• It’s an interesting theory (i.e. the girl-on-girl sex thing). My theory has always been that many of the guys who get into lesbian fantasies secretly suspect that women don’t totally let go when they’re sleeping with men — something akin to how they observe women tell other women things they won’t even tell their husbands. This way, they can watch two women go totally nuts (as it were), and they find that exciting. Possible?

    July 23, 2006
  • And here I thought guys liked girl-on-girl action because there are lots of tits and other bits flyin’ around everywhere, without men around to compete with the fantasizer for their attention. Isn’t part of the fantasy supposed to be the women’s delight when the (male) fantasizer comes along to play with them, in his he-man, take-charge, macho way?

    July 23, 2006
  • Well, that explanation never occurred to me; I suppose it’s possible. As I said, there are probably a lot of reasons why men are attracted to girl-on-girl sex, and there’s no saying that any particular man’s fantasies isn’t driven by more than one of them.

    July 24, 2006
  • Yup, that’s certainly possible: girl-on-girl means no competition. But the point I’m making is that, for at least some men some of the time, lesbian fantasies are not driven by “he-man, take-charge, macho” impulses, but their opposite: the desire to experience tenderness vicariously.

    July 24, 2006
  • Fiction and empathy

    I think you’re right that fiction (like songwriting) matters because it encourages or allows empathy. Bad fiction (like bad songwriting) does the opposite — think of the Schwarsegalibson blockbusters where people are blown away with gleeful abandon. Or worse yet, encourages stereotypes, hatred and makes it easier not to empathize.

    July 26, 2006
  • Re: Fiction and empathy

    I agree about the parallels between fiction and music, but I don’t know that I’d rush into dividing art up into “good” and “bad” piles. That’s what I was struggling with when I wrote “No one, least of all me, wants to read fiction because it’s Good For You.

    First of all, aesthetic judgments about are subjective; moral judgments even moreso. The question always looms: who gets to decide? But that’s not even the critical issue for me— the problem with looking for “good” and “bad” art is that obscures what we come to art for in the first place.

    Encouraging empathy, I think, is only a byproduct of good writing, not its goal. Art at its best is not utilitarian; art at its best is for itself. That’s not to say that there aren’t moving works of art created with an implicit message (good: WPA murals; bad: Leni Riefenstahl films; undecided: cathedrals), but “message” art is by definition a narrow view of the human experience.

    All great art is probably amoral, in the sense that it speaks to the whole human psyche, good and bad. I’m no fan of the action-adventure blockbuster, as you know, but it does have the primal draw of spectacle and cathartic violence.

    July 27, 2006
  • Mmm, I never think of it as good for you–I think of it as tickets to different exotic locales–if I, the reader, am lucky.

    As far as girl on girl action?

    It’s hot.

    January 08, 2007
  • And that, Wonder Woman, we’ll consider the Last Word on Girl-on-Girl action, the powers of storytelling and the Human Condition.

    January 08, 2007
  • Anonymous

    Great story. But how annoying is that “Story Highlights” at the top?

    January 23, 2007

Leave a Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Copyright © Robert J. Howe