At ‘It’s OK For Intellectual Feminists To Like Fashion’. Swoon.
When I was 17, my friend Kate and I decided that someday, when we were really old - like, 30 or something - we would start our own boyband.
Boybands, we reasoned, weren’t put together based on their talent (sorry, JT), but on their sexual/romantic appeal to teenage girls. So why, then, did each boyband only have one or two attractive members? Why couldn’t there be a boyband in which every member was a teenage girl’s fantasy come true? We would call them the HotBoys.
I can’t help thinking that One Direction is the real life manifestation that boyband. And the adolescent female response to them? Has been pretty much exactly as you’d imagine. As my friend and colleague Clementine Ford wrote earlier this week: “[W]hile the official story is that One Direction hail from England, it seems equally plausible at this point that they were willed into the universe by the collective longing of a million young teenage girls.”
Much has been said about how phenomena like Justin Bieber, One Direction and Edward Cullen (and Leonardo DiCaprio, *NSync and the Beatles) provide a safe, unthreatening outlet for female desire. Lust all you want, young ladies, because you’re probably not going to lose your virginity to any of these guys or their freshly razored chests.
But I think there’s an equally interesting story to be told about the way in which groups like One Direction bond girls. Last year, a very clever friend (that’d be Nina Funnell) sent me an email bouncing around some ideas she’d be working on about the way movies from The Virgin Suicides to Knocked Up show heterosexual men bonding over shared desire for women. Where were the images of women bonding over their desire for men, she wondered?
“Teen pop stars!” I replied. Kate and I didn’t just fantasise about starting our own boyband. We delighted over meeting someone who lusted after was IN LOVE WITH the same pop star we were, who felt the same passion and excitement we did, and with whom - as Kate wittily put it a year or two later - we could laugh about “all those stupid teenyboppers who thought they were in love with Taylor, when we really were.”
That neither of us had a shot in hell meant there was no competition. And if it turned out we did have a shot? Well, hey - we would share him.
So, while I’m somewhat baffled by the degree of “excitement” a second-runner up on UK X Factor (cute though they may be) seems to be eliciting around the globe, I can’t hate on their fans.
And if you want to “get” what the fuss is all about, this was - in my opinion - their best performance on the show. Two of them can even sing.
Related: Edward Cullen: typical teenage Tiger Beat dreamboat
When will I, will I be famous?
Elsewhere: One Direction and teen sexuality (Daily Life)

So, it turns out updating your blog when you’re flying/bussing/training/driving to a new city every 36 hours or so is hard.
So far on my whirlwind research trip around North America for The Sex Myth, I’ve been to Washington DC, Baltimore, Durham, Chapel Hill, Raleigh, Cullowhee, New York and Boston.
I’m currently on the train to Portland (Maine), and will visit Toronto, Windsor, Detroit, Tiffin and Columbus before the week is out. Then it’s off to LA, Maui (that’s the part of the trip that doesn’t fall under the ”work” banner), back to California and from there… who knows? I haven’t nutted out the itinerary yet, but suffice to say it will include a bunch of stops along the west coast, south west and maybe back to the midwest if I can fit it in (Oregon, Seattle, Texas and South Dakota are all my short list).
I’m exhausted, but mostly in a good way. It has been great meeting with people who are so excited about the issues I’m writing about, and a timely reminder that writing about sex isn’t just about tricks and titillation: it’s about culture and emotions and identity as well.
My personal highlight so far? Talking to the (very enthusiastic and engaged) students at West Carolina University last Wednesday.
If you’re around any of the places I’ll be travelling to, let me know.
When Emily D’ath posted about her 10-items-of-clothing-only trip back to Australia (Save The Future - wear less clothing), I immediately decided to attempt the same thing on my own next trip.
And yes, I decided that even knowing that my next trip - which I will be embarking on in just a few hours - would span 5 weeks, at least 11 cities, and such varied climates as Hawaii and Toronto. Oh, and a wedding.
Where Emily chose her clothes based on “comfort and suitability for the climate”, I chose based on versatility: one cocktail dress, two night/day dresses, four plain old day dresses, two cardigans and a coat. Most of the items pictured - including the dress pictured here, which was at the dry cleaners when I took the photos - can be styled for cold weather (boots, thermals, coat, cardigan, multiple layers of socks), semi-cold weather (boots, leggings, cardigan) or warm weather (sandals).
As you’ll see, I didn’t do quite so well with cutting down my “yes, I really am reading this on public transport” book collection, though.
For the next month or so, I’m going to be travelling around North America meeting with some of the fantastic people I’ve been interviewing for my book in person. At present, my travel schedule is as follows:
March 8-11: Washington DC/Baltimore
March 11-13: Durham/Raleigh/Chapel Hill
March 13-15: Asheville
March 15-19: New York City
March 19 - 25: Currently up in the air, but probably some combination of Boston, Toronto, Montreal, Maine and Ohio
March 25 - 31: Hawaii (for the aforementioned wedding)
April 1 - 12: Los Angeles, San Francisco, Portland, and some combination of Seattle, Vancouver, Houston and maybe a couple of places in the Rocky Mountains and Great Plains states.
When I’m not working, I’ll be turning to this awesome website to explore the local areas I’ll be staying in.
Related: Ask Rachel: Why don’t you post photos of yourself anymore?
£10, 5 days, two people: This year’s Live Below The Line loot
Elsewhere: Save the Future - wear less clothing (Emily D’ath)
Nerdy Day Trips

It feels vaguely blasphemous to be writing about how great it is to be single on my first Valentine’s Day as a married person. But given that some quick fraction work reveals that I’ve spent just over 85% of my life so far as a single person (by which I don’t mean “unmarried”, but not in any kind of romantic relationship at all), I feel it is a subject that I know something about. Sure, a lot of those years were when I was a child, but my point still stands.
I wasn’t a great single person. In fact, I was probably about the worst kind of single person there is. I wasn’t that Sex & The City style woman with her expensive shoes and cocktails, confidently eating up every man who crossed her path. I was that girl who would whine incessantly about being single, who would burst into tears and lie in bed listening to angsty Liz Phair songs whenever a fledging relationship fizzled out.
Intellectually, of course, I knew that all this was ridiculous. (I was well versed in my feminist literature.) But intellect wasn’t enough to override the emotional impacts of a lifetime diet of Dolly, Girlfriend and Dawson’s Creek. In which dating was just what people did, whether you were 12 and going to your first middle school dance (The Babysitter’s Club), 16 and hanging with your beau at the local milk bar (Sweet Valley High), or 17 and hooking up with your lab partner because you don’t want to go to college a virgin (Britney Spears’s Crossroads).
Plenty of people I went to high school with didn’t date: I went to a girls’ school, and the boys my friends and I met were few and far between. But that didn’t mean that we did internalise the messages that we received from the popular culture that engulfed us. We “knew” that teenagers were “supposed” to date, party and be plagued by sexual temptation. And we “knew” that girls who had boyfriends were superior to the ones who didn’t. I still recall the instant boost in popularity one of the girls in my Year 7 class experienced when she was asked out by a guy on the train.
So when I grew up and my life looked nothing like Sweet Valley High, I took it to mean there was something wrong with me. That I was somehow defective, unattractive, abnormal. I never felt so defective that I was willing to enter into a relationship with someone I didn’t actually like, but I spent much of my youth with the niggling sense that there was something lacking in me.
Sometimes I wonder if, maybe if I’d spent only 70 or 80 percent of my life single (as opposed to my current 85 percent), I would have felt differently. If I would have then been one of those single people who loved being single; who actively chose it instead of feeling like it was chosen for them.
Because the truth is, in retrospect, being single actually was kind of fantastic. And while I didn’t always enjoy it at the time, I can see now that it actually shaped my life in all sorts of beneficial ways.
Being single gave me the time and space to cultivate all manner of amazing friendships – the kind of friendships people write stories about. It meant that when Mr Musings (someone with a similar ratio of single to not single time as myself) and I got married a few months ago, we were able to do so in the room filled with friends. Not just people we had passed the time with, but people with whom we had shared our lives and true intimacies, in a manner that is frankly difficult to do when you’re investing all your intimacy into one person.
Being single meant I had the freedom (and again, the time – this one is so important, I think) to throw myself into my interests, enmesh myself in my community(s), to try new things out and, yes, to ultimately discard them if I found they didn’t work for me. It meant I could hold down a job, freelance, do a PhD and still have time to go out three or four nights a week. In temporarily forgoing one facet of the richness of life, I was able to experience more of so many others.
Having spent so much of my life single means that I will never (I hope, at least), be one of “those” coupled people who organises exclusive “couples weekends”, feels awkward about inviting single friends to dinner, or tells their single friends, “you know, maybe you’re just too picky”.
Being single gave me a foundation: of friends, of genuine intimacies, of what I was passionate about. It meant that when I did end up in a relationship with someone I wanted to stay with, I knew what I wanted from life, and to choose someone who wanted basically the same things.
That’s not to say that serial monogamists can’t have these things, too – I know plenty who have – but I do think that having that wealth of time to myself in the earlier part of my 20s helped me to achieve them.
A few weeks ago, a good friend of mine – a friend whose ratio of single time to coupled time is even higher than mine is – wrote an emailed wondering if, as a “perpetual bachelorette”, she was destined for a future of boredom and loneliness. The irony is that this particular friend leads one of the most vital, inspiring lives of anyone I know, filled with tight knit friendships, passions and projects.
The point isn’t that the grass is greener on the other side. The point is that both sides of the proverbial meadow are green… even if we don’t always appreciate that.
Related: Welcome to the Institute for Sweet Valley High-related cultural studies
Wanting to be with someone you LIKE means you’ll be alone FOREVER
The Musings of an Inappropriate Woman Guide to Feminist Wedding Planning: Part 5: The Opposite of War Isn’t Peace, It’s Creation.
Elsewhere: Why I broke up with my Girlfriend (and Dolly too) (Girls are Made From Pepsi)
Occupy Valentine’s Day