Fun-Sized Advice

On fun-sized advice

I get it, it’s important, but can we get a break from politics? Thoughts on Guccis’ new album?
I haven’t listened to his new album, but no doubt Gucci (and his clone) will be voting for Hillary.

What’s the difference between empathy and sympathy?
Sympathy separates you from its subject. Empathy joins you with its subject.

How do we escape the male gaze?
Aggressive eye contact.

if you get pregnant from sleeping with a guy before you met your current boyfriend, is your boyfriend required to support you still, or is breaking up with you not out of the question?
At most, your relationship is only a few months old. Probably less. That early on, he is not required to support you through anything, much less another man’s pregnancy, and quite frankly, I’d be shocked if he didn’t break up with you.

i find myself craving a drink every evening lately. is this alcoholism or just adulthood?
Depends. What purpose does the drink serve?

Your commentary on US politics is full of shit and never backed by any actual justification like your claim on male ego and libertarianism.
That bruised ego you’ve got there is all the justification I need. *casually sips male tears*

Nixon was impeached for lying about a burglary. Hillary has rigged an election and will likely be President. It is hard to think of a more significant example of how corrupt the US government has become – but yet you seem to be fine looking the other way regarding these election shenanigans. Why?
I wouldn’t look the other way at election rigging. The problem is that your confirmation bias is so tweaked and you have such a superficial understanding of the electoral process that you don’t even know what you’re talking about.

Is it just me, or is your readership growing weirder by the day?
It’s cyclical. The weirdos peak during election years.

Why are the only men I’m attracted to complete dicks full of white male entitlement? Is it a character flaw, or maybe just what I’m comfortable with?
It’s a character flaw.

What do you think of surgical castration as a punishment for rapists/pedophiles? Too biblical or just biblical enough?
As a method of involuntary punishment, I’d say surgical castration is about as cruel and unusual as it gets. However, as method of voluntary treatment, it might serve a legitimate purpose, but I’d have to see more research on its efficacy.

You’ve answered three of my questions in the past few years. I wonder how rare that is?
Impossible to know, but now it’s four.

What’s your score on the Hare checklist?
12/40 (Dude. I’m nowhere near being a psychopath.)

Standard

108 thoughts on “On fun-sized advice

  1. PolicyChick says:

    To the pregnant LW: Oh, Girl. You have a long way to go, honey.
    There are very few situations where anyone is ‘required’ to do anything (legal contractual performance excepted.)

    You may want him to support you, and you can ask him to support you, but he is under no obligation to do so. And if he decides he will not support you, you are free to be disappointed but it would be naive to be surprised and unfair to be angry.

    Put yourself in his position – would you stay with your newly-minted partner of a few months after partner announced a pregnancy from an ex? No, no you would not.

    Good luck.

    • Anna says:

      I find myself wondering what she means by support. Does she just want emotional support from a romantic partner and friend during her pregnancy and early motherhood ? Or does she expect the new boyfriend to coparent and offer financial support ? The first seems perfectly reasonable if not unlikely. The second is entirely ludicrous and makes me want to Google late term abortion clinics (sorry, as much as I wish for more state support for single mothers especially, I have strong feelings about being a woman and being able to single handedly support your offspring).

      • PolicyChick says:

        I’m curious about that too – what kind of support, specifically?
        But at the end of the day it doesn’t matter, because her question was if a partner was ‘required’ to support. Her use of that word was what my comment was addressing.

    • Strangely Rational says:

      The way the question’s worded, I get the sense that it wasn’t written by the pregnant woman but either by the boyfriend or by a friend/someone else who doesn’t approve of the pregnant woman’s expectation. It just doesn’t sound like someone trying to defend the position but someone wanting confirmation that it’s unreasonable (the word “required” seems like a hint).

      • J Lynn says:

        Ooo, good catch. I think you might be correct. Something in the phrasing seemed implausible to me too, and the world “required” is the tell. The way it was phrased suggests that Writer isn’t so much seeking advice and support as a “ruling.” More typically, a pregnant woman might write, “How can I ask him to stay with me?” or something like that. But who knows.

  2. Anna says:

    As for the castration business, I’m skeptical as to what “voluntary” surgical treatment means in a penitential context.

    • Guiliana says:

      the idea is people who commit sexual crimes, specifically against children, could opt for chemical castration as a way to remain in society but prevent them from commiting another sex crime. typically not surgery, but rather taking a medication that would prevent an erection. it has also been proposed as a solution for people who are attracted to children, know it is wrong, and wish to take a preventive action before they hurt a child.

      • Daffodil says:

        So “take this medication or we take your life away from you.” That sounds like pretty heavy-duty compulsion to me. Not cool. (I’ve also read that it doesn’t work. Rape is more about power than sex, so rapists continue to rape using something other than their dick, with extra anger over what’s been done to them. I have no source, though.)

        As a truly voluntary thing (ie, no changes in legal status one way or the other) for people who are horrified by their own sexual impulses, sounds good to me.

        • Guiliana says:

          yes, bit of a “rock and a hard place” choice to make. it seems decent as a solution for those attracted to children who do not wish to act on this attraction – there are some such people who advocate for solutions to aid them that do not ivolve incarceration or being on a list when they have never acted on their attraction – the idea that they can be responsible not to act on their attraction, and some maybe with a bit of help (such as voluntary chemical castration.) i have read interviews with such people who do not wish to harm a child and wish there were a middle ground solution if they confided in a doctor or therapist, rather than immediately being incarcerated or put on a list.

  3. Quinn says:

    I’ve heard involuntary castration as punishment for rape suggested a surprising/disturbing number of times by people who are even against capital punishment. I understand the logic and the revenge impulse but I’d be terrified if government sanctioned maiming was ever on the table for any reason.

    • WhoAmI says:

      Exactly. From what I get it makes you look like shit, feel like shit, and you can still rape someone without functional sexual organs. I don’t believe in a justice system that can decide upon the intregity of a person’s body. What’s next, cutting thieves hands and liars tongues ? Come on.

  4. bea says:

    Lmao I do the aggressive eye contact thing all the time. Just pull on that urge to maim the fucker and suddenly they’re a lot less cocky.

  5. Chris says:

    Politics: you said something I disagree with but am about as qualified as anyone else to have a strong opinion on.

    So now you can go fuck yourself with a billion dicks and I’ll forget the literally 100+ things you’ve said that I think are great.

  6. Datdamwuf says:

    I don’t think you are a psychopath by any means. However, Hare says the test should only be considered valid if administered by a suitably qualified and experienced clinician under scientifically controlled and licensed, standardized conditions.

    It’s fun to give a score on that in response to a stupid question but still, I’m asking Coquette, did you take a test online or was it under the conditions Hare describes?

    • The Coquette says:

      Let’s not pretend your question is about the sanctity of the PCL-R.
      You just want to know if I’ve been in the type of environment that formally assesses for psychopathy.

    • Anna says:

      I got 17 on an internet quizz. Does that mean I’m somehow closer to being a psychopath ?
      I really tried to imagine the test as it would be “administered by a suitably qualified and experienced clinician under scientifically controlled and licensed, standardized conditions” (btw way for quoting the third paragraph of the corresponding wikipedia article). I perfectly composed the image of the 50 something female psychoanalyst with pitch black bottle hair and red lipstick, interrogating me. I then almost shat and peed myself spontaneously, as mammals often do when they are dying, so I stopped imagining the middle aged psychoanalyst and moved on with the test.

  7. Lin says:

    As far as I care, a rapist loses the right to bodily autonomy the instant they violate another person’s.

    Too retributive of me, but I don’t care.

    • VeryOn says:

      Is there a name for retributive ethics? Because I find myself feeling that way about most issues. Judge others by the measure they would use to pass judgement. If they would kill, let them be killed. If they would steal let them suffer that which is stolen. Eye for an eye.

      What bothers me is that I don’t know where that ends? As an absolute it certainly looks delicious…but I don’t tend to be an absolutist. Sure I said kill the killers…but did I mean it really? I don’t believe in capital punishment. But if someone had their finger on a bomb…I would kill them to save lives.

      Anyway, retributive ethics is why I find all these vocal homophobes interesting. They literally are or become the thing that they hate or hated. They have to suffer the tortures of their own contrivance.

      But yes. I typically agree with the loss of rights upon violating others. To what degree is where we find justice.

      • Gaybeard says:

        If someone has their finger on a bomb and you intervene to save lives then they’re being stopped with lethal force, not punished. Punishment requires a trial. It’s the same thing if someone breaks into your house and you end up killing them in an attempt to stop them burglarizing your home or threatening you or your family. Acting in order to prevent harm to yourself or others from an imminent threat can include killing without being murder. The reason for that is that your primary motivation is stopping an attacker and limiting harm, not to judge and punish a person breaking the law by killing them.

        Personally, I don’t buy into the idea of punishment, regardless of the morality or ethics of the person accused of doing a crime. Justice should be practical: if a person is dangerous to others, then they shouldn’t be on the street and denying them their rights by putting them in prison is a reasonable measure. The effect of imprisonment can be seen as a type of punishment, but its peripheral to the main concern of making society more secure, providing compensation to the victims, and reducing aggregate harm.

        • WhoAmI says:

          Sending a child molester to prison sounds close enough to Hell for me. Cutting his balls off and letting him slowly degenerate body and mind for the rest of his shortened lifespan is too extra.

        • VeryOn says:

          I’m actually trying to put my finger on something else. I’m not suggesting that if someone steals that we then steal from them. When I said retributive ethics, I was angling towards something more bizarre. My little fantasy is that as citizen we are all forced to live in a world built from our own character. Each of us would have an island where our clones lived. Almost like there would be a “bad roommate” island. Everyone there leaves dishes in the sink and nobody ever does them. It’s pretty difficult to imagine these islands with only the duplication of ethics for the individuals because that destroys the idea of self. Less about justice and punishment, more about game theory and how deceptive people see the world as being full of people like themselves.

          • Gaybeard says:

            I appreciate your point but as much as I enjoy hearing your thoughts, it’s sometimes hard to tell when you’re talking about practical implementation versus doing your whole Loki, god of mischief thing.

            That’s not a criticism by the way. I really like the way you think.

          • VeryOn says:

            Thank you! I have trouble figuring out when I’m being practical as well. I typically draw the line at reality. ๐Ÿ˜€

        • VeryOn says:

          I’m actually trying to put my finger on something else. I’m not suggesting that if someone steals that we then steal from them. When I said retributive ethics, I was angling towards something more bizarre. My little fantasy is that as citizen we are all forced to live in a world built from our own character. Each of us would have an island where our clones lived. Almost like there would be a “bad roommate” island. Everyone there leaves dishes in the sink and nobody ever does them. It’s pretty difficult to imagine these islands with only the duplication of ethics for the individuals because that destroys the idea of self. Less about justice and punishment, more about game theory and how deceptive people see the world as being full of people like themselves.

          Please send me to my island! I walk faster crossing the street if there’s a line of cars waiting. I hold elevator doors. I repark my car if I miss the lines.

      • Lin says:

        “Retributive justice” is the theory, as opposed to “deterrence” or “rehabilitation”.

        There are many problems with retributive justice in theory and in practice but the most damning one in my estimation is the inevitability of error. Even if you could argue that someone deserves to die or be castrated as a form of justice (and that’s an uphill ethical battle anyways) there is simply no version of the state that could implement such a punishment perfectly with 100% certainty that the person being punished did in fact commit the crime they’re being punished for. Granting the state the power and the right to kill its citizens is ludicrous. People are executed for crimes they didn’t commit all the time. Exonerated inmates can be released from prison but there’s no undoing lethal injection. Systems of justice are too imperfect to allow for such permanent retributive punishment.

        Doesn’t mean I think that rapists don’t deserve to have their dicks sliced off without local anesthetic. I just don’t think such a punishment could ever be morally implemented.

        • Kittyninja says:

          Ah, rape myths. The dangerous other we can slice up, because it could never be one of us. It could never be us making an awful mistake (Not suggesting this is your opinion, Lin, rather attacking the myth). The evil random rapist and disgusting child molester are easier to attack than the friend who did something terrible and subsequently knows they have no outlet to forgive themselves than carrying the red letter.

          It’s this and many other beliefs that keep us from creating rehabilitation for crimes versus just punishment. I want my father who molested me and my older sister to get help. I still think he is a piece of shit that abandon us, but he deserves help with his sickness. I want the friend who raped me a year and a half ago to get help and to be able to say “I raped my friend” to a therapist so they can ease their torment. He is still a manipulative loser, but he deserves the methods to truly forgive himself.

          It’s not that my ego doesn’t want them to hurt, more so it’s my soul that wants them to be able to heal and change their lives for the better. Punishment without rehabilitation perpetuates the cycle of ignorant abuse.

          • Gaybeard says:

            Powerful point. I think it’s great that you feel safe enough to share that perspective here.

            While I think you’re right about the direction that should be taken, I don’t think being a rapist should be characterized as a sickness. Pedophilia, being attracted to children, is different from acting on that desire and being a child rapist. In so much as anything is a choice in life, a rapist makes the choice to rape while a person who’s attracted to children doesn’t choose their attraction. The decision to violate someone can and should be considered a punishable offence, and rehabilitation comes a distant second to ensuring the safety of the victim and society. A person who is involuntarily attracted to children deserves help and a way to deal with their issue. This is why it’s in everyone’s interest to de-stigmatize pedophilia in order to help people who are in a desperate situation and to simultaneously crack down hard on rapists and predators.

          • Lin says:

            I would hack my abuser to death with a fire axe if I ever saw them again.

            For this reason, there is a distinction between revenge and justice.

          • Lin says:

            Ethics and justice are not about what I want.

            And no, it probably wouldn’t be healthy, but it’s what I want anyways.

          • Gaybeard says:

            It’s too bad we no longer practice weregild. If you were to do that to your abuser you should be able to get off with paying compensation to the family instead of being sent to jail. You don’t pose a threat to society even though you killed a dude, but you did probably inconvenience his family. Given what he did to you, they should be satisfied by having a blood price paid to them.

        • Gaybeard says:

          The state is founded on the monopoly of violence so I don’t think it’s ludicrous for the state to have power over life and death even though I agree with you that using death as a punishment is a bad idea.

          The idea that any kind of punishment (which is done for the sake of punishment) can be morally justified is kind of missing the point of punishment. Punishment can be fair, never moral. The desire for vengeance is understandable, not justifiable.

          • Lin says:

            I vehemently disagree that punishment can never be moral. Pick up a copy of Rawls’ Theory of Justice. He argues quite famously that justice is fairness.

          • Gaybeard says:

            I’m not saying that justice isn’t fairness, even though I’m not much of a Rawlsian. An eye for an eye is justice precisely because it exacts a fair price, but I wouldn’t call it a moral act. There’s nothing that can make punishment moral, even though it can be both satisfying and necessary. I think that we start heading down a dangerous road when we start calling punishment not only necessary, but good.

  8. Nyatch says:

    Coke answered six of my questions in a three month span, and three of them were in the same fun-sized advice, so not weird at all I’d say.
    Does it sound like I’m bragging? Because I totally am.

  9. Soooooooooooooooo says:

    She’s answered two of my questions too, nut sacks. *insert smug smiley here*

    Actually one wasn’t really a question, it was “bruh…”

    It had more words but, yeah, anyway lol

  10. Jay says:

    This is pretty much what the comment section on Coke’s posts have felt like recently. https:// medium.com/ welcome-to-the-scream-room/american-horror-story-ab4a4b389949#.4e4zmof0z

  11. Chops says:

    I was just hoping someone would explain the Gucci clone thing. Turns out im not real up on my celebrity conspiracy theories. But that one is fun.

      • Two can keep a secret if one of them is dead. says:

        I know that Coke has her own ‘clone’, in the form of author Kea Wilson, or perhaps Coke is a creation by Kea Wilson. If you look here, http://s12.photobucket.com/user/dearcoquette/profile/ you’ll see Wilson’s name, for an account that has only recently been privatized, a Google search of ‘dearcoquette’ and ‘Photobucket’ shows images that were recently viewable. Wilson also appears as a user on Last.FM a full 4 years before any ‘Coke Talk’ blogging began at: http://www.last.fm/user/dearcoquette and most of the music that is included in Coke’s playlists is the same as author Kea Wilson’s scrobbles. Kea’s book, ‘We Eat Our Own’, is published by Scribner on 6th September 2016, almost simultaneously with ‘The Best of Dear Coquette’. Wilson graduated with a Liberal Arts undergraduate degree with modules in Philosophy, Science and Maths, subjects which are featured through many, if not all, of Coke’s reading lists and Wilson has since graduated from a Master’s writing program in Creative Writing. If you want to friend Coke/Kea though, despite all the protestations of ‘Delete your fucking Facebook account’ and feigned surprise at ‘people still use Facebook?’, you can here: https://www.facebook.com/IsForYourMom/, just do a look-up for coquettepublic@gmail.com. For those of you who say pics or it didn’t happen, and are long-time fans, way back in ’09 Coke posted a photo with her face barely cropped out, in a bathrobe, on Tumblr, which if you dig a little on http://archive.org/web/ you’ll find and you’ll see that Wilson had the same hairstyle and complexion and off-white teeth before graduating in ’09, compare it here: https://myspace.com/keamaria/photos. Wilson also blogged at: http://ohperishthethought.blogspot.com/, compare the syntax. It’s neary identical. So, long story short, Coke either has a clone or is in fact, Kea Wilson using this Internet presence as a literary device.

          • Okay then... says:

            Whoami,

            I have too much time on my hands because I offered a theory as to who the actual author of all the work on Dear Coquette is, when the anonymity of the author has been in question at multiple sites throughout the Internet? It was a chance discovery through using Photobucket this morning and took less than 10 minutes to find the rest of that information by typing in the name associated with that Photobucket account and ‘dearcoquette’ and about 5 minutes to type and share. I shared my theory as the anonymity behind Dear Coquette is mentioned in every piece published about the website and the author and she has traded on the mystique behind the anonymous character presented to users, currently as a reformed LA party girl. Either way, I’m assuming you still read my post to make your comment. I’m just guessing you weren’t too happy about the identity of the person I supposed was behind the works of Dear Coquette. Funnily enough, I posted the same information on Coke’s personal blog, on the most recent post relating to her Best of collection, as a fellow visitor had commented how incredible she was at maintaining her anonymity. The information I wrote was posted instantaneously, without the confirmation my above post required via WordPress. The comment with the information included here, which made you claim I have too much time on my hands, has since been deleted by Coke/Kea. Make of that what you will in regards to confirming/denying her identity.

          • The Coquette says:

            Please. Your comment wasn’t deleted. It contained so many links that I had to manually approve it, which I did.

            Make of that what you will.

          • Parensynthesis says:

            I don’t think I have enough popcorn for this conversation.

            That being said, I think that it’s more likely that someone wants to emulate their internet idol, not that someone who makes her name off anonymity is that careless with her identity. Careless to the point of mentioning her actual name in a comment made using her pseudonym…

          • WhoAmI says:

            Yeah, huh, what I said.
            Also the more you post here, the more you sound like you don’t get the whole point of anonimity.
            To be honest I thought I would feel the urge to open all your links in your post but I didn’t open any one of them in the end. Now make of that what you will.

          • Okay then... says:

            Whoami, you said I had too much time on my hands. Nothing else. And yes, I do get the point of anonymity. That doesn’t mean any individual is unable to make a slip-up and reveal themselves without meaning to. All I did was raise a question about the validity of the authorship of the website and the works included here. A question which Coke avoided, and which a simple ‘No, I am not Kea Wilson. I am one of the other 7 billion individuals in the world,’ would have sufficed, preserving her anonymity and which would have caused me to not write any further comments, admit my mistake and ask for the removal of my comments so that there would be no further questioning on my behalf of Coke’s identity. Secondly, Whoami, you are an individual with free will, and you can do as you choose to. Open the links I provided or don’t, that is entirely your prerogative. And, as you asked me to make of your decision not to open any links that I provided, what I make of that is that your perception of Coke is of a wise, well-travelled, articulate and experienced, now former LA party girl. You are happy to believe that and see her writings through that lens, which I did too, up until I came across a Photobucket profile, amid several other social accounts which led me to question who the person behind the responses and personal blog posts is, and potentially relate Dear Coquette to another female author, of a similar age, who posted under the same alias as Coke for several years, studied similar subjects as a university student and attained the same specified levels of qualification which Coke also admitted to achieving, while publishing a novel two days prior to the publication of The Best of Dear Coquette: Shady Advice from a Raging Bitch Who Has No Business Answering Any of These Questions. I guess by the sub title, as readers, we all got what was on the tin anyway, if my assertions are correct or otherwise.

          • WhoAmI says:

            The only perception of Coquette I have is that of a breathing, living woman located in the US whose opinion has proved to be insightful/interesting/funny to me on several occasions, and who I think of as a decent human being.
            I don’t need to believe in anything. I come here for something, and she delivers consistently. To me, that is enough to know, and more would be too much.
            And that’s why I think you don’t get the point of anonymity here, however that word is spelled.

          • Okay then... says:

            I do understand the point of anonymity. It’s to keep your identity concealed and your business private. However, I don’t believe in burying my head in the sand if something comes along which conflicts with my perception of someone or something. I would rather ask a question and hope for a satisfying answer, whether it corroborates my assertion or disproves it. Thatโ€™s something I have learned from Cokeโ€™s writings and the posters contributing to the comments section of Dear Coquette and something I hope to continue using in my life, always. I’m just as much a fan-girl as you, Whoami.

          • WhoAmI says:

            Correct me if I’m wong but I’m not really a fanboy. I’m just one of the regulars here. I discovered Coke too late to become a fanboy I think ? I already had some ideas of mine, and Coquette’s were pretty close to many of them, if not sometimes opposite (that sentence can read as very pretentious for the die-hard fans, I know).
            I’m a very curious person myself but I try not to indulge too much in my libido sciendi, you know ?

          • Okay then... says:

            Too late after she began posting or too late in life? I’m assuming as you call her Coquette, it was after the most recent name change? I say Coke as that’s the pseudonym she used when I came across her writings in 2010. I think you can be a fan-boy/fan-girl at any age, Whoami.

            See, the way I came to Coke’s writings was as more an empty-headed vessel (I’m setting myself up to be slated here, aren’t I?) without many, if any, critical thinking skills, with a boatload of internalized misogyny and preconceived Catholic notions about virginity, chastity, and what a relationship is meant to be. I began reading about the exploits of this interesting party girl, who lived a life I only saw in movies and read about in the showbusiness sections of tabloid newspapers which my parents purchased most Saturdays before attending church on Sundays. Then I began reading the books she suggested, on understanding media and how it can be manipulated, grossly and subtly, depending on a network/editor’s stance on any given issue, on religion and what it means to be spiritual, what it means to be in an open relationship, whether that is open with multiple partners or being open and honest in your communications with just one. She reawakened my love of reading and in some ways, I’m sure there have been other experiences which have taught me along the way, Coke guided me as I grew up and became aware of the fragility of life and other things I might not necessarily have been aware of had I kept burying my head in the sand. She was like an older sibling, or a friend when I didn’t really have anyone else around to help guide me after my family disowned me after I said I’d became an athiest and wanted to attempt having some kind of independent thought that wasn’t indoctrinated by an external institution, even with her responses to other people’s questions that were applicable to me. I guess, when I saw those profiles earlier, I wondered, as stupid as this is going to sound, had it been a lie, what I’d believed about this articulate and eloquent writer and I tried to use the skills I’d learned from her along the way to ask a question and hope for a satisfying answer, whatever the answer might be. That’s why I asked about her identity when I saw the name ‘Kea Wilson’ and discovered that the person also using the dearcoquette pseudonym is also a writer. Because I hoped Coke still was this fascinating and fabulous party girl I naรฏvely placed on a pedestal or had she become an ordinary girl, who tries her best to write, like me.

          • WhoAmI says:

            I discovered Coquette some time before the name change, but I like the new name, it’s punny.

            I think at that time she had very strong guru potential for americans in their teens, two things I wasn’t. Plus, I always have had strong opinions about the kind of stuff we talk about here (except politics, maybe). It probably helps that I stumbled upon similar writing styles many years ago.
            But you’ve been way more conscientious with your reading those past few years than I’ve been, let me tell you.

            I totally get where you come from, and why you would get an old sister kinda feeling from coquette. It’s more of a “that one friend you can talk about very deep stuff at the drop of a hat” kinda feeling for me.

            I get why you would get emotional about the hypothetic big reveal that coquette wasn’t actually that cool big sis (TM) you were looking up to, but personally ? I don’t know. If it was all a big scam at least what I got from it made me feel and think very real things. Knowing Kanye is full of shit to a level rarely reached doesn’t make MBDTF instantaneously bad, does it ?

            And if coquette really was that girl, she would be no ordinary girl ; as you say it yourself, she’s a writer, and a pretty decent one I think. ๐Ÿ™‚

          • Okay then... says:

            No, you’re right. It doesn’t. Thanks for saying all that you have, Whoami. I’m really glad I met you and we spoke today. Sending cyberhugs your way. Wherever you are in the world, I hope you’re having a good day. *smileyface*.

          • WhoAmI says:

            And thanks to you, too.
            That thank you post was surprisingly cute I guess ?? Now you’re making me mellow.

  12. Okay then... says:

    If Coke wants to say she’s not Kea Wilson, I will happily admit I am completely wrong, my theory was wrong and apologize wholeheartedly for it. I’ve already preordered both books I mentioned in my initial post, anyway.

    Thing is though, the Last.FM account was made in 2005, the Photobucket is more recent than that and the comments discussed under that alias on Jezebel stem from before 2009, when Coke Talk, the personal blog was created. Even down to favorite books being Blood Meridian, a recent book recommendation and both ‘people’ being published authors, is an incredible coincidence. As said though, I will happily admit I am wrong if I am incorrect in my assertions and apologize for any upset my comments have caused.

  13. Edie says:

    I thought coke changed her name from Coketalk to Coquette in like 2012 or something? And why would she use her real name with the pseudonym?

    • Okay then... says:

      The original URL was coketalk.tumblr.com, but the blog itself has been through many titles, such as Spaceships and Kool-Aid, Coke Talk, eventually becoming The Coquette, a play on words, e.g. Coquette sounds like Coke Head. I wouldn’t like to cast any more aspertions than I already have. When I came across the Photobucket account and searched on Google, I found it to be either an incredible coincidence that two individuals, both writers, would use in a short timespan of one another the alias ‘dearcoquette’, or that Dear Coquette was run by an author who published short stories and other forms of fiction and non-fiction for almost a decade and was using a pseudonym and a blog as a literary device, creating a fictional alter-ego of an LA party girl, now former. As to your second question, a slip-up, perhaps. The real name was posted prior to any ‘Coke Talk’ blogging beginning. The name ‘Kea’ appears on a Last.FM from 2005 and on Jezebel discussion forums in 2008. ‘Kea Wilson’ appears on a Photobucket from around that time, too.

  14. Okay then... says:

    Edie, as I wrote above, if my assertions are incorrect, I will happily admit I am completely wrong, that my theory was wrong and apologize wholeheartedly for it and ask for the posts I have made on Dear Coquette and her personal blog to be removed so no doubt about the authenticity of Coke’s identity or her work is available on the Internet, particularly her site. As I also stated before, the name ‘Kea Wilson’ is posted on a now private Photobucket account, however, the profile for that account is still viewable, which is how I saw the name. Only the first name ‘Kea’ appears on Last.FM from 2005 and on Jezebel discussion forums, from 2008-2011. It is wholly possible that any individual would forget what and where they posted over 5 years ago, let alone over a decade. I’m sure many of us have long-dormant MySpace and other forum accounts floating around in the digital ether which we’ve forgot about too.

  15. Okay then... says:

    So, because someone offers a possible theory as to the identity of the authorship behind the contents of an anonymous website, which as stated above could very easily have been disproved with one sentence, “No, I am not Kea Wilson. I am one of the other 7 billion people populating the planet,” when the question was asked, some of you because your notion of Coke’s identity is for lack of a better word, threatened, result to implying a lack of intelligence of the person who raised a question about potential authorship, which by the way has neither been confirmed or denied, by providing three links to individuals also using the word ‘coquette’ in their marketing materials, but not the alias ‘dearcoquette’… Okay then… As for insulting comparing the syntactic similarities as a way of ascertaining authorship, I offered that as Coke has called previous submissions by someone writing in several times years ago using guess what, syntax! as a way of establishing to readers it was the same person writing. But hey, it’s not like Coke ever went after anyone for using elements of her identity before is it… oh shit, wait, that did happen. Twice. To some poor teenage girl who Coke ‘brought the hammer down so hard and fast that she fell off the face of the fucking internet,’ and Jessica Bari. So, why would you not go after another writer using your alias, at the same time you’re building your personal brand, when it’s the identity which you make an aspect of your income from? But then, why should anyone be surprised that you would suggest the person asking the question is lacking in intellectual capacity, Veryon, when the sheer possibility of the question being raised was ‘equally abhorrent’. To end on a light note, Eve Babitz, fellow writer, artist, muse and party girl, also hated cats, yet kept one for the majority of her whole life. Go figure.

    • VeryOn says:

      I have all the information I need to poke gaping holes in your theory. But as I’ve said before, it’s rude. Nobody wins if you’re right, not even you. Now go pull the fucking beard off a mall Santa you self important twat.

      • Okay then... says:

        If you have all the information you need to poke gaping holes in my theory then feel free to do so. What have you, Veryon, got to lose personally by not doing so? Short of Coke having a non-disclosure agreement which would impact you financially, that is. I can see what Coke would have to lose by saying she’s not Kea Wilson, there’s one less of the 7 billion people she could possibly be. Also, it’d be a bit like the scene in the Wizard of Oz when Dorothy discovers the Wizard is just an ordinary man with no special powers, if my assertions are correct. But what do you stand to gain by not poking holes in my theory, when you state you have the information so that you can, and making me look like an incompetent idiot who posted something without doing their due diligence? I’ve already said numerous times above, I will happily admit I am incorrect if I am. And I don’t win if I’m right, meaning what? I won’t get as much enjoyment from the site? You’d be incorrect there, Veryon. If I am correct I’d get even more enjoyment from the site. An author who can write so convincingly well, and create such an interesting world. I’d be astounded and bow down before their literary gifts. I’m not self-important. I’m pretty sure my ‘self’ doesn’t even exist as a non-shifting state. And, as for pulling the beard off the mall Santa, if you’re going to play a character and put a show on for the world to see, be clever enough not to let the public expecting a show glimpse behind-the-scenes. It’s that simple. Anyone in Hollywood could tell you that.

  16. Okay then... says:

    Whatever helps you sleep at night, Veryon. If you’re unable to construct a coherent counter-argument and put your response across intelligently when I ask you a question after your mouth makes a statement that your brain can’t cash I understand that, too. But I’d say that makes you the troll, not me. Have a fantastic night!

    • The Coquette says:

      Okay, I’ve had enough of this ridiculousness. Both of you chill.

      First of all, I don’t respond to people who demand shit from me, and by asking me to deny that I am this person, you are demanding that I defend myself. Fuck that and fuck you.

      Secondly, denying that I am a certain person doesn’t disprove a damn thing, so what’s the fucking point of you even asking? Seriously. Do you not realize how silly it is for you to expect that of me?

      Now, as for when I choose to bring the hammer down, that’s my fucking business. I’m the one who gets to decide if someone has stolen from me. Again, you don’t get to demand that of me.

      As for the assertion itself, I’ve got some bad news, Nancy Drew. You aren’t the first junior sleuth to stumble across this stuff. I usually find it pretty amusing when people come asking about it. Hell, you were amusing at first, but now you’ve gone and fucking annoyed me.

      Finally, just to drive the point home, how about you ask yourself which scenario is more likely:

      1. After nearly a decade of professional anonymity, I would be so careless as to have a social media account that uses both my real name and my pseudonym, or…

      2. One of my readers decided to change her username to “dearcoquette” on a site that I’ve never once used in my entire fucking life.

      I leave it to you to decide, and I honestly don’t give a shit either way, but would you please quit being rude about it in my comments section.

      Thank you and good day.

  17. Okay then... says:

    As you asked several questions and I’m assuming they weren’t all rhetorical, I’d like to respond, if that’s okay?

    You did respond to my first post in this comments section, and I admit, I could have contacted you privately through the email you provide on your website instead of posting my assumptions here. I’m not sure I would have received a response or another eye-roll, though. You talk a lot about trust and open and honest communication on Dear Coquette and until I stumbled upon those accounts, I wholeheartedly believed your persona as Coke Talk/The Coquette to be that of an interesting, wise, world-weary, former LA party girl. So yes, had you said in your reply to that first post that you were not that individual, I would have believed that and left it there, because I trust you to be searingly honest in everything you’ve posted since I became a reader in 2010 of Dear Coquette and your personal blog and for those posts to be an accurate representation of your life and wisdom you’ve gained throughout your life. I had no intention of mentioning my comments or assertions again after finishing my conversation in your comments section with Whoami, yesterday. It was only after seeing my previous posts being ridiculed, and made to sound idiotic when it was only a theory that I proposed, that I wanted to respond to them.

    And just to drive my point home, the reason I asked the question in the first place, was that those accounts on those various social media sites, Last.FM, Jezebel, Photobucket, all existed prior to you publishing a single blog post as Coke Talk, let alone as Dear Coquette. And, none of them were logged into after your alias changed from Coke Talk to Coquette, which if I recall correctly, was around the time your boutique opened in 2012. The dates are there on all the profiles. That is why I assumed you and Ms. Wilson are one and the same. You’re right too, it is your choice as to when to bring the hammer down. It just seemed odd that you’d choose to go after a teenage girl who as I recall, when I did glance at her Formspring account way back in 2011, borrowed the submitted questions and wrote her own answers to them in comparison to a fellow writer, posting work under the same alias you use at the same time you were building your personal brand.

    You must admit, too, that there are an enormous amount of similarities between yourself and Ms. Wilson, from the subjects and qualifications gained through studying at university, the favorite books mentioned, many of which appear in your recommendations, your approximate ages, both being authors and both using the same alias during the same time-frame. Even publication dates within 48 hours of each other, next month.

    I apologize for hijacking your comments section and for any offense I’ve caused to yourself and fellow readers who have seen my comments on this post. I’ll always be a fan, and thank you for the guidance you’ve given me over the last eight years, whoever and wherever you are.

    • The Coquette says:

      Apology accepted. It’s all good. (Minor annoyances aside, I genuinely appreciate how much you seem to care. For real, thanks for reading.)

  18. Anna says:

    I cannot express how much I enjoyed this secret identity debacle.
    Not than I have any opinions myself (the internet is vast and full of coincidences). But god did I need this after a day cooped up in the lab.
    I really think we should start a blog called “the real CQ” and post a bunch of fan fiction about her hidden identity.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *