---

See more posts by Alex Balk

9 comments

---

See more posts by Choire Sicha

7 comments

---

See more posts by Choire Sicha

10 comments

---

See more posts by Choire Sicha

7 comments

---

See more posts by Choire Sicha

30 comments

• Does it seem sexist that "cougar" sites — where older ladies seek younger men — are deemed R-rated, but "sugar daddy" sites — where older men seek younger ladies — are appropriate for all ages? Yes. (Although many Hollywood producers would probably agree with this characterization!)

• Would a more vague name like "arrangementseekers.com" maybe help CougarLife's cause? Unclear-to-maybe; the Google rep's refusal to say whether or not "cougar" triggered the autocensors would seem to say yes. (Then again, we are dealing with the tech world here!) One thing a more vague name would definitely help: An uptick in subscribers among the demographic of "women who are kind of horrified by the idea of using a fake trend-story-derived term to find love."

• Is the term "cougar" itself sexist, and really stupid, considering that the gender-flipped equivalent is generally "man"? Related: Isn't it kind of disheartening to see how it "went viral" so quickly? Let us go back to 2005 for clues to the answer to this one, via the news division of the network that now airs Cougar Town:

What do Samantha on "Sex and the City," and Gabrielle on "Desperate Housewives" have in common?

Sex and relationships columnist Valerie Gibson would call them "cougars" — women who date men more than eight years their junior — and they're part of a trend that's coming off the screen and out of the bedroom.

Gibson says the term originated in Vancouver, British Columbia, as a put-down for older women who would go to bars and go home with whoever was left at the end of the night.

But now, it's more positive — describing women usually their in 30s and 40s, who are financially stable and mentally independent and looking for a younger man to have fun with.

Gibson, who is single but has been married five times — the last time to a man 15 years younger — describes cougars like herself this way: "She's in control. She's very attractive. And she's very sexy."

The answer to this one would seem to be "God, yes." Especially if you've watched American Idol this season!

• Are we all doomed to every possible romantic interaction being eventually reduced to a term found in a dumb trend piece that was probably sourced by two friends of friends and someone found on Craigslist in the final throes of a deadline? TGIF, everybody!

---

See more posts by Maura Johnston

11 comments

---

See more posts by Alex Balk

18 comments

Her excellent bit of writing this morning explains this odd focus of concern:

All I will say is that I've done a few interviews this week about "Le Book," and if one more guy asks me how I think the people in my book will react to my writing about them, and was it revenge and did I use their real names and aren't I worried, I might crack like Mink Stole in Desperate Living. Because, first of all, who am I, Babs Walters writing Audition? I am nobody who slept with anybody. There are no boldface names, just pseudonyms and other details I added to protect the characters in my stories after consulting with Penguin Legal and my own lawyer who is Jewish, by the way, in case you need his contact info. Important: It's MY real name that's going on this thing-I'm the one putting myself out there, in whatever cross hairs, looking the most like an idiot, if anything, or at least the most vulnerable and honest and ideally ridiculous because HEY EVERYBODY I AM DANCING AROUND AND TELLING JOKES A LOT IN BETWEEN THE STUFF THAT IS SAD. Meanwhile! Nobody protected me when I was in the thick of these situations; and look at John Edwards, or don't, look at David Letterman, whom I have always IDOLIZED as a comedian, and who had to be told over the weekend between his glib announcement about doing "creepy things" and his apology to his wife and staff that he actually may have hurt some people and needed to apologize?

Many dudes – and some ladies who have internalized dude values – hate it when women write honestly about sex. They get angry. They express their anger by feigning concern for the men these women have supposedly hurt, as if books are supposed to be produced under ethical conditions, like Murray's chicken.

Meanwhile, elsewhere on the Internet? A woman wrote about mansplaining. This, as you know if you are a woman, is when a man explains reality to you in a way that is intended to overrule what you very clearly know is actual reality, or to tell you things you have already said, or to tell you that what you are doing right is wrong.

You may not be surprised to hear that this did not go so well with men! When Suzanne Franks tried this idea out at her science blog, she got lots of amazing responses ("May I send this definition to my colleague Roger, who stood over me while I changed my tire, telling me exactly how I was doing it wrong even though I did it perfectly in less than five minutes?"), but then.... some MANSPLAINING HAPPENED.

Kate Harding rounded up her commenter mansplainers, who flipped out a bit. (THESE MEN WERE HAVING THEIR FEELINGS DISMISSED!)

But the comments on her own site are pretty great, including the story of the boyfriend who explains why a woman should not be knocked out by an especially bad period. And, this one:

Mercifully I know only one habitual mansplainer. He is a gay mansplainer who has never, even in the interest of medical science/curiosity/drunkenness, Done It With A Lady. Yet this did not prevent him from mansplaining to me, (A Lady), that "women don't actually like sex they just pretend to in order to keep men happy". He also once assured me that I could not possibly reach my own g-spot on the basis that another Lady told him she couldn't reach hers. (At which point I may have Lost It and shrieked, "Hel-lo? Who's got the minge in this room, chummy? Oooh, I rather think it's me!" (in a decidedly unLadylike fashion, though, to be fair, I was drunk).

---

See more posts by Choire Sicha

84 comments

The item goes like this.

"DEAR DIARY:

Recently on a beautiful day, I was walking south on Fifth Avenue. The street was very crowded, and while we were waiting for the light to change at 49th Street, the woman behind me said in a distinctly British accent, "I wonder where the diamond district is."

I thought I would be helpful, and turned around and said, "Oh, that's on 47th Street."

Her male companion replied in an equally distinctive British accent, dripping with sarcasm, "Well, thanks a lot."



J. J. Levine"

The woman, you see, is wondering where the diamond district is. Why does she wonder this? Because she enjoys diamonds, as all members of her sex do, and would most likely prefer to own some and/or more of them.

She is traveling with a male companion, who, in his statement to the writer, reveals implicitly that he is not just her traveling companion but most likely her spouse or at least lover. There are two implications in this:

1. At the very least, he will now be forced to spend his afternoon accompanying her as she looks at diamonds, which is beneath him, or irritating to him, or simply boring to him.

2. Most likely, however, the implication is that he will be forced or persuaded or manipulating into the purchase of diamonds by his female partner. Because women do not have money of their own, and are dependent upon the income of men, and because they also frequently withhold sex in exchange for goods, he has been put in a difficult position by the revelation of the location of the diamond district.

This is very very humorous! Most likely because presumably the deeper joke is that the woman's dowry was not extensive enough to provide for the purchase of very many diamonds. She is not worth as much in diamonds as her father paid the man to marry her! Unfortunately, the writer is not inquisitive enough to convey how much cattle the woman was worth at the time of her marrying-off. But, yes, like I said: very humorous!

---

See more posts by Choire Sicha

22 comments

---

See more posts by Choire Sicha

5 comments