Talk:Lesbian

Nice piccy, Ghengis, but I can't help feeling it's more about hetro male fantasies than the real thing. Nothing like a bit of hot girl-on-girl action, eh? Silver Sloth 15:52, 23 July 2008 (EDT)

Hey, that's art! From my private collection Wikimedia Commons. And yes you're probably right. I think Susan's beef about men's attitude to lesbian action is justified. Most of the stuff that is promoted as "lesbian action" is probably really voyeuristic troilism. Not that I'm a connoisseur of course, but I imagine the attraction is that the male hetero viewer sees it as a threesome with the guy temporarily absent. Gay blokes probably enjoy gay pron but I wonder what the female market for lesbian pron is? And it's always young women isn't it? All the lesbians I know are over 50. Genghis^{Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.} 16:08, 23 July 2008 (EDT)

There is real, honest-to-god lesbian marketed porn. But I've got to go with SS, and say the "girl on girl action" isn't really descriptive of it. I always figured men had an issue with gay (male gay) sex, cause they worried that men would hit on them. 'Hunter being hunted". but they liked girl on girl action cause it just looks 'hot". Course, if you put these two lesbians [[1]] in the picture, most men probably woudln't be that into it. ;-)--WaitingforGodot 16:18, 23 July 2008 (EDT) (oops, forgot my siggy(

I've certainly seen so-called "lesbian" porn that is obviously aimed at (straight) men - two (or more) probably straight women touching each other - basically what GK suggest above. I have also seen "lesbian" porn that looks more like what two women might do to please each other, but Goat only knows who it's "aimed at" and who enjoys it... ħuman 21:02, 23 July 2008 (EDT)

I know one of my female friends loves lesbian porn of all kinds. I think it's slightly condescending to say "The way these women are having sex with one another will be sexually appealing to men and not women". I mean, a girl could be missing from the putative threesome also, no? Wazza (Not Wazzock, Wazza)^{Approach the Presence} 22:14, 27 September 2008 (EDT)

True that. My implication of "intent" is irrelevant to "end use" - after all, plenty of "porn made for men" does nothing for me. And to suggest that any given act might or might not be pleasing to a given generic person (which I sorta did) is just plain wrong. Thanks for clarifying my E. coli sample! ħuman 22:27, 27 September 2008 (EDT)

We like Lesbian porn, but we also like a storyline - written word is better than film. apart from it generally uses a hand or two.   ^Contribs_Talk 22:29, 27 September 2008 (EDT)

Yes, true - for you - the point is that none of us can speak for what works for others among us. ħuman 03:25, 28 September 2008 (EDT)

I have a theory about what's sexy. It might not coincide with how you gentlemen (and ladies, possibly) think, I don't know. Anyway, I think this is like a square of foil-wrapped Ghiradelli chocolate left on a doily on your coffee table, and therefore irresistable, while some of the alleged "lesbian" pictures in the magazines are like waking up on chocolate sheets in your chocolate bed and putting on your chocolate shoes so you can go out into the chocolate world. After a while you just go..."Meh." Teresita 15:37, 28 September 2008 (EDT)

What I have heard from at-least-semi-credible sources (i.e. women who dig women) is that there are two kinds: "Girl-on-Girl" and "Lesbian", with the distinction being that the former is just two women touching each other for the titillation of men, and the latter is two women having sex because they want to (and are getting paid for the footage), which can generally be distinguished by whether they're more interested in the camera or each other. Obivously, the latter is sexier to them (if providing fewer good shots for the camera). An interesting theory if it is indeed so. Admiral Lowe (talk) 00:30, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Copyright

Johathan Richman, (& drummer Tommy Larkins) dancing in a lesbian bar -uh huh, uh huh

Are we OK with copyright with song lyrics on the site?   ^Contribs_Talk 22:02, 27 September 2008 (EDT)

No, please to delete them... it's um, against the law and stuff, unless we get permission. ħuman 22:23, 27 September 2008 (EDT)

I'll see if Jonathan will let us use them, but 'till then . . .bye bye. Someday I'll post my JR story - if it is appropriate, or usably inappropriate. Carptrash 10:34, 28 September 2008 (EDT)

Cool. You never know, he might say "yes". We have already obtained permission to use a handful of cartoons and photos from their owners (usually "independents", not Universal Syndicate types). Good luck! ħuman 14:18, 28 September 2008 (EDT)

Play time

Okay, here is where your answers go. I'll start by guessing that the lesbians are #s 1,2,3,5,8 and 11. Your turn. Carptrash 18:19, 10 December 2008 (EST)

1. 1, yes, obviously. ħuman 18:20, 10 December 2008 (EST)

"The truth is seldom pure and never simple." Oscar Wilde

Is this supposed to be funny? _and marmite 18:54, 10 December 2008 (EST)

No. It's a serious social commentary on the fact (opinion) that lesbians look pretty much like every one else. But feel free to laugh if you like. It's good for the non-rational parts of you. Carptrash 18:59, 10 December 2008 (EST)
And if you find it somehow offensive, 'DELETE' IT. I am notoriously easy about that sort of thing. I don't do edit wars.Carptrash

It reads like a mockery of some kind, had you stated your above premise earlier, it might have lessened the offense. I wonder what the reaction would be if we had a "spot the poofter" quiz? _and marmite 19:07, 10 December 2008 (EST)

Let's try it. Where I live almost half the men are guy. But I'm not sure that I have a good picture to use. Are you sure "poofter" is the word to use? Carptrash 19:12, 10 December 2008 (EST)

Where I live, all of the men are guy................s. ;-) JazzMan 02:33, 11 December 2008 (EST)

Don't be fucking stupid, delete the crap. _and marmite 19:13, 10 December 2008 (EST)

I'm sure that you meant to say, "Don't be fucking stupid, delete the crap, please." But sure, as you wish. Carptrash 19:18, 10 December 2008 (EST)

Please don't, I thought it was funny on the first read. It challenges the reader to confront their prejudices. ħuman 01:16, 11 December 2008 (EST)

Carpy, I rolled back your deletions, I thought they were substantive and interesting. Toast, please feel free to argue with me on my talk page or here. Please to not bully the gentle hippy. ħuman 01:19, 11 December 2008 (EST)

"Gentle hippy" indeed. I've been hit in the head with rocks and boards in several continents, tear gassed in a couple states plus Washington D.C., and earned, the hard way, the title of "Second toughest guy in Phelps Hall." I have been told (by a lesbian, so it's okay here) that I frequently confuse "subtlety with obscurity" and she was, as she almost always was, correct. Thanks Human, and let's see what Toast does, but it is her call and I'm okay with whatever it might be. Carptrash 01:29, 11 December 2008 (EST)

I'm willing to abide with your decision, Carpy. But I prefer to see less self-censorship, although I guess I understand your gentle hippy willingness to accommodate the environment. I still think it was funny funny funny and funny. ħuman 01:39, 11 December 2008 (EST)

Capital "L"?

Why is the title of the article a lower-case "L"? I tried to move it to big-L lesbian, but it won't go. Delete and recreate? TheoryOfPractice 09:56, 7 April 2009 (EDT)

Did you try moving it to some other title and then back to "Lesbian"? ListenerX^TalkerX 10:53, 7 April 2009 (EDT)

I've already borken the wiki once this year. No experiments for me. TheoryOfPractice 10:55, 7 April 2009 (EDT)

My turn, then, I suppose. ListenerX^TalkerX 10:59, 7 April 2009 (EDT)

And I did not even need to move the page... ListenerX^TalkerX 11:01, 7 April 2009 (EDT)

Patpatpat on back. so how'da do it? ^{— Unsigned, by: WaitingforGodot / talk / contribs}

This had been inserted into the article for some reason. I removed it. ListenerX^TalkerX 11:07, 7 April 2009 (EDT)

From here I assume from the comment that it was just testing a template and then forgetting to remove it. ArmondikoV^{d hominem} 11:22, 7 April 2009 (EDT)

Ohhhh. Actually, I would wonder if it wasn't based on the argument that Lesbians are people from Lesbos, and lesbians are gay women. --En attendant Godot_{"«Poetry involves the mysteries of the irrational perceived through rational words. V.Nabokov»} 11:30, 7 April 2009 (EDT)

What

What the fuck is this? I vote redirect to homosexuality. Humorless fascist^sociopath 01:56, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Unless it's drastically improved, I wholeheartedly agree. Sam ^Tally-ho! 02:00, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

There's RW-worthy stuff to be said about lesbians and lesbianism, but none of it was in the article. Sophie^Wilder 13:08, 8 December 2012 (UTC)