As we enter a new year, Laura Reynolds looks at how the dating game differs from previous generations.
Laura Reynolds looks at the freedoms of festive singledom
Join Jason Rose for a peek behind today's door.
Lauren Tabbron writes about the difficulties of spending Christmas away from a loved one.
My victim was one of those girls you only ever see on a night out and usually redoing her make-up in the bathroom: gorgeous, bursting with sexuality, but lacking everything else. When I approached the subject with her she was more than happy to comply, dragging me halfway up the Gallery stairs so we’d have more of an audience. I discovered, to my surprise, that girls are incredible kissers! I’m sure she's more experienced than the average girl, but wow! Guys, you have it so good! She was soft all over and kissed so gently. It was such a difference from the usual bad breath and stubbly face you get from rough guys on most nights. And she could keep moving to the rhythm of the song the whole time! Well, women are the masters of multi-tasking aren't they?
So apart from the amazing sensuality of a female kiss, why kiss a girl when you can kiss a boy instead? Well, unlike kissing a boy where the audience usually looks away in disgust, girl on girl kissing is an experience that can be enjoyed by all. I liked it, she liked it, Gallery liked it and everyone went away happy.
Obviously, kissing a straight girl has very few strings attached. You both know it really is just for fun, unlike when you randomly kiss a boy and can never know if things will return to normality. I’m sure next time I see my girl, we’ll have a giggle, maybe another go, but we both know it’s just for kicks. And I’m sure she wouldn’t mind if I started kissing her friends too. In fact, she’d probably just join in as opposed to a guy who would start a fight.
Lastly, kissing a girl is the equivalent of getting naked and shouting “DO ME” in the middle of Gallery: it attracts everyone’s attention and turns almost all the boys on. Whether the boys expect a threesome or are just following the cliché that girl on girl action is sexy, I don’t know, but it sure does work. Within minutes we were surrounded by rugby lads all trying to get involved.
Why don’t more of us girls get in on this prize-winning bit of action? Who can resist a wonderful kiss followed by loads of male attention? It’s much better than getting drunk and falling into similarly drunken men left, right and centre. There’s even an element of exclusivity about it. When done correctly, the girl on girl kiss can be tasteful and classy.
I suppose it doesn’t float everyone’s boat because there is a comfort zone to cross and a constant fear that the girl you’re kissing may be more into it than you think. Perhaps too, there’s a fear that you might like it more than you expected. But isn’t that what University is about? Trying new things? Get out there girlies!
One final note, before anyone criticises this, here’s a disclaimer: this article is not about lesbians! This article is about women who kiss other women purely for fun, who don’t take the passion out of the public sector. It's for girls who feel like experimenting, pulling strings and being the centre of the gossip for once.
I like girls and i'm a girl! Or a boy. I am not sure so am happy that we now have gender neutral toilets!
#1 - Is that a joke? Or a vague attempt at political commenting?
Well I'm so glad you can have it all. Be straight, kiss girls, and avoid the homophobic gay-bashing/looks of disgust that real same-sex kissing usually elicits. Idiot.
Oh gosh, you're incredibly stupid aren't you? Please tell me what this means: 'When done correctly, the girl on girl kiss can be tasteful and classy.' Are you implying that there is a wrong way for a same-sex kiss? I guess here you're referring to those pesky lesbians that you firmly tell us that this article is NOT about - god forbid that anyone would think you're a lesbian. For one thing, you're far too unintelligent to be part of the queer community. Also, how does your version of 'classy' sit with your statement that it is the equivalent of shouting "DO ME" in the middle of Gallery. I think they call what you're doing: lezing-it-up-for-the boys. I could be wrong, you could just be struggling with some deeply rooted anxiety about your own homosexual tendencies.... I hope not, for everyone's sake. Signed: raving dyke.
#4 Well said. Ouch to Mademoislle.
It's inevitable that the mojo covers topics that are sensitive to some readers. It's in the lifestyles section for crying out loud! If you want to rant about how offensive mademoiselle is towards a "raving dyke" try a more serious forum. these columns are supposed to be entertaining and at times superficial, loosen up #4, this article IS EXACTLY about "lezzing it up for the boys"!!
I don't feel that I'm a sensitive reader actually- I think I can take the article. I didn't say it offended me. I just thought it was stupid. It showed a level of idiocy that I didn't expect from a york student. But ah well. As this the lifestyle section, I will rant and rave about anything I like thank you very much 
So you yourself loosen up, I say. Thanks for clarifying what the article was about, I never would have got that myself....
comment deleted by the author
comment deleted by the author I felt embarrassed for Mademoiselle reading this article and can understand now why it's written under a pseudonym. Whether or not Mademoiselle says 'this article is not about lesbians', she can't control what her audience of 'rugby lads' in Gallery were assuming about the queer community from her actions. I'm surprised you need to be told this, Mademoiselle, but women who kiss women in clubs for attention (not 'girls who kiss girls', you are presumably not a child) trivialise genuine lesbian relationships, reinforcing the idea in many men's heads that lesbians don't exist outside the realm of male sexual fantasy. In case anyone repeats #6's comment, no I'm not a sensitive reader and I didn't find the article offensive. Like #4, I'm disappointed to see something so brainless published in a York University magazine.
I love the way everyone thinks 'Mademoiselle' exists outside the realms of the Lifestyle sextion... I find it hard to believe that anyone who actually thinks along these rules of logic is capable of articulating it so well. Maybe...just maybe... Mademoiselle is a character?
comment deleted by a moderator #11 - This is just the point though, isn't it? The character depicted by Mademoiselle does exist beyond the confines of the lifestyle section. Whether the author of the article actually did this or not is irrelevant. 'Mademoiselle' is not simply a pseudonym, but a reflection of the panoply of women out there who behave so promiscuously just to get a guy's attention. And let's face it, the problems with this article aren't limited to its insensitivity towards the queer community; it also speaks volumes about the attitudes of young women, their low self-esteem, and the lengths they'll go to just to receive some validation from a male spectator.
I, for one, am happy that other York students are rectifying Mademoiselle's misrepresentation of women at York. After all, I'd hate for a vulnerable female student to think this lezzing-it-up was commonplace, cool, and the only way to get a boy's attention. The women I know have more common sense and self-respect. Who said romance is dead anyway, eh?
I think all your comments illustrate why Mademoiselle continues to write for the lifestyle section of the Yorker; it promotes discussion on controversial topics. Its entertaining to see how so many people feel the need to rant when clearly this is no more than a girlish fantasy played out in writing.
I agree with #14, occasionally Madmoiselle's stereotyping of female behaviour seems gratuitous and/or for effect/provocation rather than for content. But is it not equally true that through this (possibly unrealistic?) persona the author has been able to tackle deeper issues:
- Virginity and its significance at uni (or lack thereof?)- Facebook- Sharing a house/ sharing sex?Personally I think this article echoes some of the gender & sexuality anxieties of our age. 'Madmoiselle' is (or identifies) as heterosexuual, but she recognises that transgressing heteronormative behaviour can land her more male attention. It's definitely a cultural phenonmenon. But does it betray a desire to experiment with sexuality? Does it not suggest that our definition of 'normalcy' are far too restrictive, that our behaviour in general acts as both agents and vectors of gender?
I think it's perfectly acceptable to rant or, more importantly, to have an opinion on this article. Yes, we might merely reduce this article to being 'simply' about lifestyle, yet it is through the media that notions of gender and sexuality are inscribed and produced. I doubt very much that Mademoiselle's silly 'articles', are there to spark debate and intelligent discussion; that is just simply a by-product of a lot of nonsense. Her girlish fantasy doesn't really seem to belong to her, they belong to an out-moded misogynist's dream of lesbian sexuality. And when I say lesbian, I mean it in the straightest sense possible. I think most young lesbians would be annoyed by that. Her article is a load of tosh but with lots at stake for some of the readership.
comment deleted by the author #13 - The views depicted by 'Mademoiselle' may have an element of truth in the thought processes of a few individuals, but the almost bathotic aspect to the articles shows that these views are not being endrosed. To have such views expressed so matter-of-factly emphasises how they are not in touch with reality. Yes, some women kiss in public purely for male attention. Some think that creating a sexual reaction from men is empowerment. But how low must your opinion of female students at York be if you think that articles like this are dangerous, or have "lots at stake for some of the readership"? For goodness sake. If women rely on their looks for attention it's because of a more in-built sexism in society. Articles like this reflect it, but make it look ridiculous! "My victim was one of those girls you only ever see on a night out and usually redoing her make-up in the bathroom: gorgeous, bursting with sexuality, but lacking everything else" - it's a parody. The only people who could read this and think "I want to act like that. Evidently it would make be better in some way" probably act like this anyway.
"For goodness sake. If women rely on their looks for attention it's because of a more in-built sexism in society"
Yeah, because unattractive men usually get all the girls, so this is clearly an issue of sexism.
I agree with the rest of your comment.
I'm pretty sure 16 didn't say it was dangerous- I'm not sure 18 understands the idea of 'what's at stake' meant.
You must log in to submit a comment.
Report