Excuse me, there's no Shirley Jackson on this list. Your argument is invalid.
Also, I was always creeped out by Dahl's "The Witches." The little boy stays a mouse at the end! He isn't saved! That's horrifying to me.
By Lily Rowan on "The cost for each attendee: $4000. And that was after Tracy’s fiancé paid one night for everyone at the W hotel"
@garli Oh yeah, absolutely.
In general, I just think there is a difference between "rich people lol" and "crazy wimmins and their bridal excess!"
@yeah-elle heaven knows, he's miserable nowwwww
By yeah-elle on Friday Open Thread
@stonefruit Morrissey is pretty insufferable. But he knows he's unloveabbbllee, you don't have to tell himmmm.
@cee I think part of what threw me is the impression I got that she must be incredibly dour and, as the poster below noted, self-involved. But because this is a product of the writing style and the style is supposed to be so very straight forward, I have no idea if this is true of her as a person. For all I know she might be terribly interesting to have a conversation with. Or very funny. Or a great listener. I might like or hate or be completely indifferent to this woman but I have no way of knowing because she never pauses from the patter of facts to say something of style rather than substance.
I think that you make a good point that OKCupid is a platform for a "performance of self produced for other people to evaluate by likeability." Considering that the entire point of this is to get responses from others, there's no way it could help but be the exact same thing.
Then, of course, there's the whole thing about using people's interactions to become a part of an art piece they didn't sign up for that's a bit icky but that's another story for another day. (I have strong reactions to artists treating people like subjects rather than other humans.)
@iceberg I feel similarly. I'm sure there's lots that has been written about this stuff by wise people, and I should probably read it. But off the top of my head: the issue is not really "sexuality", it seems to me. It's about the public/private divide. Nobody in my life needs to know about my proclivities in bed. Those can have nothing to do with my public life.
It's about identity, which can be really tied to sexuality, but is not exactly sexuality. Not conforming to gender norms in a public way. Not being romantic or partnered with who is expected of you. That kind of thing. Because that stuff is profoundly public.
I'm straight and cis and white and so maybe I really don't get it. But I feel like LW2 definitely should not tell her co-workers and members of her profession she (sorry if the pronoun is wrong) only dates men who are sexually submissive. That's inappropriate information. I can totally see how it is very (for her) tied to her public identity, but it is not public information.
I think we should all be allies. And maybe, eventually queer/not queer won't be so bright a line.
I mean, I'm just a clueless straight person so I could be wrong about this, and I can understand how it might feel to think that such an important part of your identity is important for literally everyone to know about and understand accurately, but like, is it so bad if you just don't lie when it comes up (and when you feel safe not lying), rather than *force* the topic to come up?
Admittedly I am coming from the viewpoint of someone who doesn't care who you bone or what their junk is shaped like, but I would rather not know if my coworkers are into kink, for example? That is just info I don't need.
I don't know. I suppose visibility is important on that thing of how people become more accepting of whatever when they know someone - so like if you know your office manager is bi you'll be less of a jerk when your nephew comes out?
By Onymous on Friday Open Thread
@yeah-elle Gorgeous Washington!
@Amphora the trick, I think, is to not go too far from the centre. Find where your hair WANTS to be parted.
@KJZ It is entirely possible that your child will be a griffin, if I understand astrology.