Lesbian Desire

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
Is lesbian desire significantly different from heterosexual male desire? Are different things valued, and different kinds of experience hankered after?

the pinefox, Thursday, 3 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago) link

Obvious immediate question-disabler =

"The question cannot be answered because lesbian desire is just as various as any other; no generalizations about it are possible or worthwhile. 'Lesbian desire' as a unified entity does not exist."

I think I'm willing to accept this answer (and withdraw the question and, as Mark Lawrenson would say, pack my bags and go home). But then, there might still be other, more positive answers.

the pinefox, Thursday, 3 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago) link

Wheres Wendy Carlos when you need hierm

Brian MacDonald, Thursday, 3 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago) link

Bri, did you have another martini lunch?

David Raposa, Thursday, 3 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago) link

I think what USES your desire gets put to can be significantly different when you're lesbionic.

Tracer Hand, Thursday, 3 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago) link

you mean cats instead of kids tracer? what do you mean?

mark s, Thursday, 3 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago) link

I have noticed, through experience, that lesbian desire is very similar to hetero-male desire. Which just might be saying all desire is desire. But everytime I'm with a lesbian friend, by the end of the night, she is much less discriminate than, say, ME. Lesbian girls go after each other like mad raccoons, yo. I have turned into a prude. What is the purpose of this question?

Gage-o, Thursday, 3 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago) link

Only purpose = the question has popped up in my head a few times over the last few months, and I have only just remembered to put it you the ILE gang of wise folk. Why it's popped up: I can't remember.

There is no Ulterior Motive to the question. It's just a genuine bit of curiosity that I hope offends no-one.

the pinefox, Thursday, 3 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago) link

I mean that het desire can get used to further all kinds of yuppie aspirations more transparently than lesbian desires usually manage to. Of course I know a lesbionic lawyer/professor couple who've got a young daughter and live in a fabulous brownstone on Prospect Park West. But one of the reasons that it's such an accomplishment for them is because it doesn't fit with the templates for living that their own upbringing suggested to them.

Tracer Hand, Thursday, 3 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago) link

Which rather cleverly avoids getting into what lesbian desire DOES "generally" get used for. That was on purpose, cuz I'm not sure I know.

Tracer Hand, Thursday, 3 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago) link

I guess I just mean it doesn't "slot in" :) to society the same way. Marriage, kids, what that stuff Means - could we say that lesbian desire is more roll-your-own on those counts?

Tracer Hand, Thursday, 3 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago) link

How does lesbian desire differ in your mind from gay male desire? I'm not sure I understand this thread.

Sean, Thursday, 3 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago) link

Er, Sean: gay male desire = it has a cock; lesbian desire, elsewise? I don't think pinefox is being wildly controversial in his initial assumptions.

mark s, Thursday, 3 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago) link

No, I'm not saying wildly controversial, I just don't understand it. Surely gay male desire = it has a cock no more than lesbian desire = it has a vagina? Is the assumption that gay male desire is primarily sexual? Why assume lesbians don't desire other women as ardently?

Sean, Thursday, 3 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago) link

Yr final question is a paraphrase of pinefox's original question. He's not assuming there's a difference, he's asking whether there's one. It's a question, not a statement. eg het male = he desires women; lesbian = she desires women. Does the word "desires" operate differently in these two sentences?

I can't tell if you're puzzled because you think the answer's "no difference, obviously" or "difference, but i don't feel i should say so".

mark s, Thursday, 3 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago) link

Doesn't the Lacanian influenced school of thought suggest that there is a difference? (Monique Wittig, perhaps? Judith Butler?) And there's "lesbian desire" in the context of late 60's/ early 70s feminist politics; I'm pretty sure some writers of the time were suggesting there was a difference. (Charlotte Bunch?)

rosemary, Thursday, 3 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-three years ago) link

Is the assumption that gay male desire is primarily sexual?

I think it is, but if you mean to contest this assumption, that's fine. I just realized that it was an assumption that I had made while trying to come up with why lesbian desire is different.

Tracer Hand talked about the uses of desire. Before he clarified what he meant, I thought he was talking about how desire is (not) satisfied. If it's through sexual possession, then that's pretty straightforward. But people say that women get different things out of relationships than men. I don't know the position of the feminist theorists that rosemary mentions on this; maybe it just reinforces gender roles. From my experience, it doesn't seem off the mark. Which makes the idea of possession more difficult to define for women. (Desires that are unattainable for want of a fixed or known object.) Certainly, I've admired women before. I think I idealize them more than men, whose swagger I think of as some sort of shtick.

I found that passage in The Hours. It's on p. 143.

Kara Fig, Friday, 4 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-two years ago) link

i don't identify as a lesbian as such, but i do have sexual desire for girls. i don't exactly know what heterosexual male desire is like, and i never will, but what i do know is that being in love with a woman is a completely different feeling to being in love with a man. i would figure myself that lesbian desire is different to het male desire for the simple reason that men and women are different (different and the same in many respects - i don't want to dichotomise), have (some) different experiences of the world and probably experience desire differently.

but of course, i also subscribe to pinefox's first answer: that is that lesbian desire is multiple.

di, Friday, 4 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-two years ago) link

you mean you get more orgasms? what do you mean, di? :)

Tracer Hand, Friday, 4 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-two years ago) link

You dirty sod.

Peter Miller, Friday, 4 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-two years ago) link

This is the sort of thing that some knob always brings up when we're in the pub or something. And it's like "oh but come on, girls are way closer to being lesbians than guys are to being gay". grrrrr.

Ronan, Friday, 4 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-two years ago) link

for some reason I feel the need to say I get annoyed by the fact it's such a boring, heres one I made earlier conversation, rather than the actual content, which is not so much annoying as silly.

Ronan, Friday, 4 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-two years ago) link

ronan who's being the knob here exactly? surely this = boring conversation for you becoz you have only so far had it wiv teenage tossahs in a pub, rather than wiv US!!

As a far-from active bisexual I pretty much second lady di's point, that desire-for-boiz and desire-for-grrlz = diff kettles of pash.

mark s, Friday, 4 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-two years ago) link

Ok point taken, I know it's not being discussed like that here. It is true, I think, that the attractions are different things, but it's one of those "truths" that becomes annoying when it's twisted all the time for boring ladmag conversations. Sorry, this isn't the first time I've come across as dismissing an entire thread when I shouldn't obviously.

Ronan, Friday, 4 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-two years ago) link

well ocnsidering desire in terms of expression is shaped by cultural/social insittitutions as an expression of power, i would imagine that lesbain desire is similar to all other desire, in terms of their creation and effects....

however in terms of what one woman feels for another, in respect to sexual acts, emotional feelings, etc, i would suspect that might depend on the women involved, and that the women involved would have to speak about that desire themselves

Geoff, Friday, 4 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-two years ago) link

di, i still want to know what you mean abt multiplicity. can you cut through the lad-mag gunk?

Tracer Hand, Friday, 4 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-two years ago) link

lesbian desire = various

I desire particular girls for many reasons - because I want to:
become her
protect her
worship her
destroy her
fuck her really hard
lick her
touch her gently all over
hold her
be seen with her
make someone else jealous
make the whole world jealous
go off into fairy land together
constrain her
treat her like shit
become one with her
live in a little cottage with a vege garden with her
live at the seaside with her
dance with her
grow old with her
be protected by her
cry with her

sorry to crap on so but I don't think desire is ever any one thing for anyone ever. For me, being with a woman is honest, it's about being me and being truthful and pure. It's not a game and there's no pretending. For others, it it safe, as in they're scared of men. I'm always really suss about chicks that go for total bull-dykes. It's like they just want a man without a dick and so I immediately assume they've been raped as a child. I could be wrong but to me bull-dyke != woman.

The other things I desire in the same way that I desire women are clothes, food, make-up, cars, books, talent. These are things I want with all my heart and soul and flesh and mind.

toraneko, Friday, 4 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-two years ago) link

>>I'm always really suss about chicks that go for total bull-dykes. It's like they just want a man without a dick and so I immediately assume they've been raped as a child. I could be wrong but to me bull-dyke != woman.<<

why do i find this statement so offensive?

di, Friday, 4 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-two years ago) link

in response to tracer hand, i simply meant that lesbian desire is probably different for every woman who experiences it.

di, Friday, 4 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-two years ago) link

Can't imagine Di, unless you are a bull-dyke who considers herself to be womanly, in which case I would question your need to perpetrate the myth that male/masculine/man is normal and female/feminine/woman is an aberration.

toraneko, Friday, 4 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-two years ago) link

i just don't think that you have any right to dictate what is a woman and what isn't. i also don't think it is a good idea to perpetuate the myth that female=feminine. women should be able to be whatever they wanna be as long as they aren't hurting anyone. its the whole gender-typing thing that is oppressive. i also don't think you should go assuming ANYTHING about women who are attracted to this so- called "bull-dyke" that you refer to.

di, Saturday, 5 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-two years ago) link

I would imagine most men would resent the er suggestion that bull dykes have what a man is like locked down well also.

Ronan, Saturday, 5 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-two years ago) link

toroneko: what is your definition of "bulldyke"? what degree of "masculinity" is enough for you to consider someone a "bulldyke"? Is it only based on self-definition? What about just "dykes"?
i've been fuming about your post for so long and making up answers in my head (when i was away from computers) but now i'm just kind of fed up & don't know if i can be bothered addressing such stupidity. i'll respond when i've got more time...have to leave now.

elizabeth anne marjorie, Sunday, 6 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-two years ago) link

Di, I'm not dictating anything. I did not say "all women should have to have long hair and wear dresses and make-up" or that all lesbians should be attracted to those who present themselves in such a manner. I said that I was "suss about chicks that go for total bull- dykes". i.e. I'm suspicious about whether they are lesbians because they are attracted to women or whether they are too scared of men to experience an attraction to them and whether that fear is based on previous sexual abuse. I wonder if they are actually attracted to women or whether they merely have an absence of attraction to men.

In Australia the rate of childhood sexual abuse in females is 20%. I would estimate, based on the women I know, that amongst the lesbian community it is at least 50% and possibly substantially more. I am questioning whether these women would have been lesbians had they not been abused as children, or had they not witnessed their mothers being sexually and physically abused, which seems to be not uncommon as well. These seem, in my experience, to be the lesbians that either go for or become bull-dykes.

The discussion was about lesbian desire. I was explaining what lesbian desire means to me. I do not consider the desire for a bull- dyke to be in accord with what lesbian desire means to me. Me stating what something means to me does not invalidate other people's truths. I am surprised at your reaction to it.

I am also surprised that you seem to feel that it is all right to dictate to me what I should or should not assume. My assumptions are based on personal experience. Yes, assumptions and generalisations are short-cuts and they are easy but they are usually based on reality and/or experience, not just on predjudices.

I find it wryly amusing that someone such as yourself who obviously feels no hesitation about making controversial comments is so easily offended by an opinion about what I do or do not consider a woman to be. Do you dispute my right to define the words I use? Surely it is necessary for me to do so in order to communicate effectively when some words, such as woman, are so open to different interpretations. Out of interest, what is your definition of a woman? Is a woman any person who identifies themself as such? Are women only those born with vaginas? Are women those who wear dresses? Are women those with two X chromosones? What do you call those with one or three X chromosone, or two X and one Y? What do you call those who despite having vaginas, wombs, and breasts choose to live their lives as men? What do you call bull-dykes on male hormones? Are they still women? What about people that consider themselves to be ladies or girls instead of women? Do you acknowledge them having a right to be known as such? Or do you consider the word woman (and others like it) to be obsolete?

toraneko, Sunday, 6 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-two years ago) link

the canon debate with people?

Ronan, Sunday, 6 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-two years ago) link

How does lesbian desire differ in your mind from gay male desire?
Apparently much less fixed. Not uncommon for heterosexual females to become lesbian for a certain span of time and then go back to men. Maybe because women look for different things in sexuality?

helenfordsdale, Sunday, 6 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-two years ago) link

What does Ronan's post mean?

N., Sunday, 6 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-two years ago) link

It means Ronan = smartest cat on thread

mark s, Sunday, 6 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-two years ago) link

BUT HE'S ONLY SIX YEARS OLD

N., Sunday, 6 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-two years ago) link

yeah and jokes about my age are far far far older than that grandpa.

Ronan, Sunday, 6 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-two years ago) link

B-b-but Tracer it is LesbioTIC not Lebionic! Lady gayists != STRANGE BIONIC KREATUREZ! (Or is that in fact the secret story of LESBIAN DESIRE??? Gosh! Question solved! In my head at least).

Sarah, Sunday, 6 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-two years ago) link

Sorry Ronan, it's one of those 'boy jokes' that just get funnier and funnier the more they are repeated, and the funniness level increases exponentially whenever you protest that it's not funny.

I think I have just spoiled the joke.

N., Sunday, 6 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-two years ago) link

Or, as Tirifik would have put it, "I'm not six you idiot hypocrites! I'm FIVE! And I'm really pleased you all hate me!!"

mark s, Sunday, 6 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-two years ago) link

toraneko, the moment you question someones right to self- definition you are imposing your views upon them = dictating. as for your charge of ME dictating to you, well, you can assume whatever the hell you like about people, but i don't think you would like it if i assumed a bunch of stuff about you based on how i might choose to define your identity category. you bet your ass no-one likes to be pigeonholed. its just a question of respect for other human beings, really.

i do not have a strict definition of the word "woman" because to do so would lead to essentialism and i think that the looser the definition, the harder it is for people to pigeonhole us = the more room we have to move as people.

di, Sunday, 6 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-two years ago) link

(here's something odd then: the Greatest Living Pinefox asks a qn abt lesbian desire and ILE's two leading posters-in-the-know differ, to the extent that T specifically excludes from *her* defn the very epitome of the popular-vulgar bar-room image-idea of same, while D throws it so wide'n'fluid that it cd pretty much include me)

mark s, Sunday, 6 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-two years ago) link

i would be with judith butler re her "strategic provisionality" here. i think she uses the term in regards to "lesbian", but i would extend it to "woman" as well. in theory i think that woman cannot really be defined - there are just too many individual details which would get lost. but i recognise the need for some kind of definition of woman, but one which is constantly being redefined so as to avoid exclusivity and gettin' pigeonholed.

generally speaking and note within reason i think anyone who chooses to define themselves as a woman is a woman. by within reason i mean that if a person with XY chromosomes who normally identifies himself as a man suddenly chose to identify as a woman for no other reason than to take issue with my definition of "woman", i would say that he has no grounds for it. but i throw my definition wide enough to include female transsexuals and some ambiguous others.

yikes this stuff is tough. critical engagement on this would be cool! bring it on!

di, Sunday, 6 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-two years ago) link

hurray! my second daring feat of spectacular HTML actually worked!

di, Sunday, 6 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-two years ago) link

in that case by the magic of "strategic provisionality" i define myself as joan jett's girlfriend

mark s, Sunday, 6 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-two years ago) link

lol!

di, Sunday, 6 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-two years ago) link

jj is a bit possessive, it turns out, and doesn't really me talking to other women, so i'm afraid i must say a polite g'night to the thread

CREOLE PROVERB: "Tell me who you love, and I'll tell you who you are"

mark s, Sunday, 6 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-two years ago) link

toraneko: your regarding women who are attracted to "bull dykes" (which you haven't given any explanation of what you mean by - yet you rudely demanded such of di regarding women, which was rather odd considering it's you, not her, who is coming over all rigid regarding sex/gender/sexuality) is pretty much the same old pathologising idea used against female-female desirers (lesbians, whatever): interpreting it in terms of lack. Lack of desire for men was the usual but you are using the idea of lack of "real" desire for women. "Bulldykes" != man minus penis to many (most?) who are attracted to them. I include myself in this category. I really resent that someone interprets this as not really lesbian.

Your idea also shows simplistic (stupid) (mis)understanding of rape. I don't believe that avoiding penises (yeah I know that's not the correct plural but it's what i usually say) is a wise response to rape nor a common one. I have never been raped - would you therefore interpret me as an exception? Or am I an exception anyway because I am also attracted to men (disproportionately, as this is much rarer compared to my attraction to females and I prefer "girly"ish men, and because I am not only attracted to butch women)???
What about "bulldykes" who are submissive - what happens to yr theory when you regard women who like to sexually dominate submissive butch women? What about men who are attracted to butch women (/"bulldykes")?
The people y're being really ignorant and disrespectful about helped create the present environment where it is easier/safer to express and acheive those various desires you wrote about on this thread.

Just what degree of butchness is it a gal's objects of desire mustn't exceed in order for her to fit your definition of lesbian?

elizabeth anne marjorie, Sunday, 6 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-two years ago) link

Fuck off Liz, I know you wish you were a bull-dyke but you are just a fat, ugly cow.

toraneko, Monday, 7 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-two years ago) link

This thread has become ILE's very own Burchill/Paglia fax war!

Andrew L, Monday, 7 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-two years ago) link

alas, sometimes i too wish i were a bull dyke...

in the emantime, we once conducted a straw poll on what consitituted a woman, and found that 9 out of 10 women could be found to have liked grease the movie. Disucss.

geoff, Monday, 7 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-two years ago) link

well toraneko, temper temper. I particularly enjoyed the way you eskewed countering Liz's points in favour of an unoriginal insult. What is a bull dyke? and do they come out of the stable rather than the closet? Is a lesbian a pansy without a stalk? By dressing in mens clothing sometimes do I gain honorary bull dyke status? I do hope so, then i might be able to start throwing my weight round. It would be so much more empowering than just being called butch.

I do not forget that comment Di, just because I could open the jar of salsa and you couldn't :)

Menelaus Darcy, Monday, 7 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-two years ago) link

I want a bull dyke for my birthday.

Ronan, Monday, 7 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-two years ago) link

yes that'll open yr jar of salsa ronan

joan jett's actual girlfriend, Monday, 7 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-two years ago) link

I do not forget that comment Di, just because I could open the jar of salsa and you couldn't :)

stop it menelaus, you are obliterating my tough girl credibility! ;)

di, Monday, 7 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-two years ago) link

oh, have we met, toraneko?

elizabeth anne marjorie, Monday, 7 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-two years ago) link

The problem you are all of you dancing around is the question of whether or not (or, more likely, in what proportions) desire has to do with sex versus gender. Toraneko's original point was only to question the motivations of women who desire masculinity but not maleness, which I think, setting aside the way she happened to raise it, is an interesting question. I'd try to break into it using a parallel with gay men, but it's my suspicion that male homosexuality has led to a whole third gender: this Tom-of-Finland-style hyper-masculinity that is actually read by the culture at large as effeminate. (Because what it is, in the end, is "masculinity" played up, dressed up, and amplified in a way that is actually "feminine.") Thereafter things get complicationalized.

Nitsuh, Monday, 7 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-two years ago) link

Rejoice! Nitsuh is back!

Ned Raggett, Monday, 7 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-two years ago) link

We need him to tell us what we're talking about.

Kara Fig, Tuesday, 8 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-two years ago) link

Tom-of-Finland-style hyper-masculinity

As exemplified by Tom's Beard.

Sam, Tuesday, 8 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-two years ago) link

Tom-of-Finland-style hypermasculinity-cum-femininity = MUSTACHE + STUBBLE. It is "masculine" in that it is conspicuous lumberjack-style facial hair. It is "feminine" in that it involves conspicuous grooming and trimming and fancying-up maintenance. Note also Tom-of-Finland-style love for professions and lifestyles that are "masculine" but involve similar sorts of highly-groomed, uniformed or near-uniformed gussying-up: policeman, non-combat military, fantasy beefcake althete (i.e., imaginary athletes who are actually well-groomed), biker, Tom-of-Finland-style Leather Guy, etc.

I'm sorry, we're supposed to be talking about lesbians, aren't we?

Nitsuh, Wednesday, 9 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-two years ago) link

huh-huh he said cum uh-huh huh

mark s, Wednesday, 9 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-two years ago) link

And no one's mentioned "Chasing Amy", once.

Menelaus Behaving Badly (oh all, right, Dickon Edwards), Friday, 11 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-two years ago) link

I think what's crucially femmy about Tom of Finland's sexy gay cyborgs isn't their grooming so much as their absurdly smooth and curvy bodies. Most ToF characters have such bulbous pecs and glutes they could pass the pencil test in more ways than one.

Michael Daddino, Friday, 11 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-two years ago) link

Apropos of nothing and without pointing the bone at anyone in particular I would like to suggest that next year's ILE Awards include a Grimmest Poster category.

Nancy Drew, Thursday, 17 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-two years ago) link

without pointing the bone

Fucking hell - not even a lesso thread escapes the uberphallus

goeff, Sunday, 20 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-two years ago) link

mais naturellement!

(suck on THIS michel soi-disant foucault), Sunday, 20 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-two years ago) link

Behold, it is I! DEATH-TO-THEORISTS MAN! *strikes savage blows for the sake of sanity*

Ned Raggett, Sunday, 20 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-two years ago) link

*flits around the room wearing a lacy freudian slip*

I invoked 'the bone' deliberately because higher up-thread someone was accused of wishing she was a bull [dyke] when she was 'just' a [fat, ugly] cow, and it amused me that the masculine would be assigned a higher value even in this discussion.

I don't truly think there should be a Grimmest Poster category. After I put that posting up I felt bad,as it looked snide when I saw it on the page. I apologise for that.

Nancy Drew, Sunday, 20 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-two years ago) link

ah, but you will not witzdraw ze bone of ze patriarchy non? Mais je ne susis pas un chanson d'amour.

goeff, Sunday, 20 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-two years ago) link

without pointing the bone Fucking hell - not even a lesso thread escapes the uberphallus

Would you care to explain to us how using a phrase taken from a matriarchical culture that originally refered to a bone literally can have anything to do with an "uberphallus"? Unless we were talking about animal peni, which i don't think we were.

hamish, Sunday, 20 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-two years ago) link

"matriarchal culture" = THEY *SO* WANT TO BE PATRIARCHS

proof: they POINT a BONE!!

fast-food freud slips down like lube, Monday, 21 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-two years ago) link

well someone's got a bone up their ass

goeff, Tuesday, 22 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-two years ago) link

Geoff, you are the master of the shifting signifier, and I salute you:)

Oops, 'master', there I go again.

Nancy Drew, Tuesday, 22 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-two years ago) link

mmm, shifting signifiers...talk dirty baybeee!

goeff, Tuesday, 22 January 2002 01:00 (twenty-two years ago) link

four years pass...
Here were the lesbians on ilx!

the bellefox, Monday, 6 March 2006 13:47 (eighteen years ago) link

one year passes...

http://www.teamtalk.com/Images/161592.jpg

Dom Passantino, Thursday, 8 November 2007 16:00 (seventeen years ago) link

Wow, Toraneko was a real number.

Laurel, Thursday, 8 November 2007 16:06 (seventeen years ago) link

Who was Kara Fig?

Tracer Hand, Thursday, 8 November 2007 16:08 (seventeen years ago) link

Are different things valued, and different kinds of experience hankered after?

i would have thought so.

but it's not like lesbian desire or male hetero desire are any kind of a 'given'. at some point in this argument 'desire' became what they used to call 'nature' -- a huge abstraction and 'explaining force -- as a way of getting round using the dread word 'nature'. progress.

That one guy that hit it and quit it, Thursday, 8 November 2007 16:22 (seventeen years ago) link

I bet the teenage soldier was "mucking out" when he came across two women doing it.

Mark C, Thursday, 8 November 2007 17:07 (seventeen years ago) link

Well played sir.

Noodle Vague, Thursday, 8 November 2007 17:08 (seventeen years ago) link

"When" or "After" ?

Mark G, Thursday, 8 November 2007 17:14 (seventeen years ago) link

two years pass...

these are mad cute

http://www.autostraddle.com/lesbian-prom-37132/

goole, Tuesday, 16 March 2010 15:56 (fourteen years ago) link

Those pictures make me wish I was gay.

How to Make an American Quit (Abbott), Tuesday, 16 March 2010 22:37 (fourteen years ago) link

Awww

Il suffit de ne pas l'envier (Michael White), Tuesday, 16 March 2010 22:56 (fourteen years ago) link

:)

ps how can a thread with this title have such a weak revive? fuck is wrong with u all

goole, Wednesday, 17 March 2010 01:23 (fourteen years ago) link

those pictures make me wish abbott was gay

The smile on my face, disguises the case, I bury the truth deep down in (ken c), Wednesday, 17 March 2010 01:29 (fourteen years ago) link

perhaps we're being extra careful not to sexualise them from a male POV - counsel kept - they do look like they're having a great time, as any loving couple, but in this context of course with a certain defiance. i am all for this sort of thing, and i hope every bible-belt school who would disbar homosexual prom dates gets covered in magic rainbow paint

ilxor lookin' boy (acoleuthic), Wednesday, 17 March 2010 01:32 (fourteen years ago) link

And those doing the disbarring in poop.

probably a sock!! (â•“abies), Wednesday, 17 March 2010 01:41 (fourteen years ago) link

it's cruel to strip homosexual prom dates of their law licenses ; )

harbl, Wednesday, 17 March 2010 01:44 (fourteen years ago) link

v. disappointed to find the only picture in this thread is of the queen.

Daniel, Esq., Wednesday, 17 March 2010 01:45 (fourteen years ago) link

counsel not kept

ilxor lookin' boy (acoleuthic), Wednesday, 17 March 2010 01:47 (fourteen years ago) link

six years pass...

PDAs at the bar

calstars, Sunday, 16 October 2016 23:04 (eight years ago) link


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.