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.
#18 - I think you're giving Mademoiselle far too much credit. Based on the quality of her other articles, and other articles by other bloggers of The Yorker lifestyle (e.g. Selena Dhanak, Casanova, etc) the insinuation that this is actually clever satirical parody is absolutely laughable. At its very best it is, as 16 points out, a lot of nonsense. While the controversial subject supplies Mademoiselle with potential to write an interesting blog, the finished product is completely vacuous with the added bonus of insulting lesbians and misrepresenting the average intelligence of women at York.
I think this was a very brave article. I agree with most of what she has written. Its about experience - Its fun. Its different. Its harmless. For its orginality (and controversy) I liked the article 
Ha ha ha ha - 'brave'? 'Original'? It's a load of tosh.
#22 is clearly not the author.
I have to ask - is this Mademoiselle a real or a made up character? If the first, I have to say I feel sorry for her. If the second, well then, she is not very successful. The articles are neither thought-provoking (besides provoking the thought (huh, she's a sad person), nor intriguing, nor funny.
If you want to read good satire on the issues of sexuality in the university, read last year's 'Confessions of a campus playboy' column in Vision!
A.
I never got to read 'Confessions', but apparently it was crap. I was told that when I first arrived at university. Possibly the only thing that someone has said is crap, without following it up with "but I love it!"
#26 And, naturally, you should always wholeheartedly believe what you're told and voice an opinion on things that you admittedly haven't read, let alone judged, for yourself. While we're at it, more valuable advice: always give into peer pressure, and never be afraid to run with knives.
But yes. It was crap. I've yet to see any student journalism successfully grasp the meaning of satire.
@#27 What's the point of attacking #26 so vehemently when you agree with them? Especially using such awful "jokes".
I think that it's quite amusing that there are so many people leaving comments complaining about the quality and content of this article. Also, many of you managed to quote her other aricles. What this implies to me is that although you constantly complain about her you are all coming back week after week to read about her recent adventures. Just admit you are all hooked, I know I am.
Dearest Fitz-Hugh:
From the OED
Satire: The employment, in speaking or writing, of sarcasm, irony, ridicule, etc. in exposing, denouncing, deriding, or ridiculing vice, folly, indecorum, abuses, or evils of any kind.
I believe my point was to employ satirical language to illustrate several points. To give other commentators an idea of what satire might look like so that they should not confuse Mademoiselle's 'article' with such a genre. Second, to highlight, through exaggeration and ridicule, the ignorance of #26 - who thinks its useful to contribute to a debate, knowing nothing of the argument. Hope that clears it up for you sweetheart!
#29 I don't think hooked is the right word at all. To take a parallel - the Nick Griffin BNP appearance on Question Time involved David Dimbleby and other panellists quoting Nick Griffin. As anti-BNP, myself and many many others were seduced by the need to watch the show. We were waiting to see what crazy stuff Griffin would come out with and who would respond to it; not because we were secretly seeking induction into the BNP, but because we hoped that the show would shine a light on their abhorrent policies.
So it's the same with Mademoiselle's articles. I read it and become incredulous by its utter brainlessness. I comment because someone needs to challenge this nonsense. I keep coming back to see what people have written because I hope to god other students don't share her values, and want to resonate against her ignorance.
comment deleted by the author I think, #31, that your comment likening Madamoiselle to Nick Griffin is extremely offensive to the author and ill thought out. It is comments such as these which i would describe as 'utter brainlessness,' not anything that I have read from Madamoiselle.
@#30 I think you'll have to join the ranks of students you mention who can't successfully employ satire. In my opinion, your attack on #26 wasn't amusing in the least, just over the top.
I think that #26 making it clear that their opinion on Campus Playboy is only second-hand counts for a lot. I don't agree with your suggestion that people should not be allowed to comment on anything they don't have first-hand experience of.
I think most people would accept that personal experience is most often more useful than relying on others' judgements, but that doesn't mean the latter is completely useless. And when the former is unavailable, what other option is there?
#33 Can you not grasp the concept of a parallel as 31 clearly states? Nowhere did they say that Madamoiselle was Nick Griffin - it's called an analogy!! I think they were trying to point out that it's insulting to imply that just because you track Madamoiselle's comments that you're somehow 'hooked'. I thought it was a valid analogy to use.
And 34 you need to loosen up. You are similarly arguing pointlessly as you accuse 30 as doing. Plus surely there are other options available in this case - don't nouse have archives online?
Ps to 33: It's reassuring to know that you were so easily offended by the mere mentioning of Mademoiselle's name in the same comment box as Nick Griffin's, and that you fail to see the underlying homophobia of the article (as so many people have already articulated).
Yeah, Campus Playboy was crap. And ^ meant #33 a couple of times, I think?
Yeah I did, thanks.
Everybody takes things way too seriously here. Did it ever occur to anyone that maybe Mademoiselle is taking the piss a little bit...? Did it ever occur to everyone on this forum that's fuming that maybe the joke's on you...? That the author is *trying* to provoke these reactions? For your own sakes, don't get so worked up over nothing!
#38 Indeed. As a gay female student reading this article, I did very much feel like she was taking the piss and yes, I certainly felt that the joke was on me and other lesbians.
I'm sure that if anyone wanted to write about their own experiences at York, and make them truthful and real, The Yorker would be happy to receive them. If these articles are offensive, or merely dull and unimaginative, write your own. I'm sure that many people would be interested, and it can help people understand why people may find this type of article more offensive than 'just a joke'.
You must log in to submit a comment.
Report