Skip

So *many* tiny, naked men.
April 27, 2014 10:32 AM   Subscribe

"Objectifying men who objectify women in 3 easy steps:
1. Man sends crude opening line via internet.
2. Draw him naked.
3. Send portrait to lucky man and enjoy results."
I bring you: Instagranniepants. Very NSFW.
posted by Pronoiac (200 comments total) 25 users marked this as a favorite

 
"You are anatomically what I'm looking for"

Hallmark sells cards like this, right?
posted by mazola at 10:41 AM on April 27 [10 favorites]


These drawings are hilarious. Even when mocking them she makes them so humane. Great faces, vulnerable bodies, it's an interesting take.

So I'm not a straight dude and maybe I'm missing something, but does an opening line like "What are the chances I can plant my seed in you?" from a 20 year old man actually happen? What does he think he's going to accomplish?
posted by Nelson at 10:43 AM on April 27


If, like me, you wanted more backstory, this short Slate interview explains some of it.
posted by jessamyn at 10:46 AM on April 27 [7 favorites]


So I'm not a straight dude and maybe I'm missing something, but does an opening line like "What are the chances I can plant my seed in you?" from a 20 year old man actually happen? What does he think he's going to accomplish?

An orgasm with another person present.
posted by jperkins at 10:46 AM on April 27 [7 favorites]


I'm not a psychiatrist (or, for that matter, a dude, straight or otherwise), but I don't think that any of these guys ACTUALLY believe they will get an actual date or hook-up out of these overtures. I think when people lead with these offensive and unattractive introductions, they are either bored and trying (and failing) to be funny, or they get a little thrill out of offending and getting angry reactions, or a combination of the two. They may not even be entirely sure what kind of reaction they're after. People are complicated, especially when bored, lonely, and sexually frustrated.
posted by cilantro at 10:49 AM on April 27 [41 favorites]


One of my all time best timing moments was when a drunk guy flashed a bunch of young women on the train and one of the women was all like, "I didn't even get to see it," and I said, "that's because it was so small."

That said, I coincidentally just finished watching this Laci Green video about male body image. I'm not convinced that the solution to sexism is to turn it around.

One of my all time most shameful moments as a bicyclist was when a dude was tailgating me and revving his engine (i.e. threatening my life). When you're a bicycle commuter, people pull that shit every day and it certainly feels like a series of not-so-micro aggressions. I called out a common body image slur and it so happened that he had his window down. Dude slammed on his brakes in the middle of the intersection, almost getting rear ended himself. Getting a reaction out of someone who has threatened you feels really, really empowering. It's an adrenaline spike. It feels really good. I'm not convinced that it makes the world a better place.
posted by Skwirl at 10:50 AM on April 27 [26 favorites]


I love the one who initially seemed to take it in stride, seemed to get that he had this coming, and then just tried exactly the same line again a few weeks later.

Never change, internet creeps - never change!
posted by Joey Buttafoucault at 10:51 AM on April 27 [2 favorites]


So I'm not a straight dude and maybe I'm missing something, but does an opening line like "What are the chances I can plant my seed in you?" from a 20 year old man actually happen? What does he think he's going to accomplish?

If you hit on every person that's of interest to you sexually, you will eventually get laid. Most people turn it into a much more elaborate and meaningful thing than it is, but it really is that simple. Some people want a whole spiritual connection with The One and turn every approach into the first few minutes from a romance novel, some people just want to have sex.
posted by Ghostride The Whip at 11:02 AM on April 27 [2 favorites]


These are great drawings, I can see how they work at taking the wind of of their sails.
posted by arcticseal at 11:03 AM on April 27


Yeah, but I'm really not convinced that these guys are doing some sort of rational, planned-out numbers game thing. I think it goes no farther than "I am attracted to this person, and I live in a world where that means I get to hector her for sex"
posted by showbiz_liz at 11:04 AM on April 27 [31 favorites]


Some people want a whole spiritual connection with The One ... some people just want to have sex.
posted by Ghostride The Whip at 7:02 PM on April 27


And some people want both and get neither. Bah.
posted by Decani at 11:06 AM on April 27 [2 favorites]


Tinder is basically a hookup site, is it not?

If so, then what is wrong with crude openings on such a site? Was she expecting deep proclamations of romance and love?

Color me confused.
posted by pzad at 11:06 AM on April 27


Yeah I've really wondered how well all the "casual sex?" questions actually work, like are there some people they work on? I'd like to see some statistics on the efficacy of making extremely lewd requests immediately on starting to chat with someone on a dating site. I remember as a teen when I started chatting with weird creepy dudes I often felt caught like a deer in headlight out of both wanting to chat with someone, and not have some negative situation with someone, and also wanting to be polite. So I could see how this might work on young vulnerable people who are sort of new to dealing with creepy people on the internet.

Those were horrible experiences, and I think a lot of men have no idea what that feels like because of the way gender dynamics and gendered behavior tends to protect men more often from feeling socialized into tolerating this kind of behavior directed at them.

It's not a nice thing to do to people, especially, to me, knowing how many people don't know how to escape this when they feel stuck dealing with it. I wish there was a better way to create hookup styles where you could sort of choose the dating dynamic, like if I could just say no to sex requests from people who want easy sex without even knowing who I am or putting forth into investment into anything that resembles kindness or awareness I wish there was a way to effectively deter this from happening. I think it's possible that since men get statistically fewer sex requests and maybe some wish they would get them, they really think this is a thing that feels great to all women as a whole?

I feel really angry that behavior like this is considered acceptable because it can be so horrible to feel cornered with it. And the guys are often so cruel on rejection it's not like it's so easy to just say no thanks, you deal with insults and personal attacks in addition to "no thanks" being seen a starting point for negotiation and ignoring is the only solution or everything you say gets countered. "Why don't you like sex, do you have issues" "Maybe you need to be more open sexually" It's seriously exhausting.

I don't think it's bad for this to be a dating style for some people, I just wish the default was that no one should be approached this way unless they say in their profile "I really dig sexual requests and graphic descriptions of sexual content immediately on meeting people"

Or something. It's like the whole idea that some people like being aggressively pressured for sex and some don't, and the default should be if you want to do that, look for a kink friendly site or somewhere where you can still be figuring out how to respect the potential boundaries of someone you're just meeting? I think we could do this sort of thing better and still leave the option of this dating style open for people who like both sides of this while not forcing it on everyone (and by everyone that means mostly women.)
posted by xarnop at 11:09 AM on April 27 [7 favorites]


One day she's going to run into a guy who has a fetish for unflattering naked caricatures of himself.
posted by Faint of Butt at 11:11 AM on April 27 [11 favorites]


If you hit on every person that's of interest to you sexually, you will eventually get laid.

I'm guessing this works better in person, in a club or bar, than it does on-line.

I'd like to think that the advent of caller ID is partially responsible. This seems like the kind of pranking harassment thing that kids should get out of their system before they're old enough to sexualize it.
posted by The Hamms Bear at 11:13 AM on April 27 [1 favorite]


pzad has it. I'm sure there are guys like this on Match.com. That seems like the place to do this. On Tindr and Grindr it's like you went to the sex party to make fun of people. Propositioning people for sex where that's the POINT isn't quite as rude as propositioning them for sex elsewhere.

Anonymous hookup sex with strangers on the internet seems like its own punishment, really.
posted by anotherpanacea at 11:13 AM on April 27 [1 favorite]


On Tindr and Grindr it's like you went to the sex party to make fun of people.

Well and then she moved to OK Cupid and left an explicit note about people not sending her rude messages.
I made an OkCupid account and I put a warning to guys on there: “I’m going to draw you naked if you send me rude messages,” and linked back to the Instagram. I thought that would creep out a lot of people enough to just not message me, but instead, I got so many messages from guys who were like, “This is the funniest thing I’ve ever seen! Can you please draw me naked?” They’re totally missing the point if they act so nice.
Like, I get her point and I enjoyed looking at these pictures and I get the larger point generally. It's just always a bit tricky when you use a site with established norms to do something that is outside of those norms, even if you're doing it to point out that some of the normative stuff is bullshit. Props to the dudes who were like "please draw me naked"

That said, I know nothing about Tinder so I'm super unclear if it's like Craigslist csual encounters or more like geolocated OK Cupid.
posted by jessamyn at 11:18 AM on April 27 [3 favorites]


It's a shame, it seems, that the men-in most cases-are too stupid to realize that they are being made fun of.
I say make fun of them meaner. Harder. Longer.
posted by QueerAngel28 at 11:21 AM on April 27 [3 favorites]


OK, so knowing from the Slate interview that this is Tinder gives it a little more context. At least it's not some random line in, say, a professional email or a Tweet or something. Sexually explicit come-ons are the point of Tinder.

But still I'm confused by a line like "What are the chances I can plant my seed in you?" It's too crude to be enthralling and too clumsy to be funny. Leading with "what are the chances" is oddly non-self-confident. And the whole thing is invoking impregnation, which I'm guessing is the last thing most women on Tinder are looking for. I've got absolutely no problem with anonymous hookup sex, and sleaze, and horny guys saying silly things. But I'm too old and too gay to know much about how this works for young straight people. I'm genuinely curious, are enough women into this kind of approach that it might work? Does he think it will work? Or is it just harassment, like cilantro suggests?

FWIW, online gay hookup lines are way more sleazy and clumsy sometimes. "Looking to breed dirty ass", for example. It's part of a subculture of gay men turned on by sleaziness, a robust embracing of filthy piggy sex. Judging by the Craigslist traffic, enough guys are into that that it works. It's less creepy to me to see that stuff there though since it's anonymously broadcast to anyone reading Craigslist, not a specific message targeting an individual. The CTRL+W33D tumblr features some particularly funny examples of this kind of sleaze from Grindr.
posted by Nelson at 11:25 AM on April 27 [2 favorites]


The drawings look like they take a long time to make (to me, total non-artist). In contrast with the pickup lines, which the guys are probably tossing out by the dozen. So a guy who gets a drawing back might be like, "Sweet, she picked me for her one drawing of the day. Approval earned!"
posted by mantecol at 11:26 AM on April 27 [2 favorites]


For real though tryna get the pipe is my favorite
posted by sweetkid at 11:27 AM on April 27 [11 favorites]


I imagine the "what are the chances" line was just an inept attempt to sound erudite amd romantic. Someone tried to sound sophisticated and failed badly.
posted by Scientist at 11:32 AM on April 27


So I'm not a straight dude and maybe I'm missing something, but does an opening line like "What are the chances I can plant my seed in you?" from a 20 year old man actually happen? What does he think he's going to accomplish?

It's a premature ejaculation of the second kind, to go with his all his experiences of the first kind.
posted by jamjam at 11:36 AM on April 27 [1 favorite]


That said, I know nothing about Tinder so I'm super unclear if it's like Craigslist casual encounters or more like geolocated OK Cupid.

I think there's some legitimate confusion around what Tinder's culture and expectations are. Some people use it like the former, and some like the latter. It has a reputation as a "hookup site" but many people use it as an OK Cupid where everything's a little more casual, the messages are shorter and it's OK to be more flirtatious up-front. I think that's the way I'd describe it: just more casual and nonchalant, and messages don't need to be these big composed things on either side. That's part of why it's taken off, because everyone was trying to write emails in an age group where texting is the normal way of communication. But that DOESN'T mean that anyone welcomes crude sexual come-ons from strangers. Even people looking for a simple hookup don't want to be bombarded by someone who's idea of social interaction resembles that of an entitled 7th grader poking you with a stick.
posted by naju at 11:43 AM on April 27 [19 favorites]


Lots of my friends are on Tinder, and use it exactly like they use OKCupid. In both cases it's "I am looking for both casual flings and actual relationships."
posted by showbiz_liz at 11:47 AM on April 27


Really good point on the undefined culture of Tinder - but this kind of approach wouldn't work on OKCupid either.

TBH, I don't think these guys are expecting this contact to lead to sex - if they are, then at the risk of stating the obvious they are going to be severely and regularly disappointed. This is the equivalent of shouting at women from the window of a moving car, right? It's regular street harassment, just mobile-enabled...
posted by running order squabble fest at 11:52 AM on April 27 [8 favorites]


Not for the first time I wonder if a better dating site could be made by stopping messages to go directly to a woman's inbox; they should go instead to a sort of public purgatorium, where the general public is allowed to ridicule the man and his approach and demand feats of dexterity, like writing two coherent sentences about the weather. Only after receiving enough upvotes would his messages be forwarded.

This would achieve multiple goals at once: provide a better filter, convert imbalances in sexual appetite into civilizatory force, and be an endless source of entertainment.
posted by dhoe at 11:54 AM on April 27 [62 favorites]


I get what she's about, and I got a laugh, but in the end it doesn't really work does it? You can't shame the shameless.
posted by mrbigmuscles at 11:55 AM on April 27 [5 favorites]


Lots of my friends are on Tinder, and use it exactly like they use OKCupid. In both cases it's "I am looking for both casual flings and actual relationships."

Seems better in some ways than the Lifemates/eHarmony approach, of "We only match you up with people you may want to marry." Makes for awkward first dates.

Not being entirely clear on the other person's intentions going into the date, makes for a more natural, casual situation.
posted by mantecol at 11:56 AM on April 27


"Want to have sex - Jeff 20"

At least he was (relatively?) polite and direct about it. I'm not sure why the only person who wasn't trying to coat a direct request for sex in a crude double entendre deserved to be mocked in this way.
posted by Talez at 12:08 PM on April 27 [4 favorites]


dhoe, I think you're really onto something there.
posted by naju at 12:10 PM on April 27


, but in the end it doesn't really work does it?

if working means teaching these dudes a lesson - probably not, no. if works means giving her a funny outlet, giving her something to showcase her honestly interesting artistic point of view, letting other women get a bit of "i know those feels," and maybe just maybe encouraging other men who need the instruction that there's potentially a better way to say hi to a woman, then i'd say yeah, this does work.
posted by nadawi at 12:20 PM on April 27 [12 favorites]


Not for the first time I wonder if a better dating site could be made by stopping messages to go directly to a woman's inbox; they should go instead to a sort of public purgatorium, where the general public is allowed to ridicule the man and his approach and demand feats of dexterity, like writing two coherent sentences about the weather. Only after receiving enough upvotes would his messages be forwarded.

More simpler and plausible would be to require all conversations be initiated by women, but I think it would never fly.
posted by save alive nothing that breatheth at 12:25 PM on April 27 [1 favorite]


if works means giving her a funny outlet, giving her something to showcase her honestly interesting artistic point of view, letting other women get a bit of "i know those feels,"

Yea I think if the intention and result is to accomplish both those things it's a win. Convincing the men to stop is not always a key performance indicator.
posted by sweetkid at 12:25 PM on April 27 [1 favorite]


Yeah, but I'm really not convinced that these guys are doing some sort of rational, planned-out numbers game thing.

I don't think they are. I think it's a kind of Eternal September of inexperienced guys (in this case, several are literally teenagers) making mistakes while trying to learn to successfully navigate a social arena that is famous for not providing any negative feedback. These guys don't yet understand that the messages they'd like to get are not the messages that women would like to get. Hopefully they'll learn.

And of course, the best way to teach them is through public body-shaming. So, good job, blogger.
posted by cosmic.osmo at 12:38 PM on April 27 [4 favorites]


I think in a lot of cases, the crude approach might be intentionally self-sabotaging. I mean, if she rejects it, at least they can laugh it off, while still imagining that they might hit the lottery each time. A rejection of an earnest attempt at contact feels more personal - it's obviously about THEM not being attractive enough to interest her.
posted by ctmf at 12:41 PM on April 27 [5 favorites]


Some are great (and funny) drawings calling out disrespectful men.

Others seem like men that the women just didn't like. Sometimes "Wanna have sex?" is a pretty straightforward and honest question.

Not to belittle the problem of men who objectify women, which is real and prevalent. I just love and hate this site.
posted by beau jackson at 12:44 PM on April 27 [1 favorite]


Stuff like this never works the way it's intended to. Sending dirty drawings to guys who talk dirty has a good chance of being received as just flirting back, no matter how small you draw the penis.
posted by Sys Rq at 12:58 PM on April 27 [10 favorites]


Sys Rq has it. Idjuts just can't get get past their egos.

"Oh wonderful, she's thinking of my penis!"
posted by BlueHorse at 1:08 PM on April 27 [1 favorite]


you have not idea what her intention is. i'd wager it's working exactly as she intended it to.
posted by nadawi at 1:14 PM on April 27 [3 favorites]


I presume the men who are so crude aren't actually expecting to meet up with her, but that they get their jollies from the comment itself. Like flashing someone, or an obscene phone call.
posted by The corpse in the library at 1:15 PM on April 27 [6 favorites]


Not for the first time I wonder if a better dating site could be made by stopping messages to go directly to a woman's inbox; they should go instead to a sort of public purgatorium, where the general public is allowed to ridicule the man and his approach and demand feats of dexterity, like writing two coherent sentences about the weather. Only after receiving enough upvotes would his messages be forwarded.

We can call it Project Douchenberg.
posted by Tell Me No Lies at 1:17 PM on April 27 [5 favorites]



you have not idea what her intention is. i'd wager it's working exactly as she intended it to.

Yeah, why is the assumption always that women are trying to teach men correct behavior, and are graded thumbs up or down if this education is likely to be achieved or not?
posted by sweetkid at 1:20 PM on April 27 [18 favorites]


As someone who spends an inordinate amount of time mocking and rejecting men who message me on OKC for their awful opinions as answered in the Match Percentage thingie and then blocking them, I appreciate this artistic and novel approach.

I'm glad she's posting it publicly because it amuses me but I also think it'd be totally reasonable to do this just for her own amusement.
posted by NoraReed at 1:22 PM on April 27 [3 favorites]


There was a previous discussion here on the blue regarding crude messages women receive in the online dating world.
posted by LizBoBiz at 1:25 PM on April 27


Stuff like this never works the way it's intended to. Sending dirty drawings to guys who talk dirty has a good chance of being received as just flirting back, no matter how small you draw the penis.

Maybe she should start drawing them holding a magnifying glass over the dick, and it's still super-tiny
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 1:26 PM on April 27 [2 favorites]


I'm confused that people here seem to be implying that OK Cupid is more dating slash relationship focused than Tinder. Hell, of all the women (okay, two) I have made real life connections with based on OK Cupid interaction they initiated contact and casual sex was clearly their intent. Well, not immediately clear. But same-day meeting up, leading to sex, without any real emotional connection being established beforehand kind of assumes the intent. After a short time I got the chat from both of them that they weren't looking to date, but still wanted to "hang out" with me. Which was fine for them, I suppose. Though I was looking for a more emotional connection so I stuck around for the want of companionship and yes, sex. I have never met anyone who had anything more than casual sex relations with anyone they met on OK Cupid. Tinder to me just seems like distilled OK Cupid.

Though there may not be any particular game plan in mind when it comes to machine gun propositions from randoms, but it is a learned behavior with proven results. The only difference between Tinder and the dude at the bar moving from woman to woman until he gets a bite as it were is the sad ubiquity of the dick pic in the modern era. Time was, that would lead to an arrest for sexual assault. But the tenet remains, ask every woman you meet for sex and you'll get slapped a lot. But you'll also get laid, sometimes.

Me, I am so terrified of rejection that I fall into a fetal position just thinking about saying something like that.
posted by mediocre at 1:26 PM on April 27 [2 favorites]


As someone who spends an inordinate amount of time mocking and rejecting men who message me on OKC for their awful opinions as answered in the Match Percentage thingie and then blocking them, I appreciate this artistic and novel approach.

I'm sorry. But I don't see this as anything other than bullying. Taking joy in tearing other people down? You didn't even specify if they were being inappropriate in their messaging. Just that you, as a pastime, mock and humiliate people who attempt to make a connection with you. Is this supposed to be okay because of gender?
posted by mediocre at 1:32 PM on April 27 [6 favorites]


I initially thought, "more self promotion" but now I wonder if the artist is simply working through some heavy unresolved personal issues.
posted by IndigoJones at 1:36 PM on April 27 [2 favorites]


I'm pretty sure everyone's getting utility out of this interaction, but woOOooo makes me feel a bit queasy!
posted by zscore at 1:39 PM on April 27


And yeah IndigoJones, I see exactly what you mean.
posted by zscore at 1:43 PM on April 27


we have gigantic threads full of women specifying the treatment we receive for simply existing, and especially as it relates to sort of courting (which i agree is more about frustration and aggression than it is about actually getting a date). yet every single story is still picked apart for what is missing or what is included and the end result is pretty much the same - we're doing it wrong.
posted by nadawi at 1:46 PM on April 27 [21 favorites]


And sometimes we're nuts.
posted by The corpse in the library at 1:47 PM on April 27 [4 favorites]


Yeah, why is the assumption always that women are trying to teach men correct behavior, and are graded thumbs up or down if this education is likely to be achieved or not?

If anyone in this thread has always made that assumption about women and judged women based on that, please point it out, 'cause I'm not seeing it.

Observing that this particular woman is trying to teach those particular men a lesson, and judging this particular effort based on its success or failure to that end seems to me a perfectly okay thing to do.
posted by Sys Rq at 1:47 PM on April 27 [1 favorite]


where does she say "i hope to teach these particular men a lesson"?
posted by nadawi at 1:50 PM on April 27 [2 favorites]


Is there some other reason for "3. Send portrait to lucky man and enjoy results"?
posted by Sys Rq at 1:51 PM on April 27


laughs? interested in the reaction of someone who approaches her in that way? giving her material for her project?
posted by nadawi at 1:53 PM on April 27 [9 favorites]


Is there some other reason for "3. Send portrait to lucky man and enjoy results"?

it's a more creative way to say "no, now fuck off and leave me alone"?
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 1:53 PM on April 27 [4 favorites]


it's a more creative way to say "no, now fuck off and leave me alone"?

Exactly. That's what I'm saying.
posted by Sys Rq at 1:54 PM on April 27 [1 favorite]


Men are doing what they feel like, and she is doing what she feels like. Maybe this is just stress relief from dealing with a lot of advances that feel really awful and are unpleasant. I mean yeah it's great if these particular men learn a lesson and that might be her ONLY goal, but just as these guys would sort of like sex and don't care if their words are not the most successful approach, maybe she doesn't care whether she is succeeding in the way others would like?

I would say calling people doing this out is great, a lot of people are just not thinking and don't care how their behavior affects others and that sucks, so creating an environment where you know "If I act like one of these guys people might find out about it because random women I don't know have no obligation to keep my words or actions secret" there might be some people it deters. I don't know. Worth a shot?

No I personally am not offended by straight up "casual sex?" requests, I real like that's straight forward and honest, I just wonder how often that approach works when it's left as a two word message to a stranger. Women can be jerks just cause they feel like it too.

I personally would like EVERYONE to be kinder to each other but my approach of trying to be nice to everyone to hope they will be nicer has not actually proven all that successful and I am sympathetic to people who would rather be jerks back whether because it's more effective or because it lowers their own blood pressure which could also be a positive outcome.
posted by xarnop at 1:54 PM on April 27 [6 favorites]


"Enjoy results":

But the results serm to be men who enjoy getting a reaction and thus redouble their efforts, or men who sense an insult and redouble their efforts.

For me, that wouldn't be a win.
posted by Omnomnom at 2:04 PM on April 27 [2 favorites]


Just that you, as a pastime, mock and humiliate people who attempt to make a connection with you. Is this supposed to be okay because of gender?

No, it's okay because I specify several times in my profile that I don't want messages from eugenicists, misogynists or global warming denialists and that if these people choose to send me messages I will reject and make fun of them, and then they message me anyway.
posted by NoraReed at 2:07 PM on April 27 [8 favorites]


Hey girl, you tryna?

Tryna?

Tryna tryna tryna

Let's tryna.
posted by mullacc at 2:08 PM on April 27 [5 favorites]


though frankly if you check "yes" on "do women have an obligation to keep their legs shaved" and people decide to reject or make fun of you in any way they choose I could really not give less shits, but I do have fair warning in my profile and I'm pretty sure 80% of straight men can't read once they start drooling over someone who plays video games and has breasts
posted by NoraReed at 2:14 PM on April 27 [4 favorites]


I'm kind of glad to see that others are as confused about all this as I am...

The very idea of someone trying to get laid by sending messages like these is utterly baffling to me. (And I certainly have no problem with people communicating frankly about sex...) I figured that this stuff could be explained by basically two phenomena. First, that these guys are mostly just assholes being assholes, and not even trying to get laid. Second, that some (presumably small) percentage of women out there actually respond positively to this sort of thing. I mean, assholes do get laid, and it's not even clear that being an asshole is much of a disadvantage with respect to casual sex. In fact, it's not completely obvious that it isn't some kind of advantage to some extent... (Of course if one points this out one will often be accused of being a "nice guy" filled with ressentiment... But that accusation would miss the target in my case.) At any rate, I really would like to know how frequently messages like these do receive positive responses.

As others have noted, it's absurd, however, to ridicule the guy who just inquired about casual sex. There's absolutely nothing wrong with such an inquiry on such a site, and it's messed up to classify that guy alongside the obvious assholes who are largely just getting kicks from engaging in assholery.

But, for the majority of cases: pretty damn funny.

Sadly, I wonder whether guys like these are going to be shamed appropriately. I mean, they ought to be shamed, because I think they're being pw0ned hard... But guys like this may not be smart enough--and don't seem to have the kind of sensibilities required--to be properly chagrined by something like this... OTOH, lol small peckers...so that message might be un-subtle enough to get through...
posted by Fists O'Fury at 2:22 PM on April 27


It doesn't have to be FOR these guys though. The internet, we know their shame. If they do not know their shame because it cannot penetrate their thick skulls (and thin boners), that is not the fault of the artist. Just like not all open letters are meant exclusively for the people they are addressed to, not all open Instagram conversations with naked interpretation are just about the people whose penises are being artistically depicted.
posted by NoraReed at 2:28 PM on April 27 [9 favorites]


The idea that being a jerk back to someone you think is being a jerk is EVEN WORSE than the original offense is a cultural trend that both:
a: ensures that people who are indifferent to the feelings of others do not have to be inconvenienced by facing that many people are upset by their behavior
b: is more often applied to women than to men in my personal experience

Men have been operating under the assumption that they can make whatever advances they want on women regardless of (or BECAUSE OF) how uncomfortable, inferior, and insecure it makes the women feel; or even specifically to create sex as something they need to aggressively push a woman into by making her so uncomfortable and quiet she's easy to manipulate. That some people might be tired of playing nice at this game is not something that I think should be highlighted as a problem of women being too mean on dating sites.

This is a response to the fact that sexual advances that make people uncomfortable are probably not a great social trend and people receiving the bulk of them tend to be more often women who are expected to behave nicely and quietly by walking away and not daring to make the person making them uncomfortable feel uncomfortable back.

That's a social trend I think sucks. Men feel comfortable rating women's appearance publicly, debating whether they'd hit it, on and on and on, and get defensive at the mere mention that objectifying random people you don't know is not cool.

In fact just because a woman likes sex or might like a hookup doesn't mean she has signed up to be objectified by any passing dude on the internet or exposed to the most lewd obnoxious advances anyone can come up with simply because she might want hook up sex on her own terms.
posted by xarnop at 2:28 PM on April 27 [30 favorites]


At any rate, I really would like to know how frequently messages like these do receive positive responses.

Richard Feynman has an anecdote in "Surely You Jest.." wherein he is lamenting to a friend about never being able to pull in women like he does. His friend gives him some simple advice, things that I'm many in this thread would hate to hear either as advice or from a man. Don't buy her a drink, she'll never screw you because she already got what she wants. Things like that.

The next night, Feynman was speaking with a woman who asked him if he would buy her a drink.

"Let me answer your question with a question. Will you sleep with me tonight?"

"Yes."

This is admittedly not by any means a modern example, but it is a real life anecdote from which parallels can be drawn.
posted by mediocre at 2:28 PM on April 27 [2 favorites]


yeah men talking about how they pull are great places to draw parallels from.
posted by nadawi at 2:36 PM on April 27 [8 favorites]




> real life anecdote

Well, it's a Richard Feynman anecdote.
posted by The corpse in the library at 2:41 PM on April 27 [5 favorites]


yeah men talking about how they pull are great places to draw parallels from.

Being glib is a great way to get Favorites. But my message was an attempt to address the question of "does this really work?" with an anecdote from a Nobel laureate.
posted by mediocre at 2:41 PM on April 27 [2 favorites]


So I'm not a straight dude and maybe I'm missing something, but does an opening line like "What are the chances I can plant my seed in you?" from a 20 year old man actually happen?

So there's this wino leaning against a building, and he sees this guy say to a passing woman "Tickle your ass with a feather?". The woman turns and says "What did you just say to me?" and the guy turns up the collar on his coat and says "Particularly nasty weather". The woman says "Yeh, um, I guess so" and goes on her way. As the wino is sitting there finishing off a bottle, he watches the same thing happen over and over. Finally he can't stand it anymore and asks the guy what he's doing. The guy says "Trying to pick up women. There's millions of women in this city and if you ask long enough one of them will say yes. In fact, I bet there's even a woman for a bum like you."
So the wino thinks about it a little, gets himself a fresh bottle of thunderbird for courage, and stations himself out on the sidewalk. As well dressed professional woman is passing by him, he says "Hey..ah...stick a feather up your ass?" She turns and gets right in his face "What the hell did you just say to me!". The wino sheepishly holds out his hand, palm up and says "Um, looks like rain?"
posted by 445supermag at 2:44 PM on April 27 [4 favorites]


It doesn't have to be FOR these guys though. The internet, we know their shame. If they do not know their shame because it cannot penetrate their thick skulls (and thin boners), that is not the fault of the artist. Just like not all open letters are meant exclusively for the people they are addressed to, not all open Instagram conversations with naked interpretation are just about the people whose penises are being artistically depicted.

I'm not sure I understand this point. If it's not for these guys (broadly construed, to include other guys like them), who is it for? It's not for those of us (guys) who don't act like this... I mean, it's amusing, of course, but the suggestion afoot is that some kind of moral lesson is being taught... Maybe the idea is that there are some women who think they have to just accept being spoken to in these ways and it helps them see that this isn't so? Anyway, you slip from "it's not just for..." to "it's not for..." Those are two very different things.

At any rate: I of course never suggested that this had to get through to these guys; only that it would be more satisfying if it did get through to them...

Also:

Men have been operating under the assumption that they can make whatever advances they want on women regardless of (or BECAUSE OF) how uncomfortable, inferior, and insecure it makes the women feel;

Not true.

Rather, some men have. No men I know...but some, obviously.

It's important to be accurate about such claims, especially when accuracy is so easy to achieve.
posted by Fists O'Fury at 2:45 PM on April 27 [3 favorites]


all sorts of things work, people like to fuck. that doesn't make all approaches blanketly applied to be appropriate.
posted by nadawi at 2:45 PM on April 27


It's for the artist, primarily, and secondarily it's for the artist's audience, the people who read her tumblr.
posted by NoraReed at 2:46 PM on April 27 [7 favorites]


It's for the artist, primarily, and secondarily it's for the artist's audience, the people who read her tumblr.

Then why send the pics back to the guys who sent the messages?
posted by Fists O'Fury at 2:47 PM on April 27


because they're being tools and their responses to it are part of why it's funny
posted by NoraReed at 2:48 PM on April 27 [16 favorites]


Not for the first time I wonder if a better dating site could be made by stopping messages to go directly to a woman's inbox; they should go instead to a sort of public purgatorium, where the general public is allowed to ridicule the man and his approach and demand feats of dexterity, like writing two coherent sentences about the weather. Only after receiving enough upvotes would his messages be forwarded.

You're a bit inexperienced with behavior on the Internet. People would write ridiculous things to random girls to get attention on the pulc forum. Connections would be made there instead.
posted by michaelh at 2:51 PM on April 27 [1 favorite]


because they're being tools and their responses to it are part of why it's funny.


Meh. I'm not sure the responses are funny enough to carry that explanatory weight, but I think that's possible. This all just seems like a kind of implausible interpretation of what's supposed to be going on here...though I do agree that some people are worth making fun of even if it has no effect on them.

But note, again, my only point was: I'd be happier if I were more certain that the guys were insulted by the pics. I don't see how anyone (other than the guys in question, and others like them) could disagree with that...
posted by Fists O'Fury at 2:57 PM on April 27


it's possible this is a lot more funny if you've been on the receiving end of the kind of bullshit dudes send on dating sites and maybe it's Not For You and that's okay
posted by NoraReed at 2:59 PM on April 27 [27 favorites]


Why go there? It is like proving dirt exists, yes it is the ground we walk on. This is like going to the forest and complaining about the trees, and trying to hurt their feelings. If you weren't in the forest those lousy trees couldn't hurt you.
posted by Oyéah at 3:00 PM on April 27


So women shouldn't go to dating websites unless they want to get "suck my dick" messages?
posted by The corpse in the library at 3:03 PM on April 27 [15 favorites]


WOMEN CREATE HUMOR IN WHICH THEY MAKE JOKES ABOUT HOW TERRIBLE MEN ARE AND OFTEN THE HUMOR IS FOR OTHER WOMEN.

IT IS NOT FOR THE TERRIBLE DUDES.

IT IS BECAUSE WE ALL HAVE TO DEAL WITH THE TERRIBLE DUDES ON A REGULAR BASIS AND IT IS NICE TO KNOW WE ARE NOT ALONE AND TO LAUGH ABOUT IT INSTEAD OF GIVING UP ON WHATEVER REALM DUDES ARE BEING TERRIBLE IN (WORK/OUTSIDE/DATING ONLINE/DATING NOT ONLINE/BEING ONLINE IN GENERAL/BEING FEMALE IN A PLACE WHERE MEN ARE/ETC).

THANKS, YOU CAN STOP MAKING "I DON'T GET IT/THIS DOESN'T EFFECT THE MEN BEING RIDICULED" POSTS NOW.
posted by NoraReed at 3:03 PM on April 27 [70 favorites]


it's possible this is a lot more funny if you've been on the receiving end of the kind of bullshit dudes send on dating sites and maybe it's Not For You and that's okay

I doubt this.

I have a fairly strong sense of outrage about this stuff, and I don't have to have had things happen to me to be outraged about it. In fact, I often get angrier about such things perpetrated against others than I do if they're perpetrated against me. I don't think I'm unusual in this respect.

I don't see how it's going to be any funnier if I have direct experience of this sort of thing. But, then, I'm not exactly sure what it is that we're disagreeing about here.

My point, again, was that there seems be a a strong suggestion that this is a way of striking back against the perpetrators. I don't see how anyone could miss that suggestion. If that is subtracted, this loses some of its punch--IF it is subtracted. You'll note that all I did was suggest that these guys might not get it. Then your tirade began...

THANKS, YOU CAN STOP MAKING "I DON'T GET IT/THIS DOESN'T EFFECT THE MEN BEING RIDICULED" POSTS NOW.

Are you familiar with the phrase "you're not the boss of me?"
posted by Fists O'Fury at 3:07 PM on April 27 [4 favorites]


i think it's funny and a lot of women i've seen reacted similarly, so it might just not be for you.
posted by nadawi at 3:11 PM on April 27 [7 favorites]


the arrogance of men who question the value of anything that doesn't personally tickle their fancy is astounding
posted by NoraReed at 3:12 PM on April 27 [34 favorites]


[Once you bust out the playground taunts, it's a good idea to step back and reconsider whether your rhetorical techniques are reaching the mark. Please knock it off. Thanks. ]
posted by restless_nomad at 3:14 PM on April 27 [2 favorites]


> My point, again, was that there seems be a a strong suggestion that this is a way of striking back against the perpetrators. I don't see how anyone could miss that suggestion

I've missed it. I see this as a woman making jokes for other women. I'm not seeing it as activist, or as aimed at men. Sometimes things aren't for men. That's okay! There are lots of other things that are for men! They can go laugh at those things.
posted by The corpse in the library at 3:15 PM on April 27 [12 favorites]


Hey girl, you tryna?
Tryna?
Tryna tryna tryna
Let's tryna.


Didn't Clint Howard say this to William Shatner?
posted by Faint of Butt at 3:33 PM on April 27 [1 favorite]


I've missed it. I see this as a woman making jokes for other women.

Did you miss the part where she sends the pictures to men?
posted by cosmic.osmo at 3:35 PM on April 27 [1 favorite]


WOMEN CREATE HUMOR...

Oh god, I know you feel strongly, but surely you've found another way to make this clear online in the year of our lord 2014 without going all caps.
posted by Edgewise at 3:36 PM on April 27 [4 favorites]


> Did you miss the part where she sends the pictures to men

That's part of the joke.
posted by The corpse in the library at 3:37 PM on April 27 [8 favorites]


I've tried a million other things to make straight men understand "maybe this isn't for you" and none of them work so I thought all caps might be worth a shot
posted by NoraReed at 3:38 PM on April 27 [24 favorites]


Did you miss the part where she sends the pictures to men?
1. Man sends crude opening line via internet.
2. Draw him naked.
3. Send portrait to lucky man and enjoy results.
cmon dude it aint even hidden in the link
posted by Rustic Etruscan at 3:41 PM on April 27 [8 favorites]


Being glib is a great way to get Favorites. But my message was an attempt to address the question of "does this really work?" with an anecdote from a Nobel laureate.

Yahhhhh, as someone who hangs out with a lot of PHD's, trying to claim a higher education and acclaimed award status means anything when it comes to gender studies and/or humour is... not the best.

Once a guy starts talking about "getting pull", it really doesn't matter what's happening in other areas of his life.
posted by Dynex at 4:04 PM on April 27 [6 favorites]


> Did you miss the part where she sends the pictures to men

That's part of the joke.


how is punchline formed
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 4:07 PM on April 27 [7 favorites]


but quoting smart people that I like in contexts like that is a great way to make me feel skeevy about liking them and reconsider my life priorities, so if that was the goal, mission accomplished?
posted by NoraReed at 4:07 PM on April 27 [6 favorites]


Has anyone said NOT ALL MEN yet? I think that would fill out my bingo card...
posted by running order squabble fest at 4:28 PM on April 27 [11 favorites]


bingo
posted by Rustic Etruscan at 4:33 PM on April 27 [6 favorites]


This was basically "not all men" by induction, so I think it counts:

Rather, some men have. No men I know...but some, obviously.
posted by naju at 4:40 PM on April 27 [5 favorites]


Man these are totally not the drawings I would be sending these guys back if I were doing this. Mine would be a hell of a lot derpier.
posted by egypturnash at 4:42 PM on April 27


(I... feel kind of bad now.)
posted by running order squabble fest at 4:55 PM on April 27 [1 favorite]


I was confused by the random dudes use of 'tryna get the pipe' as if he was getting her pipe. I thought the penis was the pipe and the vagina was where the pipe was laid.
After some deep thought I now feel that the penis and the vagina (and attendant parts) are both pipe-like, and during sex we are simply connecting our pipes, turning our knobs, letting pleasure flow through them. I have learned something valuable from the tumblr.

Also, I always draw myself with a tiny dick like that and a frog smoking a (tobacco) pipe that is made from my nipples, belly button and a long scar on my stomach. So I like the drawings and they feel very personal to me which is odd considering the context. As noted above the drawings are not particularly unflattering and could have been really mean and offensive. Fortunately the drawings are nice and the txt conversations are funny.
posted by kittensofthenight at 5:09 PM on April 27 [4 favorites]


I'm torn between being tickled by this approach to online catcalling and being a little squicked by the bodyshaming. I wish there were a better way to shut down harassment than "HAHA! Someone's got a tiny wiener!"
posted by peppermind at 5:10 PM on April 27 [10 favorites]


And to hopefully side step the tone conversation that appeared while I was typing, I always wonder how much these are edited or created. I'd like to see interviews with these types of creators that focus more on process and practice. It seems like a lot of work.. And part of the process is so performative unlike fictional text conversations (like Rick Rick Rick or Ghost Texts). It reminds me of work that's really repetitive and process oriented- like live music or live comedy- rather than something cultivated and edited. Only on the internet.

peppermind- I know what you are saying. I am normally pretty sensitive to that stuff but this didn't feel that way to me. I think its the tone of the drawings. They are disarming rather than insulting. Obviously a lot of the guys didn't get that, or feel anything at all besides confusion but whatever.
posted by kittensofthenight at 5:19 PM on April 27


I am anti internet catcalling and also anti calling people fat with a tiny penis. I am anti everything. I contain multitudes (but only if they are multitudes of anti).
posted by Lutoslawski at 5:23 PM on April 27 [1 favorite]


[Guys, the way to stop a one-against-many repetitive debate is to stop engaging. Please try that out now. Thanks. ]
posted by restless_nomad at 5:33 PM on April 27 [1 favorite]


I was confused by the random dudes use of 'tryna get the pipe' as if he was getting her pipe. I thought the penis was the pipe and the vagina was where the pipe was laid.
After some deep thought I now feel that the penis and the vagina (and attendant parts) are both pipe-like, and during sex we are simply connecting our pipes, turning our knobs, letting pleasure flow through them. I have learned something valuable from the tumblr.


No tryna get the pipe is about him asking her if she wants penetrative sex with him - subsitute "trying to get the D" "do you want me to lay some pipe" etc.
posted by sweetkid at 5:35 PM on April 27


it's interesting how many people are focusing on the tiny penis thing - when i saw them originally in the last day or so, i was struck with the flaccidness of the penises. she's drawing growers not showers. i've seen a bunch of dick of a lot of different sizes and from the biggest to the smallest, all the growers would have a state like she draws.
posted by nadawi at 5:39 PM on April 27 [4 favorites]


I assumed that "get the pipe" meant similar to "get the d" from context, but with less context I would've assumed it was about smoking weed, since sex and weed are the #1 and #2 things people use that kind of combination cryptic/incoherent phrasing with.
posted by NoraReed at 5:45 PM on April 27


i've seen a bunch of dick of a lot of different sizes and from the biggest to the smallest, all the growers would have a state like she draws.

While that is totally true, I don't think that's the intention with the drawings? i.e. I don't think she's probably thinking "hey, I will sketch them as anatomically correct growers." (*I have no passionate dog in this fight).
posted by Lutoslawski at 5:48 PM on April 27


Leaving aside the ridiculous notion that his Nobel confers sociosexual expertise, Richard Feynman has been dead for over a quarter-century, so his strategies to "pull in women" are out of date.

Laying pipe means sexual intercourse but I have also heard it used to mean defecating, so, well, gross.
posted by gingerest at 6:06 PM on April 27 [5 favorites]


The Slate interview jessamyn linked addresses why she draws them the way she does:

Slate: I’ve noticed that most of these men are rendered with small, flaccid penises. Especially Ryan, 24, who wrote: “I have a long penis.” Is that a deliberate choice?

Gensler: Well, I didn’t want to draw them in a way that would make them happy. They’re all based off of these guys’ profile pictures, so their faces and their general positions are the same, but from there I tried to make them look a little chubbier or scrawnier or just not particularly well-endowed. I wanted to prevent a reaction that was like, “Oh, she loves me and my hot body, let’s have sex.”

posted by sweetkid at 6:24 PM on April 27 [1 favorite]


This reminds me of another (FPP-worthy) topic in its own right, namely a popular tech bro ripping off @shanley's work, not crediting her, then stepping back with a WHOA WHOA WHOA she's being NEGATIVE and MEAN the second the (well-deserved) outrage begins.

If you're a man, you're apparently allowed to be deliberately obtuse as to why a woman would be upset about something like that, or the material in this OP. Because it happens ALL the time, and it's EXHAUSTING.
posted by bitter-girl.com at 6:33 PM on April 27 [3 favorites]


On Feynman, he was talking about the '50s, so it was a different world. But to avoid misleading statements, he wasn't referring to his own strategies, but those taught by a guy in a bar. And he goes on to say "But no matter how effective the lesson was, I never really used it after that. I didn't enjoy doing it that way."
posted by zompist at 7:03 PM on April 27 [4 favorites]


Regarding the bullying of bullies, I think things have to seriously change in the male:female sexual harassment ratio for me to worry about someone making rude drawings of these guys. Maybe when the ratio is closer to 3:1, I would be inclined to say "hey ladies, don't be so mean, you're closing the gap in rude, offensive and unwanted comments, let's work on getting along." Because now it's closer to 100,000:1, give or take a few zeros, so I don't think the few women who respond to cat-calls and their digital equivalents are really making the world a worse place, or turning otherwise annoying bro-dudes into Super Annoying bro-dudes, or Possibly Dangerous bro-dudes.
posted by filthy light thief at 7:14 PM on April 27 [6 favorites]


And I think the Tinder aspect is misleading. By going on a site that serves as something of a hetero Grindr doesn't mean you want to receive "8==D I love anal," because I seriously doubt anyone wants that, let alone is enticed to have sex with the sender of that message. I mean, "your boobs are even nicer than my mom's" -- what do you even say to that? Besides "you have some seriously twisted mommy issues and you should probably deal with those before talking to women about sexual activities."
posted by filthy light thief at 7:25 PM on April 27 [3 favorites]


I have a sneaking suspicion that sometimes the guys who start with really crude lines like that are wanking while they write, and are getting off on their own dirty talk. I can imagine that it's sort of a win-win for them, because maybe they'll get lucky and find the one in ten million chick who will go for that or think it's funny, or maybe they'll offend a woman to the point they can laugh at her. Sometimes. NOT ALL MEN.
posted by gingerest at 7:35 PM on April 27 [3 favorites]


>Regarding the bullying of bullies, I think things have to seriously change in the male:female sexual harassment ratio for me to worry about someone making rude drawings of these guys. Maybe when the ratio is closer to 3:1, I would be inclined to say "hey ladies, don't be so mean, you're closing the gap in rude, offensive and unwanted comments, let's work on getting along."

Can you explain your logic here? Isn't this the definition of a two wrongs not making a right situation?
posted by Maugrim at 7:48 PM on April 27 [1 favorite]


Can you explain your logic here? Isn't this the definition of a two wrongs not making a right situation?

Given the state of the world as it is, I think women would need to commit about 10,000 wrongs to cancel out every wrong done to them by men... so, ya know, technically you are correct.
posted by showbiz_liz at 7:53 PM on April 27 [1 favorite]


I've missed it. I see this as a woman making jokes for other women. I'm not seeing it as activist, or as aimed at men. Sometimes things aren't for men. That's okay! There are lots of other things that are for men! They can go laugh at those things.

The Slate interview seems to make it pretty clear that her motive is revenge. She states explicitly that she wants to "give them a taste of their own medicine". And she talks about using art as a weapon and how she didn't want to respond in a manner that would further encourage them.

So it seems like questioning whether this actually works is totally pertinent. It doesn't seem to be for men in general, but it does appear to be for the specific men who sent her the messages to begin with.
posted by Seymour Zamboni at 7:55 PM on April 27 [2 favorites]


>Given the state of the world as it is, I think women would need to commit about 10,000 wrongs to cancel out every wrong done to them by men... so, ya know, technically you are correct.

Um, I'm pretty sure wrongs don't cancel each other out.
posted by Maugrim at 8:08 PM on April 27 [1 favorite]


Um, I'm pretty sure wrongs don't cancel each other out.

We'll just keep turning the other cheek then, it's working out great so far
posted by showbiz_liz at 8:17 PM on April 27 [8 favorites]


Can you explain your logic here? Isn't this the definition of a two wrongs not making a right situation?

So I think the problem is that the focus is on the feelings of these men instead of their totally inappropriate and creepy actions. Women face this kind of harassment every day, sometimes multiple times a day. I would say that most women probably don't have the time or the patience to explain what is wrong with these actions to each and every guy, and that's not even accounting for the fact that most of them don't want to hear it.

Why is it the woman's responsibility to consider the creep's feelings in pushing back against his behavior?
posted by LizBoBiz at 8:18 PM on April 27 [11 favorites]


as a longtime admirer of penises of all sizes (and the men who own them), i'm not a fan of seeing perpetuated the idea that small endowment is intrinsically embarrassing such that it is an effective insult. if i think a woman is being a jerk, i'd think calling her out on her small breasts would be demeaning to a range of women who are not at all jerks.
posted by fallacy of the beard at 8:23 PM on April 27 [10 favorites]


as a longtime admirer of penises of all sizes (and the men who own them), i'm not a fan of seeing perpetuated the idea that small endowment is intrinsically embarrassing such that it is an effective insult.

But reducing a woman to just "the gender that has the sexual equipment I like to fuck and therefore I will try to fuck it" is something you have no problem with?
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 8:30 PM on April 27 [6 favorites]


It's striking how people in this discussion are trying really hard to be offended. Sort of the converse of the usual stereotype of humorless feminists. Worrying about small penises, bullying, sympathy for the sleazeballs whose introductory salvo goes "is your butthole tight". The guys she's parodying are creeps and she's making some artistic fun of them and it's a little mean spirited and a little hilarious. This particular plate of beans is just going to be crappy if you overthink it.
posted by Nelson at 8:31 PM on April 27 [11 favorites]


>Why is it the woman's responsibility to consider the creep's feelings in pushing back against his behavior?

If you're speaking in the specific case, it's not. If you're sending offensive messages and you get an offensive response, whatever.

I'm objecting to the attitude that somehow, because more women suffer more threatening, offensive and stupid comments than men, we should ignore similar behaviour by women.

I don't think the two problems deserve equal time and resources. One is clearly bigger than the other.

I just think that the logical inconsistency hurts the debate and undermines the cause of making things better.
posted by Maugrim at 8:37 PM on April 27 [4 favorites]


For those women who use Tinder / OKC and put up with what by all accounts is an insufferable barrage of dick pics and lame / offensive / violent messages: what is the upside that keeps you using these applications?
posted by grumpybear69 at 8:45 PM on April 27


Um, I'm pretty sure wrongs don't cancel each other out.

We'll just keep turning the other cheek then, it's working out great so far
posted by showbiz_liz at 8:17 PM on April 27 [2 favorites +] [!]


Two wrongs do not cancel each other out. Sometimes that's not the intent.
Fighting fire with fire goes by another another name, and it is what usually happens when an oppressed group decides to stop turning the other cheek.
You can declare yourself a non-combatant, but I'm pretty sure standing there lecturing the revolutionary that she's not being *nice* enough ain't gonna save your biscuits.
They might be rather humorously drawn and shared on tumblr.
posted by susiswimmer at 8:48 PM on April 27 [2 favorites]


But reducing a woman to just "the gender that has the sexual equipment I like to fuck and therefore I will try to fuck it" is something you have no problem with?

That's an unfair and illogical attack. How does that at all follow from what they've posted?
posted by nacho fries at 8:48 PM on April 27 [5 favorites]


But reducing a woman to just "the gender that has the sexual equipment I like to fuck and therefore I will try to fuck it" is something you have no problem with?

and yet nothing i said implied that at all. it's not her insulting them i find distasteful; it's that she thinks that characterizing someone as having smaller endowment is insulting, and she's cool with that particular punchline. kinda like how if she responded by calling them gay, you couldn't really get around the fact that she would be characterizing homosexuality as something to be embarrassed by. she could maybe argue that she's just responding in a way that those particular men would find insulting, but the public statement 'hehe look what i did' makes a more general statement here.
posted by fallacy of the beard at 8:50 PM on April 27 [11 favorites]


The stated point of the Tumblr is objectifying men who objectify women. Characterizing a man as having small genitals is explicitly objectifying him by the standards of the greater society by which Anna has been objectified, however stupid those standards are.
posted by gingerest at 8:53 PM on April 27 [4 favorites]


(Also, the men's penises look like normal human penises under typical conditions, rather than porn peen. I don't think it's the focus of the insult, with the exception of those dudes who've made a point of mentioning their giant desirable trouser snakes. Mostly she's drawing dudes with a clear "HA HA YOU ARE UNEXPECTEDLY NAKED WITHOUT FLATTERY" vibe.)
posted by gingerest at 8:56 PM on April 27 [4 favorites]


for me the junk part of the drawings still comes off much more as "i'm unconcerned and uninterested in your dick." i agree with gingerest, these overwhelmingly look like normal flaccid cocks, not comically small penises.
posted by nadawi at 9:04 PM on April 27 [6 favorites]


What I find oddly moving about her drawings is that she takes some effort to capture the facial expression, and then just uses a few absurd MS Paint-ish squiggly lines to suggest the genitals. She doesn't seem to be distorting the facial features in any sort of caricatured way to make monsters of her subjects. There is almost a quality of tenderness to how she handles their faces...

It's an interesting effect.
posted by nacho fries at 9:05 PM on April 27 [4 favorites]


the slate interview kind of plays up the endowment aspect, and her response: They’re all based off of these guys’ profile pictures, so their faces and their general positions are the same, but from there I tried to make them look a little chubbier or scrawnier or just not particularly well-endowed. so it's part of what she's going for here.
posted by fallacy of the beard at 9:19 PM on April 27 [2 favorites]


95% of the time when women are getting called out for not being "nice enough" to men it's because they're breaking the social conventions of how women are supposed to behave (nice to everyone all the time, not actually explicitly rejecting anyone, etc) or they're using the "don't fight fire with fire" approach because "don't be mean to the people you're oppressing!!" is a great way to shut down an argument.

It's annoying as all hell, because it's an attempt to co-opt social justice ideas but reduces them to "people being mean", not "people using the power of thousands of years of living in patriarchal society to be dicks to women on the internet and never face any consequences". It tries to cast messages (often just one, single message) sent in response to unwanted and unasked for sexual attention as bullying.
posted by NoraReed at 9:24 PM on April 27 [7 favorites]


>Fighting fire with fire goes by another another name, and it is what usually happens when an oppressed group decides to stop turning the other cheek.

It's not the fighting fire with fire that's unproductive. I really don't care how she responded to the men.

I think we're having two different conversations here. I'm trying to point out that ignoring bullying behaviour in one direction but not the other is logically inconsistent and unproductive in the context of a debate and changing people's opinions and behaviour. You're setting people up to react defensively to your argument and giving them a club to beat you with.

I think you're trying to say that we shouldn't worry about being nice to people who are clearly being douchebags. And I agree.

I've begun to generalize while others are focusing on this specific instance. Sorry for the confusion.
posted by Maugrim at 9:25 PM on April 27 [2 favorites]


it's a leap from "not particularly well endowed" to harhar small dicks. it comes off more to me to be the reverse of how women are encouraged to pretend every man we're with has the biggest dick and is the best lover. she gives none of that flattery, and (i agree with nacho fries) sort if scribbles their junk.
posted by nadawi at 9:26 PM on April 27 [2 favorites]


Maugrim, are you talking about any specific instance, or are you talking about an unrelated and possibly entirely hypothetical instance of women bullying men?
posted by NoraReed at 9:29 PM on April 27


it's a leap from "not particularly well endowed" to harhar small dicks. i think it's less a leap than I don't think it's the focus of the insult when she specifically says it is. she lists it alongside 'chubbier' and 'scrawnier' as a trait that is intrinsically less attractive.
posted by fallacy of the beard at 9:36 PM on April 27 [2 favorites]


There is something I like, in a turnabout-is-fair-play sort of way, about a gal sending a guy a dick pic (drawing).

I'm not a fan of insults based on penis dimensions or body type, but the role-reversal and element of surprise is funny to me. "Here, I made you something..."

She doesn't come across to me as bullying or mean-spirited. I read it as more, "Oh yeah? You wanna go there? OK, let's GO THERE then!" Feisty sparring.
posted by nacho fries at 9:42 PM on April 27 [3 favorites]


>95% of the time when women are getting called out for not being "nice enough" to men it's because they're breaking the social conventions of how women are supposed to behave (nice to everyone all the time, not actually explicitly rejecting anyone, etc) or they're using the "don't fight fire with fire" approach because "don't be mean to the people you're oppressing!!" is a great way to shut down an argument.

Hate to break it to you but 95% (100% even!) of the time when people are being called out it's because they're breaking social conventions. That's inherent to the definition of "social conventions."

And, while you can shut an argument down that way, I'm not. And I don't see anyone else here who is.

>It's annoying as all hell, because it's an attempt to co-opt social justice ideas but reduces them to "people being mean", not "people using the power of thousands of years of living in patriarchal society to be dicks to women on the internet and never face any consequences".

I think you're attributing things to malice when they ought to be attributed to stupidity, but ok.
posted by Maugrim at 9:47 PM on April 27


i don't give a single shit if people are holding up a culture that abuses and undervalues women because they're stupid or because they're malicious; they're still doing it
posted by NoraReed at 9:50 PM on April 27 [12 favorites]


I've begun to generalize while others are focusing on this specific instance. Sorry for the confusion.

Thank you.
Unfortunately there is many a slip twixt cup and lip with regards to making generalizations from specifics, an issue that is so common it could almost be considered a trait of humanity. (Wait, what did I just do there?!?)

What we have here is also a problem of false negatives and false positives: a concern that some non-d-bag men may have been just intending to request casual sex, but got drawn down upon. These false positives may be turned into enemy combatants by this error.
However, in systems with chaotic and messy signaling like on line dating, there is no fool proof way to prevent errors. So a revolutionary must choose her strategy based on whether false positives or false negatives are preferable. (Our new rallying cry will be, "not one d-bag undrawn!")

And with that, I leave you with the definition of bullying from Merriam Webster: A blustering, browbeating person; especially: one habitually cruel to others who are weaker. And I ask (quite rhetorically): Does a woman in a patriarchal society who, in fighting d-bags with fire in the dating arena, occasionally hits a false positive, really meet that definition?
posted by susiswimmer at 9:59 PM on April 27


What I find oddly moving about her drawings is that she takes some effort to capture the facial expression, and then just uses a few absurd MS Paint-ish squiggly lines to suggest the genitals. She doesn't seem to be distorting the facial features in any sort of caricatured way to make monsters of her subjects.

I think she's straight-up tracing their profile photos so that they'll have to recognize themselves.
posted by gingerest at 10:05 PM on April 27 [1 favorite]


Hate to break it to you but 95% (100% even!) of the time when people are being called out it's because they're breaking social conventions. That's inherent to the definition of "social conventions."

oh

I guess those social conventions are unassailable then

carry on
posted by Rustic Etruscan at 10:08 PM on April 27 [4 favorites]


NoraReeed: I'm saying that I'm objecting to the "oppressing the oppressor is cool" argument because I think it's detrimental to a good cause.

Whereas, it seems that you (and a few other people) are more interested in the Ragefilter aspect. Which is great. Better that you're angry in favour of a good cause than a bad one, I guess.

At the risk of suffering the same ridicule as a previous poster, it's not all men. No, really. It's important because, if things are to change, *we* have to change them. I'm trying to tell you that what you're saying, besides being morally inconsistent, alienates people who might otherwise take an interest in helping out.

The upshot is, please stop making broad generalizations about men. It's not an effective tactic.

EDIT:
>i don't give a single shit if people are holding up a culture that abuses and undervalues women because they're stupid or because they're malicious; they're still doing it

I understand. You'd rather be angry than make things better. Cool.
posted by Maugrim at 10:09 PM on April 27 [3 favorites]


>I guess those social conventions are unassailable then

Where did I say that? Of course they're assailable. What Nora wrote wasn't a critique of social conventions, it was an empty sentence.
posted by Maugrim at 10:16 PM on April 27


These illustrations would make interesting trading cards. Collect 'em all...
posted by nacho fries at 10:20 PM on April 27


[Maugrim, you need to step back and let this conversation breath. You've registered your serious concerns about the cause being undermined several times now, and that's probably enough.]
posted by taz at 10:21 PM on April 27 [4 favorites]


The upshot is, please stop making broad generalizations about men. It's not an effective tactic.

I'm sorry, I'm going to be calling you Bruce in my head from now on.
posted by asterix at 10:23 PM on April 27 [1 favorite]


IT'S NOT OPPRESSION WHEN IT ISN'T DONE WITH THE WEIGHT OF CULTURE BEHIND IT

"OPPRESSION" MEANS SOMETHING SPECIFIC

IT ISN'T JUST "BEING MEAN"
posted by NoraReed at 10:26 PM on April 27 [1 favorite]


THE CAPS LOCK MAKES IT TRUE
posted by adipocere at 10:52 PM on April 27 [7 favorites]


the arrogance of men who question the value of anything that doesn't personally tickle their fancy is astounding

MetaFilter: the arrogance of people who... ehh no, let's just not.
posted by jklaiho at 10:53 PM on April 27


I'm not so sure I want an ally whose first request is that I vacate the field in his favor so that he can fight the battle properly. Isn't that sort of "meet the new boss"?
posted by susiswimmer at 10:54 PM on April 27 [5 favorites]


I would like to know in what other circumstances hand-drawn revenge porn, permanently posted online, with a name attached to it, is an appropriate response to a single inappropriate message.

Don't get me wrong, I've been on OKCupid for years, dated multiple women who've told me all sorts of horror stories about the cesspool of awful messages they get.

I just kind of feel like the problem might actually be solvable by creating some sort of demerits/flagging system that gets badly behaved men (or anyone else, however rare that may be) permanently booted from the site and IP blocked relatively quickly. I'd write an email or sign a petition advocating that OKCupid get it's act together on this. It's in the interest of every man who knows how to behave himself to support ejecting creeps from the site.

Maybe these drawings will call attention to the problem effectively, but in the end, they're no more a solution than the exhaustive Tumblrs that have popped up over the years to shame these creeps. The site needs to do something to crack down.
posted by MeanwhileBackAtTheRanch at 11:14 PM on April 27 [2 favorites]


You look at those pictures and see porn?
posted by gingerest at 11:16 PM on April 27 [2 favorites]


"revenge porn" means something very different.
posted by MeanwhileBackAtTheRanch at 11:34 PM on April 27


For those women who use Tinder / OKC and put up with what by all accounts is an insufferable barrage of dick pics and lame / offensive / violent messages: what is the upside that keeps you using these applications?
I can't speak for women seeking people with OEM penii, but I am on OKC (where I am a volunteer mod) to find other female-ish folks to get laid and maybe even have an emotionally significant relationship with.
The barrage of OEM penii wielders answering my ad which specifically excludes them is really an impediment, but what magical, non-homophobic, dating/hook-up social media do you suggest I use instead?
And what makes anyone think social media is an iota more pleasant than IRL? If I counted the daily micro-agressions I put up with due to being a visible genderqueer, I'd run out of fingers and toes to count on, before lunchtime.
posted by Dreidl at 11:39 PM on April 27


permanently posted online, with a name attached to it

A first name, and a hand-drawn depiction of a Tinder profile picture - this is what's over the line for you? It's not exactly doxxing.

It's interesting that we have a cavalcade of dudes in this thread effectively saying "I recognize this is a problem, but do you have to be so mean/bullying about it?" The entire point is for men to experience an instance of (relatively mild) uncomfortable objectification, to feel even 1% of what it's like to receive these messages every day. Suggesting to take out that element of objectification essentially defangs this entire thing. Presumably you want a more polite/civilized route of asking people to please, please stop. It all just sounds like various shades of tone argument to me. It also sounds like some men here are more willing to empathize with the objectified men than with the objectified women, even if they intellectually understand that the messages are not right. Like: "I see what you're saying, but I can see myself in that guy's shoes and I would not be happy!" Well get over the vicarious discomfort and get a grip...
posted by naju at 11:42 PM on April 27 [22 favorites]


While I think this is funny, as a regularly endowed non-asshole, I think maybe it'd be good if we stopped using "small dick" as an insult or shorthand for creepy guys or whatever. You realize men being ridiculed for having a small dick are really being ridiculed for not being masculine enough, in other words, for being like a woman, right? It emphasizes the very gender stereotypes we should be working to destroy.

Also, it kind of plays into the dumb MRA thing about "women only think men are creeps if they're not good looking". Terry Richardson, according to one of his victims, has a huge dick, and it doesn't make him any less of an abusive asshole.
posted by Joakim Ziegler at 12:25 AM on April 28 [7 favorites]


Wow!
Anna Gensler's caricatures of these men are spot on as Ralph Steadman's caricature of the district attorneys in Fear and Loathing.
Enormously entertaining. But more importantly, a brilliant rebuke to the wrong these men perpetrate.

Women want and enjoy sex as much as men want and enjoy sex. First impressions count for everything: women will initiate sex when they feel safe. Who is attracted to "Hi, let's fuck" outside some narrow context?

She is also courageous because she has most likely witnessed the avalanche of misogynist bullshit perpetrated by men who attempt to bury and silence women who agitate against patriarchy.

I hope she inspires the strength and confidence in other women who will invent their own methods to respond in kind.
posted by Pudhoho at 1:13 AM on April 28 [1 favorite]


So she was on tinder/grindr and was all surprised when she received messages from men in sync with the site's purpose?

Or was this the purpose of her signing up?

How much time did she waste on people she wasn't interested in?

People will do all sorts of weird shit for their 15 minutes.
posted by hal_c_on at 1:14 AM on April 28


fun fact: sometimes people can use dating sites in a way that results in talking to people without coming off as harassing them or hitting on them in ways they aren't going to be interested in

usually this requires "reading her profile" and "behaving with a basic modicum of human decency" though so that's a pretty high bar for a huge number of dudes on the internet
posted by NoraReed at 1:40 AM on April 28 [6 favorites]


Presumably you want a more polite/civilized route of asking people to please, please stop.

No, I want the more effective route of pressuring tindr and OKC to develop blocking mechanisms for habitual harassers.

Particularly with OKC, this seems totally feasible. There are several very clear lines that should never be crossed. Plus, they already have a blocking mechanism for messaging. Do they eject people from the site if they get blocked more than a couple times in a certain time period? Seems like an obvious thing to do.

And they even have a safeguard against abusing their blocking mechanism already: two types of block. You can "hide" a profile you just don't want to see. You can only block someone who has messaged you. Which means and MRA who whines about "what if my ex gangs up on me with her friends to get me kicked off the site" has no leg to stand on, he could only get multi-blocked if he was messaging everybody who blocked him.
posted by MeanwhileBackAtTheRanch at 1:44 AM on April 28


Eh, I'm a woman and the whole thing just makes me squicky. Maybe because the last thing I want with a gross dude is to have a dialogue that's longer than necessary. And putting effort into a drawing is, for me, a labour of love and caring, so I found the context jarring. And the drawings themselves weren't funny to me, to the point where I seriously couldn't figure it out. Also, from my experience, any kind of effort and attention flatters these guys and makes them go on with the bullshit, if not with me then with someone else.

But it's okay, it's just not for me. Just wanted to add a data point and explain why.

Besides, if it makes other women feel better about their own gross experiences and if it makes them laugh, that's a good thing.
posted by Omnomnom at 4:43 AM on April 28 [1 favorite]


my hat is off to whoever convinced that guy that "I wanna tongue-punch you in the fart box" was a grade-A pickup line
posted by Legomancer at 5:43 AM on April 28 [6 favorites]


"revenge porn" means something very different.

yep, sure does and this ain't it.
posted by nadawi at 5:46 AM on April 28 [3 favorites]


People will do all sorts of weird shit for their 15 minutes.

You think she's doing this just to get famous?
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 6:11 AM on April 28


i think it would be totally fine if she decided she was fed up with this sort of thing and wanted to use her artistic talent to give a "fuck you" to the guys, a "amiright??" to other women, and to raise her own profile. taking shit from creeps and turning into an opportunity to promote your talents seems a pretty good move to me and i don't think it falls under doing weird shit to get famous.
posted by nadawi at 6:15 AM on April 28 [2 favorites]


re: revenge porn, good god, i'm still reading an article that was linked to nadawi's, but this "Moore collected strangers' nudes and republished them without their permission, but with their names, hometowns, and links to their social networking accounts" is so so so far from "Daniel, 25" and a sketched caricature that you really need to rethink the comparison and why you even made it. is anyone remotely surprised that actual revenge porn usually involves the rape/death threats type of keyboard warrior stalking and does anyone think that anything similar is going to come out of instagranniepants? i'm thinking the FBI probably won't need to investigate her.

No, I want the more effective route of pressuring tindr and OKC to develop blocking mechanisms for habitual harassers.

then you should contact them because she's just blowing off steam not trying to solve men being shit online. there is no one-woman solution to that problem that doesn't even nuking the entire species. i'm personally not remotely interested in how the flaccid penises depicted makes anyone feel bad. it just sounds like the usual nitpicking to me. there ain't no way for a woman to respond effectively, politely, and respectfully here. you guys know this because you know that "is your butthole tight" dude isn't going to learn a lesson from someone being polite and respectful in response to "is your butthole tight," which makes effective impossible.
posted by twist my arm at 6:46 AM on April 28 [14 favorites]


And they even have a safeguard against abusing their blocking mechanism already: two types of block. You can "hide" a profile you just don't want to see. You can only block someone who has messaged you.
I know many women who use OkC, have been creeped on, blocked their creepers, and then had said creeper open up new accounts to circumvent the block. IP address blocking is nice in theory, but possibly infeasible in a day where users access the internet from a multitude of devices on a diversity of carriers. It is exhausting and has driven many users from the site out of sheer frustration.

Tindr, on its surface, seems like it'd be more optimal since you can't actually exchange messages until both parties have mutually acknowledged interest in each other. That should cut down on the out-of-the-blue, unsolicited harassment, but it doesn't reduce the possibility that one may express an interest in a person because their picture seems nice and non-creepy, only to realize that (*surprise*) looks can be deceiving.

I understand the urge to seek technological or process based solutions to a human problem. But demeaning behavior such as this is a cultural problem, and addressing it requires dialogue, not block filtering.
posted by bl1nk at 7:32 AM on April 28 [4 favorites]


bl1nk: "I know many women who use OkC, have been creeped on, blocked their creepers, and then had said creeper open up new accounts to circumvent the block"

This should at least theoretically be less of a problem with stuff like Tinder, because Tinder uses your FB profile as a starting point. Making a new FB profile and populating it with photos and whatnot is a bit more work. Not saying people won't do it, but the move towards unified sign-in and perhaps a bit of a track record requirement will remove a lot of the sockpuppetry.
posted by Joakim Ziegler at 7:39 AM on April 28 [1 favorite]


I was on OKC because I was new to town and interested in a relationship. Fortunately, I exchanged a message with my now - boyfriend before the barrage of penises and gross messages chased me off, but it is totally reasonable for women to be on websites for their stated purpose and expect that the collective male usership will also be reasonable. If women didn't participate in things that had the potential for misogyny, the world would basically not function. And I won't self-limit because a proportion of men ofen behave poorly.
posted by ChuraChura at 7:44 AM on April 28 [2 favorites]


THE CAPS LOCK MAKES IT TRUE

A truer statement has never been written.
posted by cosmic.osmo at 9:05 AM on April 28


But, incidentally, Nora's statement is true, unless you seriously believe the oppressed party here is the men receiving one nasty message and not the woman receiving - for some reason - dozens.
posted by Rustic Etruscan at 9:13 AM on April 28 [12 favorites]


I look at stuff like this and think, "Thank heaven I'm no longer single." And also, "SO glad the internet didn't really exist in its present form when I was dating." My marriage predates Facebook.

I totally get why someone might respond to offensive objectification by in turn negatively objectifying a bully. But man, I was a socially awkward idiot when I was single. Would have been terrifying to see something stupid I said turn into a revenge drawing of me naked and underendowed. Yikes.

Intellectually I know shouldn't feel bad for the guys she's mocking. But even though I would never say anything like what they did, I do kinda empathize with them.
posted by zarq at 11:35 AM on April 28


I don't get it. If you would never have said anything like what those guys said, why are you happy you're no longer single?
posted by asterix at 11:37 AM on April 28


Well, empathize in a "ye gods I would hate it if that were done to me" way. Not in the "let's be a total asshole to women" way.
posted by zarq at 11:38 AM on April 28


You realize it's a little weird that you're empathizing with the dudes and not the women who get harassing messages, yeah?
posted by asterix at 11:48 AM on April 28 [10 favorites]


asterix: "I don't get it. If you would never have said anything like what those guys said, why are you happy you're no longer single?"

Because I know firsthand what it's like to give a negative first impression to someone you are interested in romantically -- in person, at least. Nothing so drastic, horrifying or shitty as what these guys are doing. But I was quite introverted and bad at casual dating. Was terrible at small talk, navigating awkward silences, knowing what to do in some social situations, etc. Actually, am still not great at those things. Maturity and some life experience has helped, as has being in a healthy marriage.
posted by zarq at 11:48 AM on April 28


And I mean, I was a socially-inept, clueless idiot when I was younger (there you go, I left you all some nice fruit hanging as low as you could like), and when I look back at some of my interactions with women when I was younger I cringe, but hell if I'm gonna empathize with those guys. They get mocked? It's not the end of the world! Sometimes the process of growing up is painful.
posted by asterix at 11:52 AM on April 28 [8 favorites]


*nod* "Empathize" is the wrong word. I can just imagine something like this happening to younger me for being an idiot. That's all.
posted by zarq at 12:02 PM on April 28 [1 favorite]


There are many things OKC could choose to do to make the user experience less hostile toward women. Instead, they are doing just the opposite -- they are removing features that helped us pre-empt unwanted queries. For example: the ability to block contact from men who have "Casual Sex" selected; to block contact from guys outside my stated age range; to block men who don't meet match % thresholds.

(They also took away a feature I found particularly useful back in the day: the journal/blog thingamajig. That was a nice tool to show me how a guy interacted with others on the site. It was a very revealing device.)

While it would of course be lovely if the larger culture shifted in ways that made technological/process-driven features unnecessary for more civilized online dating, there is exactly zero reason they can't be implemented in the meantime to get people to behave a bit better. I would be very happy to pay a subscription fee -- a significant one -- to see these types of enhancements in place on OKC. I suspect even a modest signup fee (a la metafilter's 5 buck charge) would go a long way toward discouraging troublemakers and improving the overall OKC experience.

(The existing subscription-based sites -- match and eharmony -- are sufficiently crappy that I have no interest in using them.)
posted by nacho fries at 12:30 PM on April 28 [4 favorites]


Again, I use caps lock online the way I use yelling at groups of men in real life who engage in selective deafness when someone they read as female talks. I'm sorry if the caps lock (or, more likely, a woman getting frustrated in an unladylike manner) offends anyone's delicate sensitivities, but I wouldn't have to do it if people actually read what the women in the thread said when we said it instead if waiting for one of us to get pissed off and yell at them or for a man to come in and agree with us and/or repeat/rephrase what we said so that our opinions on how we should be treated on dating/social sites are man-approved enough to be listened to.
posted by NoraReed at 3:41 PM on April 28 [7 favorites]


I don't use it, but I believe that if you pay for OkCupid A-List you get access to message filtering which does allow you to filter based on minimum % match, age range, relationship status, etc. Again, it won't be perfect (ie. won't filter out sketchy married dudes who just lie on their profile) but it should cut down on some of the noise?

I'm still of a mind that people who are determined to be assholes will figure out ways to game the system, so I still stay skeptical about the call for addressing these dysfunctionalities with more features, but I acknowledge that helping users reduce their burden of bullshit from 20 messages a day to 2 would probably go a long way to make this a more sane experience for everyone.

(I also feel like I missed out on the days when OkC allowed people to maintain a journal, and\or other ways of interacting with each other that are not expressly for the purpose of finding someone to go out with this weekend)
posted by bl1nk at 3:41 PM on April 28


bl1nk: "(I also feel like I missed out on the days when OkC allowed people to maintain a journal, and\or other ways of interacting with each other that are not expressly for the purpose of finding someone to go out with this weekend)"

I suspect this disappeared because very few people used it. Who the hell wants to use a dating site as a blogging platform?
posted by Joakim Ziegler at 7:22 PM on April 28 [1 favorite]


I use caps lock online the way I use yelling at groups of men in real life . . . but I wouldn't have to do it if people actually read what the women in the thread said when we said it instead if waiting for one of us to get pissed off and yell at them or for a man to come in. . .

that line's not going to sell around here. i've been in and out of here for 13 years and don't know (or remember, if i ever did) the gender of most of the posters i respect here. your use of all caps isn't because women aren't heard here; it's to compensate for commentary that isn't particularly compelling, unique, or elegant in a forum where those traits are the currency. the mean-dudes-won't-listen-to-women thing just makes it more pathetic.
posted by fallacy of the beard at 9:50 AM on April 29


i've been in and out of here for 13 years and don't know (or remember, if i ever did) the gender of most of the posters i respect here.

failure to notice gender: the mark of someone who Truly Knows and Cares

your use of all caps isn't because women aren't heard here; it's to compensate for commentary that isn't particularly compelling, unique, or elegant in a forum where those traits are the currency. the mean-dudes-won't-listen-to-women thing just makes it more pathetic.

on second thought, this is extremely next-level satire
posted by Rustic Etruscan at 10:12 AM on April 29 [10 favorites]


fallacy of the beard: "...it's to compensate for commentary that isn't particularly compelling, unique, or elegant in a forum where those traits are the currency."

NoraReed does in fact, encompass all of those traits in her MeFi comments and AskMe answers on a regular basis.

Don't be a dick.

fallacy of the beard: " i've been in and out of here for 13 years and don't know (or remember, if i ever did) the gender of most of the posters i respect here."

I realize that screen names aren't always accurate determinators of a user's gender but it isn't exactly a stretch to assume someone whose s/n is "NoraReed" is you know... a woman.
posted by zarq at 10:36 AM on April 29 [3 favorites]


I don't really see gender. To be honest, the only way I know I'm male is that police officers call me "sir".

(angle brackets slash Colbert close angle brackets)
posted by running order squabble fest at 10:42 AM on April 29 [5 favorites]


I realize that screen names aren't always accurate determinators of a user's gender but it isn't exactly a stretch to assume someone whose s/n is "NoraReed" is you know... a woman.

her argument implies that we assess the gender of everyone posting in order to determine which arguments we accept and which we reject (and i'm all who the fuck has the time for all that), and so she has to overcome that by making her letters bigger. there are reasonable disagreements here about the approach featured in the FPP, and her position on it has been sufficiently represented here that it's ridiculous to suggest that there is some gender-based suppression or dismissal of her argument that must be called out. it's frustrating when people don't agree with you, but redefining disagreement as bias falsely insulates your argument.
posted by fallacy of the beard at 11:08 AM on April 29


For the benefit of those too distracted by their own fertile imaginations to read comments when they're typed in all caps, here are Nora's two all-caps comments rendered in normal type. For anyone who actually has a little background knowledge (being a woman, listening to women when they talk about being women), they read as reasonable, if not especially unique - for some reason, their points have to be made again, and again, and again, even in forums as uncommonly friendly as this one.

>
Women create humor in which they make jokes about how terrible men are and often the humor is for other women.

It is not for the terrible dudes.

It is because we all have to deal with the terrible dudes on a regular basis and it is nice to know we are not alone and to laugh about it instead of giving up on whatever realm dudes are being terrible in (work/outside/dating online/dating not online/being online in general/being female in a place where men are/etc).

Thanks, you can stop making "I don't get it/This doesn't affect the men being ridiculed" posts now.
>
It's not oppression when it isn't done with the weight of culture behind it

"Oppression" means something specific

It isn't just "being mean"
If you sincerely agree with the points being made here, then there's no reason to fault them for aesthetic failure and scoff at the idea that men are sometimes, perhaps, unfair to women, even - shock - online.
posted by Rustic Etruscan at 11:37 AM on April 29 [7 favorites]


If you sincerely agree with the points being made here, then there's no reason to fault them for aesthetic failure and scoff at the idea that men are sometimes, perhaps, unfair to women, even - shock - online.

for my part, i don't particularly disagree with these statements. nor did it particularly bother me that they were in all caps. what i found insulting to this forum was the statement:

Again, I use caps lock online the way I use yelling at groups of men in real life who engage in selective deafness when someone they read as female talks. I'm sorry if the caps lock (or, more likely, a woman getting frustrated in an unladylike manner) offends anyone's delicate sensitivities, but I wouldn't have to do it if people actually read what the women in the thread said when we said it instead if waiting for one of us to get pissed off and yell at them or for a man to come in and agree with us and/or repeat/rephrase what we said so that our opinions on how we should be treated on dating/social sites are man-approved enough to be listened to.

(1) there's no indication of selective deafness taking place here. (2) there's no indication that because something is said by 'someone they read is female' it is downgraded here. (3) 'you are not calling out caps lock because it is an annoying attempt to call attention to myself by indicating that my words are more important than any others on this page; you are probably just doing it because (a) i am a woman, and (b) because you think this behavior is inappropriate for a woman.' (4) 'i wouldn't have to do it in the first place if you didn't ignore women and make us yell to get our point across'. (5) 'you don't accept a woman's opinion unless it has been validated by a man'.

so i wasn't even disagreeing with her initial points, and i found this insulting. it is an attempt to validate one's argument by claiming persecution where it does not exist, it accuses this forum of gender bias, and it assumes that we are unable to assess an argument on its own merits. in my view, the original points being made were not so profound as to justify a rationalization so disingenuous, so my takeaway was that caps lock was not here being used any more nobly or effectively than how it is used by anyone else shouting in a forum.
posted by fallacy of the beard at 12:08 PM on April 29


the entire fucking world is gender biased. metafilter isn't somehow above that. there have been conversations for quite some time here about how unwelcoming it once was to women and how we had to fight pretty hard for our spot. it's far better now than it used to be, but it doesn't mean that metafilter somehow solved all the problems with the patriarchy.
posted by nadawi at 12:24 PM on April 29 [12 favorites]


>jessamyn: "That said, I know nothing about Tinder so I'm super unclear if it's like Craigslist csual encounters or more like geolocated OK Cupid."

Neither/both? Tinder is basically like going to the supermarket condiment aisle and buying a bottle labelled “Sauce.”
posted by Skwirl at 8:02 PM on April 29


The indication of selective deafness is in the repeated "why bother making this?????? i am man i am confuse why make something not for me? i am a man." posts after the reasons for making it were explained, repeatedly, by female posters, including myself. There were two target audiences being seen for the drawing by these posters: the men being drawn, or a "general demographic of internet-goers", which they seemed to think *had to include them* in order to be valid. After we explained that it wasn't #1, they kept on the #2 thing with all this stuff they thought was wrong with it and wouldn't accept "it's not for you" as an answer. This is something you only ever get from men, because women are used to things not being for them.

This was way too fucking frustrating to attempt to be "elegant" about, and if "uniqueness" mattered, these dudes would've read what we all were saying the first fucking time.

And zarq, you're makin' me blush :D
posted by NoraReed at 11:52 PM on April 29 [7 favorites]


« Older Where is Laverne Cox?   |   Actor/Astronaut/Asshole Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments



Post