Flipping through the channels last night, I happened upon this programming masterpiece and lingered because two attractive, lingerie-clad women were making out on a bed. The scene ended and the show was REALLY bad so I moved on.

My beautiful wife looked up from her laptop and said something to the effect of “WTF is wrong with our society that ‘hot girl-on-girl’ action is practically shoved down our throats while gays have to fight tooth and nail to get married?”

She’s right, there’s an interesting dichotomy there – and I’ve been thinking about it all day because I live in NJ and listen to the radio at work. I’ve heard this anti-gay marriage commercial thirteen times today. I despise these commercials and feel sorry for the people desperately clinging to such hate and fear in the name of God. I’ve written to the radio station and my representatives, I vote my conscience and do what I can for change. Now I’m just sharing my frustration with the good folks at Donklephant.

  • chris

    That’s a well known phenomenon, and I’m not completely sure the reasons behind it… is it just because guys find it hot or what? I mean gay women aren’t making anymore headway than gay men are, but they apparently are more socially acceptable to be seen in public.

  • Tully

    If “hot guy-on-guy” action worked well at titillating/stimulating women, we wouldn’t even have an issue to discuss. 😉

    [CAPTCHA: “bosoms fount”]

  • You’ll drive yourself nuts expecting people’s views on such matters to cohere logically. Views may cohere logically when they are founded on reason. But when they are founded on visceral response, not so much.

    Girls on girls produces a positive visceral reaction in men related to sex. It feels uninhibited and so thrilling. Letting gays share a treasured social institution? Nope. Not thrilling. Frightening.

    I continue to find it really unfortunate that people won’t accept homosexuals as their civil rights equals. But it doesn’t surprise or confuse me.

  • mw

    Well. This should drive some Donk traffic.

  • rachel

    If “hot guy-on-guy” action worked well at titillating/stimulating women…

    It doesn’t?

  • Jacob

    Well. This should drive some Donk traffic.

    My first thought when I finished the post and checked the preview was, “Wow. That looks a bit racy.”

    If you google “hot girl on girl action” we’re number 8 on the first page.

  • Jacob


    Does it? Most women I know I agree with Tully.

  • rachel

    Do they really? Jacob, there’s a reason more than half of Queer as Folk‘s audience was straight women, and they weren’t tuning in to watch the lesbians. Think of “hot guy-on-guy” action from many a straight woman’s point of view: “Twice as much of what we like to see and none of what we don’t like to see? Sign us up! (Only, don’t tell our guys; what they don’t know won’t hurt them. ;-)”)

  • Jacob


    I guess it’s different for everyone. I have a very open/honest relationship with my wife and a relatively open/honest relationship with the women in my life … that is to say we share our feelings and thoughts about all kinds of things (not an open sexual relationship). Most of what I get from women is that they think in more of a “love and feelings, cuddly” manner than a “hard-banging (forgive me), explicit sex” manner.

    My thoughts on the Queer as Folk audience jibes with the idea in the video above that it’s all about what the men like. Most men like two hot women kissing – most men cringe at two guys kissing. In that light it stands to reason that their audience is mostly women (straight/gay) and gay men.

  • My first thought when I finished the post and checked the preview was, “Wow. That looks a bit racy.”

    After the recent episodes with former contributors, I saw that title and thought, “Not again.”

    Thankfully, my fears were unfounded. 🙂

    And you’re right, it doesn’t make sense. Well, it does in some respects. I think way back when, the notion of one man, one woman was necessary for tribes to spread, take over, etc. Propagation was the name of the game and so Uncle Vince and his roommate Keith were frowned upon. And, unfortunately, that was codified and now people take it as the gospel truth instead of just one option.

    So that’s where we sit now. However, it’ll change in due time as society becomes more tolerant so people aren’t afraid to express their sexuality honestly and openly. Fingers crossed that’s sooner rather than later.


    Gotta love those captchas!

  • Ryan F.

    We’re changing, though. Just take a gander around the blogs and message boards and livejournals populated with young women, and you’ll see a lot of women expressing the same kind of gut-reaction “that’s hot” sentiments at seeing/imagining two men together as men have been expressing for a while. Someone above explained it: they like men, and two men is twice the hotness.

    The reason why it is only recently becoming more obvious is because of the sea change around us concerning the sexuality debate and marriage debate. It’s slowly (very slowly, sigh) becoming more and more acceptable to talk about it, though most only talk about it now under the aegis of internet anonymity. But more and more of these young women write/imagine slash fiction and consider it a playful and exciting sexual outlet. More and more straight women are buying gay porn. It’ll only progress further.

    Concerning the marriage debate as a whole, of course it’s frightening to some people. Of course it produces a kind of hysteria. That’s what a sea change looks like from the inside. It looks and feels like a hurricane to some. Never mind that, every single time a minority group has desired and fought for their obvious human and civil rights, they were proven correct in the end, in hindsight. Not one time have the status quo majority been proven truly right when the issue is one of equal rights.

    Maybe a better question is related to the old and despicably pithy/neanderthal idea best expressed in “I’m ok with homosexuality…as long as the lesbians are hot.”

  • jb

    If everyone used their conscience as you suggested, we would be worse off. Imagine the pedophilers that used their conscience, would that be okay? What about someone that likes animals (beastality), would that be okay too, since he/she just uses his/her conscience? My point is there needs to be common laws that we all deem appropriate like the Bible. If we used the bible for our moral standards, we would be much better off. Best of all, since the bible is inspired by God, we do not have to worry about crooked lawmakers enscribing their biases.

  • Mackenzie

    Tully & Jacob, if you ever have any doubt that many women like to see two guys make out, look up the “slash” phenomenon. It’s mostly by women, for women, and it’s all about men making out. Some ladies like it hard core, some ladies like it to be all about feelings, but I assure you, two guys making out is a HUGE turn-on for a great many women.

    As for the dichotomy of denying gays rights while simultaneously being titillated by “gay” activities… well, that one’s not tough. “Girl on girl” porn isn’t lesbian porn. It isn’t produced for the lesbian market. It’s made for the enjoyment straight men. Of course they don’t have a problem with THAT sort of “gay”… it’s produced entirely for the benefit of a straight audience. We wouldn’t want to infringe upon straight people’s rights to enjoy their sexuality in whatever way they see fit, I’m sure.

    I just find it ironic that I, as a straight woman who VERY much enjoys male/male porn, spend less time thinking about gay sex than folks in the anti-gay camp do. I mean, seriously. Why exactly are these people so obsessed with what gay men do in bed? I’ll admit, it’s a nice (sexy, sexy) thing to ponder, but there’s no use getting obsessed and forming a whole political movement around it…

  • Nikki

    I love, love, love guy on guy action. But I really don’t know many other women that do and the ones that know I love it think I am weird.

    The schism exists because while guys find it erotic to see two women together…it’s almost always in the context of “two hot women who are really heterosexual but just play at being lesbians for my pleasure”.

  • @jb:
    You’re the first in this thread to mention “conscience.”

    Regardless you’re missing a huge part of the pro-gay side’s argument: consent. Children and animals can’t give their consent because they don’t really understand what they’re getting into.

    It’s very tricky to use the Bible as your only source of law, or even your sole source of morality. Protestants claim they do, but when’s the last time you heard a Protestant rape victim say “If only he’d paid my father 50 pieces of silver…” Anti-gay marriage folks are fond of “one man, one woman,” and the Bible never says a word about gay marriage.

    Note Catholics and Orthodox don’t claim the Bible is their sole source of morality, they also include church traditions.

  • Jacob


    In the original post I said that I “vote my conscience”. I think that’s where JB is coming from. Either way, I have a feeling pedophiles and animal f@*$#rs aren’t doing so in good conscience. “If the world could only see the love Dolly (the sheep) and I have for each other…” Your point about consent is a good one.


    There’s a very good reason our founders created a government based on human law. They knew there to be no fair or righteous way for humans to govern other humans using God’s law. They deliberately left God out of the equation and I think history has shown this to be a good decision. We’ve pretty much led the way in human rights and equality – it hasn’t been an easy road but it’s a road that the United States has been able to take because ours is government of HUMAN law. It isn’t perfect but it’s the best chance we’ve got.

    Now, on to the sexy stuff … As a man, I am turned on by the completely unrealistic “lipstick lesbian” stuff designed to specifically turn me on. My arousal stems from imagining myself invited to participate. I’m glad there are women out there who feel the same about two attractive men and look forward to the day when men are making out all over prime time … maybe Fox News will do something about that in the interest of fairness and balance.

  • There would only be a “dichotomy there” if society was accepting of lesbian marriage but against gay marriage. The fault in your post is equating approbation of lesbian sex as a deviancy—it derives its titillating force from the implication that they’re doing something that good girls ought not—with gay marriage. Whatever the merits of either, they are analytically distinct. People can approve of something in one context while disapproving of it in another; I like mint vodka, but propose to add mint to my scotch and I won’t be a happy camper. In the latter context, the issue is not the mint, but the scotch. Just so. Proponents of gay marriage is blithely assume that their opponents see it as an issue about “gay.” Many of those opponents do not. They see it as an issue about marriage. And if those proponents stopped to think for a moment, that would be obvious: if it were not so, the widespread support for gay rights would translate into widespread support for gay marriage. The fact that people are in favor of the former but not the latter requires them to consider the two as distinct.

  • @Simon:
    In terms of deep philosophical thinkers, and legal debates you are absolutely right.

    But this thread is not about deep thinkers.

    It’s about the people who talk about “Adam and Steve” and think they are making a deep point, when they’re just repeating a tired political cliche. It’s about the fact those folks haven’t even bothered to make a lesbian equivalent — “Madam and Eve” immediately comes to mind. It’s about the fact that lesbianism became common on broadcast TV a decade ago, partly because Madonna kissed Britney at some awards show, but 6 years later Adam Lambert’s kiss of another dude is shocking.