Comments on: In Which This Queer Sex Blogger Feels Up New York Magazine's "Sex Issue"

By: Colleen Dougherty

Colleen Dougherty — Tue, 21 Aug 2012 00:34:29 +0000

This article was fantastic. When I read this issue of NY mag, I was really excited at all of the good/positive aspects of the articles and did note that most of the bad/negative/problematic words or terms were used by the people being interviewed rather than the author or interviewer. I did wish that they had shown maybe another queer relationship in the pictures of couples and at least one queer couple of color/a queer couple who included a POC. All in all though, NY mag didn’t do a bad job. Good for them!

By: Erin

Erin — Sun, 05 Aug 2012 18:42:45 +0000

Yeah! That was me. Somebody had to say it…

By: Sybil

Sybil — Thu, 02 Aug 2012 09:52:13 +0000

Point of clarification. Responding to the assertion that same-sex couples marrying are imitating opposite-sex couples who brought us marriage, you wrote “The idea that the world and societal norms are default heterosexual and that any deviation is purely imitation”.

Opposite sex couples invented and have subsequently engaged in a constructed social practice. Same-sex couples decide to engage in the exact same practice, with the same specific rituals, (justifiably) demanding the same benefits from that practice. That is imitation.

Is the assertion that same-sex couples who marry are imitating opposite-sex couples who marry claiming that the world is by default heterosexual and that any deviation is imitation? No. That assertion just shows that one societal norm (marriage) is default heterosexual (that’s the history), and that pursuing that specific norm is imitation.

Marrying IS conforming to the norm. A deviation from the norm is to Not marry. Not marrying is refusing to imitate. Not marrying is queer.

By: Suburban Soulgirl

Suburban Soulgirl — Wed, 01 Aug 2012 11:26:46 +0000

I wish they had interviewed a bi woman in a same-sex relationship myself…as someone in the comments said, they are grossly underrepresented and basically invisible in the community.

By: Sawyer

Sawyer — Tue, 31 Jul 2012 20:52:10 +0000

On Friday night I got very drunk with a lot of my friends, and I was really surprised at how easily me and the two girls discussed sex, and how awkward a lot of the boys were about it. Props for the New York Magazine for being open. Now just to get everyone else to that level…

By: Erin

Erin — Tue, 31 Jul 2012 17:45:25 +0000

Thanks! That makes sense….

By: Remy

Remy — Tue, 31 Jul 2012 17:42:17 +0000

Me too, I saw mushrooms first and then some male body part and finally just a sweet kiss. Jeez, dirty mind.

By: Ali

Ali — Tue, 31 Jul 2012 14:28:08 +0000

:0) Thank you, Malaika.

By: jill

jill — Tue, 31 Jul 2012 13:07:12 +0000

I did that too, except I saw heels of feet. Once I realized what it actually is, it suddenly became a lot
more attractive.

By: Ellie

Ellie — Tue, 31 Jul 2012 08:39:04 +0000

Nope, it’s all good, that’s right.

By: Paper0Flowers

Paper0Flowers — Tue, 31 Jul 2012 05:37:57 +0000

The * implies an umbrella-term, meaning many different identities fall under the category of “trans-”. These can include, but are not limited to, transgender, transsexual, Two-Spirit, gender-fluid, and genderqueer. However, not everyone with these identities would personally label themselves as a trans* individual.

(I think. Did I miss anything? Someone please elaborate; I didn’t want to assume anything from my cis-perspective that isn’t accurate or appropriate.)

By: Erin

Erin — Tue, 31 Jul 2012 03:05:34 +0000

Maybe this is a stupid question, but why the asterisk by the word “trans”? Is there something I missed….?