ClueChick: real clues from a real chick

I adore Dan Savage, and his advice column, Savage Love, is an inspiration for me, though I have a long way to go before I can even fantasize about being in his league. So, this evening, I'd like to point you all to an excellent (and long) interview with him, which you can find here, at the A.V. Club, including this:

You wonder why straight guys are all so endlessly perverse. Like I said earlier, all the poo-eaters are guys. And it's just because there's so much more pressure laid on men about male sexuality that just squeezes out in weird, perverse ways. It's kind of tragic. It's also tragic that straight guys have so little access to sex ... And it just put complete responsibility for sex on the men in those relationships. And men do sort of bear all responsibility—whatever's going wrong is completely their fault, women are always the victims. I just think there's no respect for male sexuality in this empathy culture that's shaped by and defined by a female perspective on relationships and emotions.

Posted by ClueChick at 7:35 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

The author of the ad I featured in Now, THIS guy, I want to fuck reported via comment today that he got no responses to his ad. I'm greatly disappointed, of course, though I can't say I'm surprised, since it brings us back to the unfortunate odds that men face in the online dating scene, which odds are even worse when looking for casual encounters and on CL. Nevertheless, I'm feeling a tad demoralized, and I find myself sympathizing even more with you guys, who have such a long shot at success; I can understand why so many of you give up after a few weeks or months of trying with no response.

So, what's the problem here? I blame the patriarchy. No, seriously, it's not just because I'm a feminist and like to blame the patriarchy whenever possible (although I'll admit that it's a favorite target) -- I actually think the patriarchy is to blame here. Let me tell you why:

First, because the patriarchy tells women that we shouldn't want sex. We should want to be wanted, but we're not actually supposed to want to get dirty. Women who want sex are sluts and whores and not worthy of respect. (Check the "rants and raves" section of any city's CL to see what I mean on this one.) This makes women far less likely to consider casual sex than men, who are encouraged to want sex.

Second, the patriarchy tells women and men that women are to be pursued, never the pursuer. This means that even an awesome ad may very well not get any responses, because so many women hate to make the first move (and, sadly, posting an ad doesn't seem to count as the first move on the man's part). Additionally, men often respond badly to a woman who they perceive as making the first move, or being too assertive in pursuing sex/the relationship.

Third, the patriarchy makes everyone feel weird and guilty about sex, if not all the time, at least from time to time.

So what's to be done? Fuck the patriarchy! It's not just for feminism, anymore. Men, women aren't the only people whose lives stand to improve in a less sexist society. How can you fuck the patriarchy and improve your own situation at the same time? Stop vilifying women who are into sex, especially casual sex. Stop supporting the status quo, which leaves you at such a disadvantage when it comes to fun, casual hookups. Stop thinking that all feminists are man-haters or lesbians, and discover that some feminists are man-loving bed-hoppers. And there's lots of room in between, too.

At least I know I might get some the next time I'm in NY, even if no one else is taking him up on it.

Posted by ClueChick at 11:43 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Say you're signed up with a dating site -- one of the ones that you pay for -- and your hope is to find love. If not the one and only, at the very least, someone who's a good match, with whom you share common interests, and who you can trust is more real than, say, a random post on CL.

That shouldn't be so difficult, right? After all, people take the time to write their profiles, they pony up $30 or more each month, which certainly ought to indicate their sincerity, and they post pictures of themselves to show they're for real.

Maybe not. As reported in The Guardian Unlimited last week:

A recent lawsuit against Match.com charged the matchmaking service with sending a female employee out on a date with a male subscriber as ``date bait'' to keep him signed up. Another lawsuit against a personals service offered by Yahoo Inc. accused the Internet portal giant of creating fake profiles to entice subscribers.

Unsurprisingly, online matching sites are big business. Unlike free sites such as CL or OkCupid, your interest and that of your potential partner(s) are not the only factors in the equation.

As you will read in the Guardian piece, the matching services are putting up a big fight to protect their reputation, and it may well be that these lawsuits are baseless. On the other hand, they may not be.

This is a clear case of caveat emptor.

We'd all like to think that when it comes to love, we can look through rose-colored glasses. Don't we all hope that each person can find the happiest romantic relationship possible? Don't let that hope blind you to opportunists looking to take advantage, whether they be pic collectors on CL or unscrupulous dating sites who want to keep you (and your bank account) around just a little bit longer.

Posted by ClueChick at 9:44 AM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

My plan was that today's post would expound on the benefits of reasonable self-esteem, but Cos pointed out in a comment on yesterday's post something that I neglected to mention in my discussion of to send or not to send pictures when you email someone on CL. Look for the esteem post tomorrow.

Ahh, but what about the other problem with sending photos: not wanting dishonest posters to collect your photo and possibly send it around or post it without your knowledge? How do you find out the person on the other side is really looking for a hookup rather than just collecting photos? Here, I guess you have to guess too, since you're real and may not know what the photo collectors are thinking or how they will act.

It's true; a pic is not proof of anything, and sending a photo of yourself does mean a leap of faith that the person at the other end of the communication is both for real and on the up-and-up. Once your picture is on the net, it's impossible to control who uses it and for what purposes. I suggest that you should not send a photo that would embarrass you if it ended up in an email to your parents or boss, especially not in a first contact.

This is a case where reasonable skepticism is in order. If you're not sure that the ad you're responding to is for real, and you're concerned about who sees your picture and in what context, you will probably not want to send a photo with your first email. If you work in a high-visibility, politically-sensitive job, you would be wise to be cautious on this front. Or if you're just generally privacy-minded, there's no harm in not sending a photo. As I said yesterday, I run at about half and half with photos and without, so you won't stand out as paranoid or weird if you don't include one.

On the flip side, just because you get a photo doesn't mean you're guaranteed that's who you're talking to. This is important for both men and women to remember. There are an infinite number of photos of attractive people available online, and any jerk can pass one off as him- or herself.

On this issue, you should consider all the potential benefits and disadvantages of sending a photo, and decide for yourself where your comfort lies. You may decide that some posts are real-seeming enough that you're willing to risk it, or you may conclude that it's never worth the risk. Or perhaps you're not concerned at all and you'll send a photo with every email. Any of these choices is fine, so long as you've considered the risks.

Posted by ClueChick at 1:48 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)