Althouse: "Men attracted to men objectify other men, not because they are gay, but because they are men."

October 4, 2017

"Men attracted to men objectify other men, not because they are gay, but because they are men."

"This is how male sexuality works. We immediately respond to visual stimuli. The emotions often follow, but are not required to fuel our rich fantasy life... But the word ['objectification'] has taken on an ugly veneer, as if the object of desire is reduced to the status of thing. Not so fast. Gay men objectify other gay men, and let me tell you, those of us who have been objectified don’t mind it at all. In fact, we seek it out and enjoy it immensely. We don’t feel insulted — quite the opposite. When Hugh Hefner proposed that men stop feeling bad about the primacy of lust in their thought process, he may have been talking to heterosexual men, but gay men heard the message as well. It enabled us to grasp that whom we were attracted to, gender-wise, counted less, experientially speaking, than the way we were attracted to them...."

From "Hugh Hefner’s Legacy from a Gay Male Perspective," by Mark Olmsted (at HuffPo).

70 comments:

rhhardin said...: Women want to know that they won't be substituted for, as objectivied things can be.

Gay men presumably don't care. They'll be substituting also.; 10/4/17, 10:30 AM
madAsHell said...: Well then, I've been objectified numerous times. Where do I collect my victim status?; 10/4/17, 10:35 AM
Laslo Spatula said...: This made me think of a book I saw yesterday at the University Bookstore.

Man of the Year, by Lou Cove.

Thirteen-year-old idolizes a family friend who is a centerfold for Playgirl in November 1978, and helps him try to become the magazine's man of the Year.

The men are straight, but it IS Playgirl, a magazine that objectified men.

From Esquire, on Playgirl:
A PENIS ON EVERY PAGE: THE RISE AND FALL OF PLAYGIRL

"Joyce Dudney Fleming (editor-in-chief, 1977): Lambert kept insisting that it was a magazine for women, and really wasn't attuned to the fact that a lot of people perceived it…as a magazine for gay men."

"Neil Feineman: Management was in massive denial over it. Closeted men comprised…certainly a very large part of the readership. Subscriptions weren't in people's right names — it was always initials. It was "M. Jones."

"Randy Dunbar: Why was there such a large gay audience if there was gay pornography? I think a lot of guys who were probably still in the closet could go to the supermarket and say, "It's for my girlfriend." There was a legitimacy to picking up Playgirl."

"Douglas Cloutier (photographer, 1980s–00s): It was a lot of candles and flowers and stuff. Women don't really care to see it. They would rather read about it. Girls don't wanna see a guy's asshole. Gay guys? Different story."

I am Laslo.; 10/4/17, 10:39 AM
traditionalguy said...: Society has to stop this terrible using of men as Phallic Objects. We are so much more than a stud pole...well sometimes we are. Our minds are good too.; 10/4/17, 10:42 AM
rehajm said...: So saint Hef or still foppish pig?; 10/4/17, 10:42 AM
Sebastian said...: "Hugh Hefner proposed that men stop feeling bad about the primacy of lust in their thought process." Ah, Hefner "proposed" that, did he.; 10/4/17, 10:42 AM
exiledonmainstreet, green-eyed devil said...: Men objectify the objects of their desire. That's a revelation? Is there anybody out there who doesn't recognize that that's simply the way men are wired? Feminists know it. They just don't like it and seek to change human nature.; 10/4/17, 10:50 AM
Laslo Spatula said...: "Douglas Cloutier (photographer, 1980s–00s): It was a lot of candles and flowers and stuff. Women don't really care to see it. They would rather read about it. Girls don't wanna see a guy's asshole. Gay guys? Different story."

A differing viewpoint here: ‘Playgirl’ Plays For The Gays

"Marketing director Amy K, who asked that we not print her last name, insists that the website holds the most potential:

Of course, it is a delicate balance to keep both the ladies and the men happy. We’ve gotten a lot of great positive feedback from our female members, especially when they see guys finger their assholes. It sends them over the edge!"

That’s not the greatest mental picture, but we get the idea: ladies like gayish action online. "

I am Laslo.; 10/4/17, 10:51 AM
madAsHell said...: Laslo, I can't believe you overlooked this one.

Brian Dawson (April 1978 centerfold): They didn't want a full-on erection, so the photographer shot pictures as I went down…giving them the opportunity to select the degree of erection.; 10/4/17, 10:52 AM
NorthOfTheOneOhOne said...: I am ok with being objectified. In fact, I have as of late become 100% objectified by my family, who seems to see me as a wallet with legs!; 10/4/17, 10:54 AM
Laslo Spatula said...: ‘Tallywackers is a Hooter's for gay men marketed to women. Let's cut the bull

"...can everyone stop pretending that this restaurant isn’t entirely meant for gay men...?

Let’s look at the evidence. The restaurant is located in the Oak Lawn neighborhood, which is about as gay as Chelsea. One of the burgers on the menu is called the “Famous Flamer” because it has a bit of “heat in the meat”, but anyone who has seen the Wizard of Oz can figure out the double entendre. There are also drag shows several nights a week at the restaurant.

Yeah, this place is gayer than Liza Minnelli’s dressing room...

While women are happy to go with the girls every once in awhile or for a bachelorette party, for gay men objectifying the flesh of other men is par for the course. We’re marketed to in a million different ways using the six-packs and broad chests of impossibly constructed Adonises. You can’t get a safe sex pamphlet or a bottle of lube without looking at some jacked torso or another..

"For women, going to a restaurant for a side of beefcake is a lark; for gay men it is a lifestyle. They’re more likely to go on a regular basis, spend more money, and keep coming back to sit at their favorite waiter’s table. (Yes, Tallywackers lets you select which of their eligible bachelors will be taking care of you)...."

I am Laslo.; 10/4/17, 10:57 AM
tcrosse said...: Get your advance copy of Pierre Bayard's "How to Talk About Sex Acts You Haven't Performed", soon to be available at Althouse's Amazon Portal.; 10/4/17, 10:57 AM
Laslo Spatula said...: Douglas Cloutier: " It was a lot of candles and flowers and stuff. Women don't really care to see it. They would rather read about it. Girls don't wanna see a guy's asshole."

vs.

"Marketing director Amy K: "We’ve gotten a lot of great positive feedback from our female members, especially when they see guys finger their assholes. It sends them over the edge!"

An Althouse Poll that will not happen.

I am Laslo.; 10/4/17, 11:02 AM
CStanley said...: In the not so distant past, women understood that they held enormous power when they insisted on maintaining their own dignity as a counterbalance to this biological reality of men. Like Eve biting the apple or Aesop's dog grasping at the reflected bone, feminists went after a different kind of power instead and now most sex is barren and loveless,; 10/4/17, 11:03 AM
Ralph L said...: Which came first: tallywacker or wacking off?; 10/4/17, 11:07 AM
Ann Althouse said...: "Get your advance copy of Pierre Bayard's "How to Talk About Sex Acts You Haven't Performed"..."

Based on "How to Talk About Books You Haven't Read," I would say that since you can't possibly engage in all the sex acts that have ever been done or imagined, it's better to steer clear of all of them, lest you unbalance your understanding through memories of the experience with all the distracting details. Encounter them all on an equal plane of nonexperience, and you'll have the best ability to think through the great array of acts and talk about them.; 10/4/17, 11:07 AM
Laslo Spatula said...: "Encounter them all on an equal plane of nonexperience..."

Does that plane have a Mile High Club?

I am Laslo.; 10/4/17, 11:11 AM
Laslo Spatula said...: "Pierre Bayard's "How to Talk About Sex Acts You Haven't Performed"..."

Or just read 4chan for a while.

I am Laslo.; 10/4/17, 11:12 AM
Ralph L said...: From the article:
prostitution would not be the world’s second oldest profession.
What's now the first? How did that happen?; 10/4/17, 11:12 AM
Laslo Spatula said...: I was hoping Althouse was going to delve into the Playgirl scenario.

A magazine initially aimed at women, except women don't function like men.

So men take over -- in this case, gay men.

Hard to be the Hugh Hefner for women.

I am Laslo.; 10/4/17, 11:16 AM
Ralph L said...: Hard to be the Hugh Hefner for women.

She's call Anna Wintour.; 10/4/17, 11:17 AM
Laslo Spatula said...: We would know Playgirl was REALLY aimed at women if the men were naked while taking out the garbage or washing the dishes.

I am Laslo.; 10/4/17, 11:19 AM
exiledonmainstreet, green-eyed devil said...: Sebastian said...
"Hugh Hefner proposed that men stop feeling bad about the primacy of lust in their thought process."

Did the GIs who posted pinups of Betty Grable and Ava Gardner in their barracks feel bad about "the primacy of lust in their thought process?" I doubt it. They had other things to feel bad about - like the realization that they might die soon, for instance.; 10/4/17, 11:20 AM
exiledonmainstreet, green-eyed devil said...: If I want to see assholes, all I have to do is turn on CNN.; 10/4/17, 11:24 AM
Ralph L said...: We all know women are sexually and economically exploited, and it is unquestionable that this was the dark side of Hefner’s glorification of the erotic male gaze.
Because exploitation never happened before Hefner. This guy thinks sex began with him.

Men eventually became sex symbols.
Douse him with a bucket of gladiator sweat.

Hugh Hefner loosened the jar that we all ended up opening
True, but he implies casual sex is a good thing for women--after decrying their exploitation by men. Yeah, he's a stupid feminist alright.; 10/4/17, 11:28 AM
n.n said...: The masculine-feminine gender distribution of a transgender couplet. I wonder if it follows the same limited dynamic as a couple, with one dominant or leading personality.; 10/4/17, 11:29 AM
Ralph L said...: Encounter them all on an equal plane of nonexperience,
You mean we don't have to read the manual first?; 10/4/17, 11:31 AM
Ann Althouse said...: "A magazine initially aimed at women, except women don't function like men. So men take over -- in this case, gay men."

Was it really for women or was that always only a cover?; 10/4/17, 11:46 AM
Virgil Hilts said...: A friend of mine used to argue that if an average man met an extremely attractive woman of the opposite sex who he knew was an absolutely horrible person who had done horrible things and who held truly horrible beliefs, that average guy would still want to sleep with and provide pleasure to the woman, and that this example represents the essence and purity of male objectification.
I do not know if this same hypo works for gay men; is there still the same objective attraction even if you know in advance that the other guy is a disgusting, evil monster.; 10/4/17, 12:10 PM
J. Farmer said...: exiledonmainstreet:

Men objectify the objects of their desire. That's a revelation? Is there anybody out there who doesn't recognize that that's simply the way men are wired? Feminists know it. They just don't like it and seek to change human nature.

As Steve Sailer used to remark, political correctness is a war against noticing. Most of these SJW-type movements are based in some kind of bizarre blank slateism in which we are all born empty vessels and society fills us up at whim. The biological sciences of the last half-century have taken a wrecking ball to this notion.; 10/4/17, 12:18 PM
Achilles said...: So are gay men going to "feel the lust" and start drugging the targets of that lust like Hugh?; 10/4/17, 12:21 PM
Birkel said...: Ralph L said...
Yeah, he's a stupid feminist alright.
10/4/17, 11:28 AM

Ralph L to the front desk to pick up your redundancy saying it twice prize. Ralph L to the front desk to pick up your redundancy saying it twice prize.; 10/4/17, 12:25 PM
Laslo Spatula said...: Althouse said: "Was it really for women or was that always only a cover?"

From the Esquire 'Playgirl' article...

"Douglas Lambert wanted to give Playboy a run for its money. It was 1971, and Hugh Hefner's magazine had created a new mainstream market for soft-core porn. Lambert, a nightclub owner in Garden Grove, California, decided to get in on the action.

Lambert's wife Jenny saw a bigger opportunity: a magazine with nude male centerfolds. Lambert wasn't sold. What woman wanted to ogle photos of nude men, much less buy a magazine full of them? But he slowly realized Jenny might be on to something. The sexual revolution was well under way, and Lambert "sensed the woman of the '70s was eager to become part" of it, as he'd eventually write in promo copy for his new magazine. So in the summer of 1971, Lambert, along with William Miles Jr., an experienced adman who served as Playgirl's executive vice president, invested $20,000 in the project and opened a swanky, 23rd-floor office in Los Angeles's Century City.

Two years later, in June 1973, Playgirl's first issue hit the newsstand, with a mission similar to its long-standing counterpart: to feature nude centerfolds alongside hard-hitting features by and for women..."

"Now, women could compare men's bodies just as men compared women's. "You take on the power of what was the male gaze," says Nancie Martin, Playgirl's editor-in-chief for part of the eighties. "It's now the female gaze."

"...but Playgirl was championed as progress for women, with articles on abortion and breast cancer."

"Joyce Dudney Fleming (editor-in-chief, 1977): Lambert kept insisting that it was a magazine for women, and really wasn't attuned to the fact that a lot of people perceived it…as a magazine for gay men."

I am Laslo.; 10/4/17, 12:28 PM
Scott M said...: Phallocentric Wrongthink.; 10/4/17, 12:35 PM
I Have Misplaced My Pants said...: My gay brother in law is 65 years old and happily traveling the country in his RV with his new boyfriend, a kid who cannot be one minute over 25 and even that is generous, whom he met at a gay campground. They are both seemingly very happy with the arrangement; I don't imagine that my BIL is interested in this fellow for his rich life experience or conversational skills.

My husband hassled his brother one time over his cradle-robbing, and brother replied something like, "Come on, dude, you know that if straight guys could get away with it too they would in a nanosecond, but everyone would judge that. That's one thing that gay guys got the long end of the stick on."

Everyone knows and accepts that gay men are still men, and are generally speaking relatively promiscuous and objectifying without intimate female and social influence to tone that down, but the gay lobby wants middle America to think of two guys in tuxes with rice in their hair when they think of gay men. Shrug.; 10/4/17, 1:03 PM
Jaq said...: Was it really for women or was that always only a cover?

So you wouldn't have bought the Captain Fantastic issue then?; 10/4/17, 1:03 PM
Bad Lieutenant said...: A friend of mine used to argue that if an average man met an extremely attractive woman of the opposite sex who he knew was an absolutely horrible person who had done horrible things and who held truly horrible beliefs, that average guy would still want to sleep with and provide pleasure to the woman, and that this example represents the essence and purity of male objectification.

I don't know that I would feel compelled to give Inga, She-Wolf of the SS, an orgasm, while getting mine. I might do so, but not for her benefit.; 10/4/17, 1:08 PM
Jaq said...: A friend of mine used to argue that if an average man met an extremely attractive woman of the opposite sex who he knew was an absolutely horrible person who had done horrible things and who held truly horrible beliefs, that average guy would still want to sleep...

I don't think so, because every woman has her physical flaws, and nothing brings them into sharp relief like being a nasty person.; 10/4/17, 1:11 PM
Bad Lieutenant said...: I don't think so, because every woman has her physical flaws, and nothing brings them into sharp relief like being a nasty person.

Viz., Sarah Palin (as perceived) and the hate-f*** talk.; 10/4/17, 1:16 PM
Virgil Hilts said...: Tim in Vermont said. . . "because every woman has her physical flaws, and nothing brings them into sharp relief like being a nasty person."
I think you're changing the hypo, but I know exactly what you mean. I find Kamala Harris's face physically unattractive because I am so disgusted by how she acted as California AG. The opposite is true as well; I find Tracyanne Campbell of Camera Obscura to be beautiful because I love her singing so much.; 10/4/17, 1:28 PM
walter said...: Male gaze vs Male gays

"Girls don't wanna see a guy's asshole.""
Even Juggalettes? It's about community...

Took Playgirl founders 2 yrs to get it up..and running. Definitely a women's bent.
Now women's magazines tend to show sexy young women (see this month's Cosmo: "Get a great ass!") or cookies and cake paired with the latest diet rumors.; 10/4/17, 1:59 PM
Bruce Hayden said...: Let me point out that some women do objectify men, and love beefsteak. Apparently the Chippendales shows can get out of hand (a number of whom are apparently gay). My partner is one of those women who loves great male physics, esp if the guys are big. Esp if they have masculine features. Arnold was great (he gave her her Presidential physical fitness award), but Stallone was too dinky, despite his physic. The flip side is that she really doesn't get off on erotic novels, and thought that 50 Shades of Gray was both boring and perverted. She has said at times that she maybe should have been a guy. My response is that she probably would have been gay then.; 10/4/17, 2:02 PM
walter said...: Blogger Bruce Hayden said...Let me point out that some women do objectify men
--
A lot of female article authors do this. I've often read articles and noticed an unwarranted amount of attention to the male subject's physical attributes and 9 out of 10, I check and find it's written by a woman.; 10/4/17, 2:11 PM
Robert Cook said...: "A friend of mine used to argue that if an average man met an extremely attractive woman of the opposite sex who he knew was an absolutely horrible person who had done horrible things and who held truly horrible beliefs, that average guy would still want to sleep with and provide pleasure to the woman, and that this example represents the essence and purity of male objectification."

This is probably true for some, at some times, but certainly true for all, or at all times: it depends on the man, the woman, and the circumstances. When I was a teenager I worked as a cook at a hamburger joint, (Mr. Swiss, a mid-west concern that offered franchises...I was in Florida). There was a girl working there who was built like the proverbial brick shithouse and was very cute, too...but her personality was so unlikable that she lost all attractiveness to me. If a sexy girl's poor personality can kill a teen-age boy's libido, it's not at all a sure thing any/all men would want to have sex with horrible women.; 10/4/17, 5:09 PM
Mark said...: Men objectify the objects of their desire. That's a revelation? Is there anybody out there who doesn't recognize that that's simply the way men are wired? Feminists know it. They just don't like it and seek to change human nature.

No -- that's not the way that "men" are. That's the way of selfish, hedonistic, low-life jerks. But it is neither human nature, nor "the way men are wired."

While it is true that our modern culture has defined deviancy down, not too long ago, there was such a thing called virtue, and real men practiced it -- treating others with respect and treating others as persons, rather than as things. The objectification of the human person might be the new normal now, but it wasn't always so. And it isn't so for many men today. Instead, it is a choice -- just like the ultimate objectification of the human person by women is a choice which allows the killing of innocent human beings in the womb.; 10/4/17, 5:09 PM
tcrosse said...: If a sexy girl's poor personality can kill a teen-age boy's libido, it's not at all a sure thing any/all men would want to have sex with horrible women.

OTOH, otherwise plain women can possess great charm.; 10/4/17, 5:25 PM
exiledonmainstreet, green-eyed devil said...: Mark, I certainly believe men can act with restraint and respect and virtue. I don't, in fact, buy using "it's how we're wired" as an excuse for promiscuity and cheating. We are not bonobo monkeys. I meant only that men are visual creatures who naturally inclined to evaluate and desire women on the basis of the women's looks. Looking and having an immediate lustful reaction to a woman does not mean a man has to act on the urge any more than he has to act on the urge to punch others in the face when he is angry. Today people are applauded if they exhibit self-discipline by working out and dieting, but the self-discipline that goes into remaining faithful to one's spouse or treating others with respect is sometimes mocked.

" And it isn't so for many men today. Instead, it is a choice -- just like the ultimate objectification of the human person by women is a choice which allows the killing of innocent human beings in the womb."

I have no quarrel with anything you say.; 10/4/17, 6:09 PM
walter said...: Confusing the difference between wiring and behavior.; 10/4/17, 6:43 PM
Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...: Is anyone ever going to talk about how women objectify men or is that still verboten/beholden to the stupidity of not observing the obvious?; 10/4/17, 6:50 PM
The Vault Dweller said...: There was a girl working there who was built like the proverbial brick shithouse and was very cute

Isn't the expression built like a brick house? Either way I agree that even extraordinarily beautiful girls can become very unattractive because of their personality. Once you get past a certain age, which is younger than most imagine. Whenever you see an incredibly beautiful woman, who is unmarried, you know that somewhere there is some guy who is tired of her shit. I mean unless she is a lesbian, then all bets are off.

However, being amazingly beautiful sure does give you a fair bit of leeway on the personality department.; 10/4/17, 6:53 PM
The Vault Dweller said...: Is anyone ever going to talk about how women objectify men or is that still verboten/beholden to the stupidity of not observing the obvious?

Women don't objectify men, they appreciate the physical aesthetics of the male form. Also in the event women objectify men more than men objectify women, women more greatly appreciate the aesthetics of the male form than men do of the female form. In the event that men objectify women more than women do of men, then women more greatly appreciate the important characteristics of a partner than men do. In the event the level of objectification is the same on both parts, then women have set a good example for men on how to properly appreciate their partners.; 10/4/17, 6:58 PM
Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...: " And it isn't so for many men today. Instead, it is a choice -- just like the ultimate objectification of the human person by women is a choice which allows the killing of innocent human beings in the womb."

The beautiful little sea monkeys did NOTHING WRONG! Also what about the aborted eggs and sperm? Half-people are people too! DAMN YOU Abortion is not an all or nothing thing!; 10/4/17, 6:58 PM
Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...: Women don't objectify men..

WTF planet do you live on, Barbie? Oh yeah, there goes that low-status, unintelligent, underachieving, not-so-wealthy man. Let me go swoon over him! You are insane.; 10/4/17, 7:00 PM
Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...: Mark, I certainly believe men can act with restraint and respect and virtue.

I do every third Tuesday.; 10/4/17, 7:02 PM
walter said...: Blogger The Vault Dweller said...
Isn't the expression built like a brick house?
--
Heh..yep. The shithouse part is usually added to describe burly dudes.; 10/4/17, 7:03 PM
The Vault Dweller said...: Isn't the expression built like a brick house?
--
Heh..yep. The shithouse part is usually added to describe burly dudes.

Maybe the girl in the story had a sour personality because people kept telling her she was built like a brick shithouse.; 10/4/17, 7:08 PM
walter said...: Maybe the build matched the contents.; 10/4/17, 7:10 PM
HoodlumDoodlum said...: I'd have to search with some questionable phrases to find it, but I read an amusing article a while back about a woman who "transitioned" to a man and was shocked at the lustful (I guess) emotions and strong sexual feels they experienced once they started taking hormone supplements/does of testosterone equivalent to what an average man has at any time. The author said something like "women, you really have no idea!" but I don't remember if the article was well-received from a PC perspective.; 10/4/17, 7:13 PM
HoodlumDoodlum said...: Brick shithouse just means "well-built," though. Like...the outhouse was the last thing you'd spend any time making nice, so you just slapped it together with spare wood. You'd probably end up moving it around anyway so you it wouldn't be much of a structure.
An outhouse made of brick, then, would be massively overbuilt compared to the standard.

That's how I understood it, anyway, as a lyrically metaphorical expression of the idea of "very well built." In a double-metaphor way, see?; 10/4/17, 7:15 PM
walter said...: Sure..pull a woman close and whisper that description lyrically...; 10/4/17, 7:51 PM
Francisco D said...: "I would say that since you can't possibly engage in all the sex acts that have ever been done or imagined, it's better to steer clear of all of them, lest you unbalance your understanding through memories of the experience with all the distracting details. Encounter them all on an equal plane of nonexperience, and you'll have the best ability to think through the great array of acts and talk about them."

Annie, sweetheart,

Relax. Have a couple glasses of wine. This is not something to intellectualize.

Let nature take it's course.; 10/4/17, 8:13 PM
exiledonmainstreet, green-eyed devil said...: I am sure you act with restraint and treat women with respect, Ritmo. On the 32th day of every month.; 10/4/17, 8:50 PM
Bleach Drinkers Curing Coronavirus Together said...: I thought respect was something people earned.; 10/4/17, 9:22 PM
Bad Lieutenant said...: Maybe respect is something that is properly socialized. Everybody starts with some and then you work your way up or down.; 10/4/17, 10:00 PM
Rich Rostrom said...: Bad Lieutenant @ 10/4/17, 1:08 PM said...
I don't know that I would feel compelled to give Inga, She-Wolf of the SS, an orgasm, while getting mine. I might do so, but not for her benefit.

The monster who inspired that movie was Ilse Koch, whose husband was commandant of Buchenwald. Their behavior disgusted even the Nazis, who hanged him and imprisoned her. After the war, the Allies tried her for "crimes against humanity", and sentenced her to death. But she escaped the gallows because she was pregnant. At the time she was 41 years old, in prison, the most infamous female sadist in Europe. And she still got herself knocked up. She must have had something.; 10/5/17, 2:27 AM
Rich Rostrom said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 10/5/17, 2:27 AM
Paul Snively said...: It's funny. I was just thinking about this after Walter Becker, half of Steely Dan, died. Josie is one of my favorite tracks, ever, mostly because of Jim Keltner's skin-tight drums, but also because I believe it reflects exactly what this article and the one from Camille Paglia are saying about men's fantasy lives:

Jo, would you love to Scrabble?/She'll never say no
She's the best friend we never had

Poor Josie's only crimes are being an older girl who comes home (from college? For the holidays?), who loves a good game of Scrabble with the geeky neighbor boy, and who might be as voluptuous as Chuck Rainey's bass line. What she doesn't know is that geeky 14-year-old boy will some day write about his plan to "rev up the motor scooters" when she comes home.

If you go strictly by the text, there's zero evidence of Josie doing anything, and a lot of wishful thinking, explicitly from an adolescent or even pre-adolescent point of view. I've always found that telling—and, given my own experiences being the fantasizer, honest.; 10/5/17, 3:08 AM
Robert Cook said...: "OTOH, otherwise plain women can possess great charm."

ABSOLUTELY! At another job I had a few years later, there was a young woman working there who was very plain...so plain as to almost appear ugly at first look. However, she wasn't ugly, just very plain.

However, something about her was so powerfully sexy that whenever she would talk with me, I would feel light-headed. Nothing ever happened between us, though I think it could have if I hadn't been so shy. She seemed to like me.

At yet a later job--my current one--a young woman came to work--sort of pretty, but tending toward plain--and at the first moment I met her, I was smitten. (This is not common with me.) As I got to know her, her personality turned out to be terrific, as well. Alas! She was seeing someone, whom she later married and has had two children with. She still works here and she's still attractive to me.

Ah...regrets!; 10/5/17, 6:20 AM
Robert Cook said...: "Isn't the expression built like a brick house?"

That's the "polite" version of "brick shithouse."; 10/5/17, 6:21 AM
Robert Cook said...: "Heh..yep. The shithouse part is usually added to describe burly dudes."

Nope.; 10/5/17, 6:23 AM