a potential honey makes your skin crawl, that ain't healthy. Envying unhappily married women or divorced women ain't healthy either. Read the comments thread from that post for more details.

Ismone, there is a whole continuum of response to a potential honey, and "makes your skin crawl" is way at one end. That is hardly the be-all and end-all of the discussion. Rejecting a man because, quote, "he doesn't like to read" isn't exactly "makes your skin crawl."

I have a friend who blogged recently about being seriously concerned about her long-term compatibility with her boyfriend. She said he was wonderful, treated her well in practically every conceivable way, and even gave her those elusive butterflies in the stomach. The potential deal-breaker? He did not like to discuss politics with her. She was semi-seriously considering dumping him over that one issue, despite all the other things that their relationship had going. Considering that if she did dump him, she would then have to get that need met by joining a political action group, don't you suppose she might consider joining that group anyway, and letting him off the hook for this one failing? This is much closer to "because he doesn't read" than it is to "his touch makes my skin crawl." You still think it's totally unreasonable to suggest that her standards might be set excessively high?

I recently bought a book for my daughter. It's called Junie B. Jones and the Mushy Gushy Valentine by Barbara Park. The plot is roughly this: Junie B., a feisty preschooler, gets a huge Valentine card from a "secret admirer." Instantly, she sets out to find him by winking at all the boys, one after another, in her class. I don't know what she means by this winking--that she will be friends with that boy? Have his babies?--but one thing is absolutely clear: she is ready to do this I-don't-know-what with her secret admirer REGARDLESS OF WHO HE IS. So it does not matter if she likes that boy or not. As long as he likes her, she's ready to go with him to the end of the world. In other words, the Atlantic and Lori Gottlieb are very generous, allowing women to live their lives as they please at least until their thirtieth anniversary. Barbara Park would have us settled at five years of age.

Avast,

These are the jems that got my skin crawling:

"By 40, if you get a cold shiver down your spine at the thought of embracing a certain guy, but you enjoy his company more than anyone else’s, is that settling or making an adult compromise?"

I don't think ignoring physical revulsion is ever a good idea. Or how about this:

"He had a long history of major depression and said, in reference to the movies he was writing, “I’m fascinated by comas� and “I have a strong interest in terrorists.� He’d never been married. He was rude to the waiter. But he very much wanted a family, and he was successful, handsome, and smart. As I looked at him from across the table, I thought, Yeah, I’ll see him again. Maybe I can settle for that. But my very next thought was, Maybe I can settle for better."

I don't have a problem with depressed people; a number of my friends are depressed. Nor do I have a problem with people with macabre preoccupations. But if I did, I wouldn't marry someone with either feature in their life. She should leave this guy for someone who doesn't look down on him. Rude to the waiter? That does not fly with me. The line "maybe I can settle for better" says it all. This isn't about readjusting her expectations and recognizing the good enough guy in front of her. This is about getting the best romantic "deal" that she can based on her lower "value." Like I said, the feministers in the other thread agreed that sometimes, adjusting your expectations is a healthy thing. And I and others on this thread have said we don't want perfect partners either.

Plus you've just flat ignored what I've said about her unhealthy attitude towards bad marriages and divorce.

"Many of the guys I dated possessed these qualities, but if one of them lacked a certain degree of kindness, another didn’t seem emotionally stable enough, and another’s values clashed with mine."

I think it is very healthy not to remain with someone unkind, unstable, or with whom you have insurmountable value clashes. Now, if she told us something like "I thought he was unkind, but actually I just didn't realize that he expressed his kindness in different ways than I did. Sure, he never sent people thank you cards, but he always noticed when my mom's car door squeaked or when a friend's gutters needed cleaning," then I would think, yes, you were shallow and foolish.

But this is what pisses me off the most:

"The author then trots out tales of professional, accomplished women happily dating a plumber, a park ranger, and an Army helicopter nurse. The moral is supposed to be “Don’t be too picky� but many of the anecdotes quote women who seem to be trying to convince not just the reader, but themselves, that they haven’t settled."

Seriously, f*ck her. Both my grandfathers and much of my extended family are blue collar workers. My fiance is military (enlisted, not officer). I find the idea that marrying someone who doesn't have equally burnished professional credentials (or perhaps any professional credentials) is settling to be really offensive and classist.

I haven't managed to get to the other thread yet (I do have to get some work done today).

I did mention earlier that I thought her examples were pretty lame. Take the one you quote:

"By 40, if you get a cold shiver down your spine at the thought of embracing a certain guy, but you enjoy his company more than anyone else’s,"

Okay, stop. Stop right there. I find this to be largely self-cancelling. What planet does she live on? Where I come from, visceral disgust does not go hand in glove with a enjoyment of this person's company and a desire to spend more of it together. Further, even if it did, I can't imagine being the fellow in question and remaining present to inflict myself in some masochistic way on someone who felt that way about me. Can you imagine being on the receiving end of that? (Let alone be a woman on the receiving end of that. "I really admire your mind, but your flat chest and cottage cheese thighs make me want to hurl." Any male uttering that sentiment would by ruthlessly pilloried as a cad, and rightly so.) Short answer: 'Kaythxbye.

You'll get no argument from me about it being classist and offensive, other than to note that it does occur all too regularly (even though it shouldn't).

Yes, the article is a mess.

I have a friend who blogged recently about being seriously concerned about her long-term compatibility with her boyfriend. She said he was wonderful, treated her well in practically every conceivable way, and even gave her those elusive butterflies in the stomach. The potential deal-breaker? He did not like to discuss politics with her. She was semi-seriously considering dumping him over that one issue, despite all the other things that their relationship had going. Considering that if she did dump him, she would then have to get that need met by joining a political action group, don't you suppose she might consider joining that group anyway, and letting him off the hook for this one failing? This is much closer to "because he doesn't read" than it is to "his touch makes my skin crawl." You still think it's totally unreasonable to suggest that her standards might be set excessively high?

Earlier in our relationship I seriously considered leaving my partner because he's intimidated by my ranting. It's got better, but at one point it was a huge issue because I'd relax, then I'd want to discuss something with him, then I'd get enthusiastic and it would freak him out.

I need someone I can vent to. I have tried very hard to not overtalk him or anything, but the fact is trying to avoid certain topics makes me feel like shit. I try harder not to get so angry about things, and he's tried harder not to feel personally attacked when I rant.

I believe strongly in leaving someone if you're not happy. Of course a relationship is work and compromise, but you have to be honest about when it's going nowhere. I do not believe you ever stop loving someone, but sometimes the time is wrong and staying together despite it just makes things worse

"You still think it's totally unreasonable to suggest that her standards might be set excessively high?"

I think it depends. If it's something that's bothersome on a regular basis, that's a problem. If politics are that important to a person and she/he needs to talk about them regularly, standards aren't too high. Of course people aren't 100% compatible and it can be hard to judge when staying in a relationship would be "settling" or learning to compromise.

Fenriswolf, I think I can relate. We shouldn't give up on a relationship too quickly (if many other things about it are good) because people can adjust or change or both, sometimes without realizing it. I've read about studies that (somehow) found people become more similar to each other after going out.

Holy Dogshit, that just made me laugh out loud. With a mouthful of tea. Ouch.

You can't see me Ann, but I'm bowing in the general direction of your sheer piss-taking awesomeness!

Rejecting a man because, quote, "he doesn't like to read" isn't exactly "makes your skin crawl."

Ah, so needing a lover who shares my main passion in life, the activity that has captured my interest most ever since I was a toddler, who shares with me a passionate belief in the value and importance of literacy--that's too much to ask?

Fair enough. I'll stay single.

Here's the deal. I said suggesting that her standards might be excessively high." Not claiming that her standard are excessively high. You do see the difference, I hope; the operative words are italicized for your convenience. It implies that she is the one taking stock of the situation and deciding, albeit with some input from other sources. (Hey she blogged about it, and asked for opinions.) I dared suggest she do that, and apparently upon reflection that is the conclusion she came to (not that I or anybody else forced on her), since she is now engaged to be married to the guy.

"Fair enough. I'll stay single."

Yup, you probably will.

Yes I do. There is no such thing as too high standards

There most certainly is such a thing.

I believe strongly in leaving someone if you're not happy. Of course a relationship is work and compromise

Those two statements don't go together. Leaving because you're temporarily not "happy", especially if you've put a lot of time in, is foolish. If you just get in a rut, you work out the problems or seek counselling. You got together for a reason, and if you're not being abused or otherwise traumatized, to toss it off without putting in effort is stupid, selfish, and ignorant.

This whole comment section seems to advocate that women should always date with one eye on their partner, and one eye on everyone else, always on the look-out for anyone who might be even slightly better.

How disgusting. One of the many, many reasons I don't date.

If a man did that, he'd be branded a dog, a "player", and a scumbag.

For a woman...it's apparently just good business? Blech.

Wow, there's a lot of people talking past one another in this thread. . . Seriously, go back and read the earlier post and comments about the Gottlieb article. The majority of commenters seemed to agree that normal people, feminists included, aim for a middle-road between the ridiculously picky (straw?)women a few of you are talking about, and the absurd notion of 'settling' that Gottlieb appears to advocate. Yes, of course nobody is flawless, and anyone looking for a flawless partner(s) is on a doomed quest.

But Gottlieb is not talking about tolerance of quirks and minor disagreements. She is talking about "SETTLING"--marrying someone, anyone, just so you can have some kids and not be alone. She specifically says that she thinks it would be better to be divorced than alone, because then at least she'd be getting child support.

So when commenters here vilify the notion of 'settling', that's what they're talking about--settling for someone you genuinely believe is not suitable for you or 'beneath' you, just to avoid being alone. We're not advocating rejecting someone otherwise compatible because they have a weird laugh or you don't like their favorite shirt--we're talking about the radical (to Gottlieb) notion that there's nothing wrong with rejecting someone who repulses you or whom you would expect to divorce a year or two later.

Mild Ennui,

If you do not date, or have sex, as you have claimed, how do you have any idea what is and is not a reasonable thing to look for in a partner?

And also, if you have such disdain for women and their choices, what are you doing on a Feminist site?

"This whole comment section seems to advocate that women should always date with one eye on their partner, and one eye on everyone else, always on the look-out for anyone who might be even slightly better."

Perhaps you should re-read the comments section, Ennui, as I see it advocating quite the opposite. It advocates not being in a relationship with someone at all, unless you feel content/fulfilled by being with that person. Presumably, if you /only/ enter into a relationship with someone you genuinly like, you will not feel as though you should/could be "trading up". And then if you reach a point in the relationship where you're no longer happy with it overall, people are saying you should leave. No one talked about shopping around while they are in a relationship.

"There is no such thing as too high standards - unless it's wanting someone of specific measurements and skin/eye/hair colour. And that's simply shallow."

OTOH, even if you refuse to date someone for a shallow reason, what's wrong with that? That other person doesn't have a right to romance, and certainly not one that outweighs your right to say no.

For example, if I think a guy is hot then find out he doesn't want me for a girlfriend because of my race, is that a racist violation of my rights? No, because I don't have the right to a boyfriend in the first place.

It's not a violation of your rights, but it is racist.

Referring back to an earlier comment, I also have a problem with the hook-up culture and it's unfortunate that antifeminist hacks such as Laura Sessions Stepp are the only ones speaking out about it.

Whenever progress is made in the area of women's sexuality, our culture always manages to take some of that progress away. Take the free love movement as an example. It's absolutely fantastic that that movement allowed for women to have sex outside of marriage. However, you can't tell me that men also didn't use that movement as a way to coerce women into having sex. I'm finding it hard not to imagine women in the '60s having sex they didn't really want in order to avoid being labeled uptight.

I'm seeing the same crap in the hook-up culture. Young women feel obligated to have sex with any guy who expresses an interest to either gain their male peers' approval or, again, to avoid the "frigid bitch" label.

Additionally, in my anecdotal experience, most young men don't have the slightest idea what they're doing in bed. If that's true across the board, most women participating in hook-ups aren't getting their money's worth. And, since it's just a one-night stand, those guys aren't going to learn how to be decent lovers for a good long time.

gottleib is coming from that dreadful place of "any man is better than no man." having lived by that belief myself for many years, i am hugely relieved and so much happier to have made the switch to knowing and truly feeling that "no boyfriend is better than the wrong boyfriend." in the meantime, a fling or a good vibrator are both fun.

keshmeshi wrote: "in my anecdotal experience, most young men don't have the slightest idea what they're doing in bed. If that's true across the board, most women participating in hook-ups aren't getting their money's worth. And, since it's just a one-night stand, those guys aren't going to learn how to be decent lovers for a good long time."

i hear ya - this is rather off topic, but i'll just offer it up as something to consider -- finding a "fling-mate," someone interested in being w/you sexually on a regular basis means you CAN get to know each others' bodies, needs and desires over time, and having the guy use viagra - recreationally even if they don't "need" it - will so totally revolutionize your sexual experience. it's incredible!!! i only discovered this when i had a much older boyfriend and it made me wish my 30 something boyfriends of the past had had this stuff!!

"Additionally, in my anecdotal experience, most young men don't have the slightest idea what they're doing in bed. If that's true across the board, most women participating in hook-ups aren't getting their money's worth. "

Well, I've had casual "hook-up" sex that was really fun (with men in their 20s), and relationship sex that wasn't that good and felt like an obligation. I don't think you can generalize. While I agree we have a culture that permits too-many men to be sexually pushy or sexually selfish, this is true across the board, whether you are discussing monogamous relationships or hook-ups. I think it's hardly the "fault" of the hook-up culture, and I disagree that the hook-up culture can't benefit women, or overwhelmingly benefits men more than women.

SweetPea,

You might like viagra, but I don't think we as a society should push for greater use of it. From what I understand, most women prefer sexual activities other than intercourse...

If you do not date, or have sex, as you have claimed, how do you have any idea what is and is not a reasonable thing to look for in a partner?

It's not as though I've never dated, or never had sex. Obviously.

Besides, one doesn't have to be doing something to comment on it. Otherwise only the pharmacists here could comment on birth control stories, only the people who have had, or who perform abortions could comment on those...etcetera.

And also, if you have such disdain for women and their choices, what are you doing on a Feminist site?

I'm allowed to have disdain for choices I find hypocritical.

Though, I don't see how you come up with thinking I have disdain for women.

Unless you're like one feminist I encountered, who said that my not dating was a misogynist act.

Additionally, in my anecdotal experience, most young men don't have the slightest idea what they're doing in bed. If that's true across the board, most women participating in hook-ups aren't getting their money's worth. And, since it's just a one-night stand, those guys aren't going to learn how to be decent lovers for a good long time.

Oh, so, naturally, young men are inexperienced, but young women are professionals? How's that work?

Everyone is inexperienced when they're young, and haven't, you know, had much experience. It's how it works.

Taking Viagra when it's not "needed" can be damaging to a man's body. Not a good plan.

(Possible trigger)

You know what...I have witnessed far too many of my young women friends (I'm 23) being abused or raped by their boyfriends (that one was last night and I'm still freaked out--I heard my flatmate's boyfriend verbally abusing her and emphasizing his points with the bed pounding and her telling him, ow, kyle stop, you're hurting me and making these awful pained squeaks) that I'd say the problem is not settling for a loser, the problem is finding one that won't abuse you or use you. I personally think there is something wrong with American men, really wrong, and I think that the statistic that 1 in 4 women in this country are being abused is too effing conservative. I have seen too much to think otherwise...

Northwest: progressive my ass.

(Possible trigger)

You know what...I have witnessed far too many of my young women friends (I'm 23) being abused or raped by their boyfriends (that one was last night and I'm still freaked out--I heard my flatmate's boyfriend verbally abusing her and emphasizing his points with the bed pounding and her telling him, ow, kyle stop, you're hurting me and making these awful pained squeaks) that I'd say the problem is not settling for a loser, the problem is finding one that won't abuse you or use you. I personally think there is something wrong with American men, really wrong, and I think that the statistic that 1 in 4 women in this country are being abused is too effing conservative. I have seen too much to think otherwise...

Northwest: progressive my ass.

Err there might be *worse* men then *mere* losers but that doesn't mean you should be expected or encouraged to settle for a loser.

Being single is less scary then being attached to someone you don't really want.

my response to Gottlieb's article here:

http://jocie-fong.blogspot.com/2008/02/on-settling.html

It's not a violation of your rights, but it is racist.

Meh. I don't know. If a given quality doesn't turn you on, it doesn't turn you on and there's a not a whole lot to be done about that--there may be larger cultural dynamic or process of socialization that is racist, but describing the result on an individual level as racist doesn't seem productive or accurate to me.

"You might like viagra, but I don't think we as a society should push for greater use of it. From what I understand, most women prefer sexual activities other than intercourse..."

Yeah, use of it should be up to the individual instead of society. For example, if one woman prefers cuddling and asks her husband to skip viagra, that shouldn't interfere with the man down the street preferring intercourse and asking his husband to consider viagra.

"If a given quality doesn't turn you on, it doesn't turn you on and there's a not a whole lot to be done about that--there may be larger cultural dynamic or process of socialization that is racist, but describing the result on an individual level as racist doesn't seem productive or accurate to me."

Besides, the right to say no to dates/sex/marriage/etc. is too important to have stuff like "but he can't help having this trait" or "but she can't help having that trait" override it.

In your original post though, it said he turned you down specifically because of your race. And we had a whole thread about that a month or so ago. If he just doesn't feel attracted to dark haired women, that's one thing, but I interpreted your post as his saying he's not attracted to Iranian-American women. Which would be making an assumption about an entire class of people based on their race and what is assumed about that ethnicity. And that would be racist. I didn't say he's ethically obligated to give you a shot anyway, and on the continuum of racist things, that's not heinous, but it is still racist.

Wonderful post, and quite creative. Goes down, sans snark, in my mental file of Feministing favorites. Brava.