Stellar Dan! Out of the ballpark all three times.

I close my eyes and think of my own answer before scrolling down and reading Dan's. For CAYA I want to ask: Do you want to explore other ways of making your wife come for your own sake or for hers? Because it sure sounds like she's doing everything she can to please you, and you're still complaining. Worse, you're making it sound like you're doing something noble (this is all about her) when you're doing something selfish (it's really about you). For Chrissakes, don't tell her that she comes wrong. All this talk about pushing boundaries boils down to that. You want her to come differently. She doesn't think so.

Now if there was something you wanted to try for YOUR benefit, and you were honest about that, I'd tell you to tell her and see if you could get her to go for it. You might be pleasantly surprised.

One of the best sexual partners I ever had LOVED watching me get myself off. He'd request it. (I'd oblige.) My advice is to think of your own wild fantasy and work that into watching her. (That guy I just mentioned would imagine a number of scenarios in which he was forcing me to masturbate though I didn't want to. He thought it was hot. I didn't mind what he was thinking.)

Great answers this week.

A thought about CAYA's letter: his wife might feel pressured to have an orgasm. I'm not saying that CAYA is necessarily the one doing the pressuring - his wife might just feel like she needs to prove that she's enjoying herself, or she might be self-conscious about taking too long. If you feel pressured to have an orgasm, it's that much more difficult to get there. If that's the case, maybe talking and sharing fantasies during sex will help by making things less orgasm-centric for her.

I agree with the advice for ORGASM, except that I prefer Carolyn Hax’s non-ultimatum ultimatum. She writes:

>> What I’ve been advising instead in these situations is the same clear statement of your need, but leaving off the part about what you’ll do if need goes unmet... If you spell out the threat, then it’s possible he’ll make some changes just to keep his own home intact. Then it wouldn't be a gesture to fulfill you emotionally, but instead a gesture to serve his own needs — one he’s likely to sustain for a few days or weeks or months till he feels secure again, at which point he reverts to his old ways. >>

http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/…

For CAYA

>> Before we got married, I explained that I wanted to explore and push the boundaries, and she promised me that would happen. >>

Another object lesson about verifying before marriage (or at least before kids) that you are actually compatible in bed already, rather than in some distant future.

>> She's not into any of the things I've proposed...I've talked to her several times about how I'm yearning to do more >>

Okay, then it’s time for one of Carolyn’s non-ultimatum ultimatums: "Honey, I am sad that you won't fulfill any of my sexual fantasies and you won't propose any of your own. I find that I’m deeply unhappy. Are you fine with me being unhappy, or are you willing to work with me towards trying to find a solution that makes both of us happy?"

I'm wildly attracted to my husband and we have amazing sex... And when it's time for me to orgasm I close my eyes real tight and rub my clit until I come, because I have a hard time coming sometimes and I need to concentrate. It has nothing to do with attraction whatsoever.

My guess is CAYA is a poor lover. Period. He is all "I want, I want." I'm curious about his idea of "pushing boundaries". Does this means he wants her to act out something FOR him?
I have been in the position of his wife: Sex with someone who is adament that I get off, while having no skills to make that happen. I would seriously challenge him to recall all the times he drove a woman crazy with his oral or manual skills, because my guess is he hasn't.

Dan's advice for the last letter would be good for the wife in the first letter, as well.

Ditto @6. I also have to close my eyes and concentrate very hard, and it has nothing to do with attraction, or how turned on I am, or good the experience is. I simply can't climax unless I'm totally focused on it. I think it must be this way for a lot of women.

Expanding: "Honey, I would never make you feel bad about your dick, but you are making me feel bad about my pussy and how it works. Either you learn to accept 'this is the way my body works' or we break up." This is pretty much what Dan suggested to the gay man as a script for talking to his partner - with the implication that he shouldn't ever have to take shaming attitudes about how he likes to get off. Why do I think that Dan - and this community here - will be less supportive of the wife in the first letter taking the same attitude? Oh yeah... because men's biology is normative and women's biology is subordinate to men's sexual desires.

I don't agree that having a type makes someone an asshole. Pansexual is a minority. Otherwise, nice piece about "you are stuck with your body and your preferences, learn to make the best of them".

I think CAYA should learn how to get his wife off without her rubbing herself. He could rub her, vibe her, kiss it, etc... I think that getting your partner off yourself is the best way to make new activities more enjoyable. Then again they sound like they are not very into each other, maybe cut losses.

How to make boyfriend eat broccoli?

Ditto @ 6 & 9. During PIV sex it is hard as hell to get there and I usually don't try. Who says they both need to get off the same way? CAYA's wife may be more apt to stare deeply in his eyes during PIV sex (ew) if she had already gotten off during, you know, other sex. You know other sex?

Regardless, I agree with all who say the way she comes has nothing to do with the narrow menu.

Since when did having a preference about your own sexual partners make you an asshole? Saying "no trans women" doesn't seem any more bigoted than saying you're not into men. I'm happy to be supportive of queer sexuality, but that doesn't mean I have to be your sexual partner. I have my preferences, you have yours and we both respect that.

Come As You Are:

If your wife's only mode of having sex is to close her eyes, retreat within herself, and masturbate furiously, then she's bad at sex. I might even say creepy. Sure, there's a time and a place for that. But most women aren't so fixated on coming that they completely miss the connection that sex can bring. Many take great pleasure in their ability to turn you on, and most can enjoy vaginal stimulation before eventually moving onto something more orgasm-focused.

Tell your wife the truth - that sex is boring and lacks intimacy, and that you're not interested in having it unless she's willing to connect with you and explore. If you can stick to this simple truth and don't get pulled into an argument, she may respond favorably. I've seen it happen, although that was 3 weeks into the relationship, not after we were married.

I can understand a lesbian preferring that her partner not have a dick. That said, I've seen some trans women who--aside from being infertile--we're indistinguishable from CIS women. Try being a little open-minded. The label "trans woman" covers a lot of territory.

What the fuck Dan?

I'm a cisggender male attracted to cisggender females. Do I have to turn in my trans-ally card if I don't want to go on dates with trans women? Do I have to turn in my gay ally card if I don't want to go on dates with guys who offer to blow me?

I don't think I do, and if I don't, I don't see why a Lesbian should have to either.

We are all entitled to our sexual preferences, lesbians included.

Also, if you have any age requirements in your dating profile you lose your "non-ageist" ally card. You should go on awkward dates with people 30 years or more your senior who you don't find attractive.

If someone on a dating site wouldn't want to date me because I'm , I'd want to know that up front so that I can save MY time. That remains true even if I think that has no conceivable connection to how compatible a partner someone might be.

If someone on a dating site wouldn't want to date me because I'm some demographic category, I'd want to know that up front so that I can save MY time. That remains true even if I think that the demographic category in question has no conceivable connection to how compatible a partner someone might be.

Sorry first post didn't come out making sense.

What a funny coincidence, I was just thinking about the fact that I always close my eyes when I get close to orgasm and wondering how common this is. And now Dan gives me the perfect opportunity to ask.

4. Your wife is fantasizing about something when she closes her eyes and starts rubbing her clit.

Not necessarily. I do not close my eyes because I am fantasising about something. In fact, when I get close to orgasm I am incapable of thinking about anything at all. Perhaps I close my eyes because I need to block out other sensory input that could distract me, at least that's my theory. It's certainly not because I'm not attracted to my partners.

CAYA's wife seems completely normal to me. Her refusal to be GGG is a totally separate issue to the way she has orgasms.

So, SL readers -- who here has their eyes open when coming, and who has their eyes shut?

@4: Neither of those things would be the least bit effective, for me. Sorry.

@17 et al: There is nothing wrong with having preferences. The question was not whether CIS can decline to find trans women attractive, but whether it was okay to state this in her profile. If the price of not throwing out yet another blanket trans-negative statement via a personal ad is CIS having to politely, individually, say "I'm sorry, I don't find you attractive" (as opposed to "I don't find trans women attractive") then that's a very small price for a self-professed trans ally to pay.

Oh but if Dan was implying that anyone is obligated to go on dates with people they know before the date that they won't find attractive, I completely disagree.

CAYA: Many people, especially many straight people, have this idea about sex where every act should be equally satisfying for everyone involved, apart from maybe some brief turn-taking in foreplay... and then, when real sex doesn't measure up to that standard, someone's doing something wrong. No. It's nice when everything's enjoyable for everyone, and nobody should have to do stuff that they hate, but every sex act under the sun is going to be at least a little more for one partner than for the other.

Which is all to say, if you don't like having to rub her clit and watching her close her eyes and concentrate on that in the middle of the stuff that's supposed to be getting you off, why not try taking turns? If she likes being rubbed with her eyes closed, that can be what the two of you do in the part of the sex that's for her. If you like concentrating on the PIV, or if you want to experiment with more adventurous things, that can be what the two of you do in the part of the sex that's for you. Not everything the two of you like has to line up perfectly, as long as you're both willing to do what the other party enjoys, within reason, and you're able to talk with each other about what you're into.

CIS: Yes, it would be hurtful to just put up a thing on your profile saying "no trans women". It would probably drive away a lot of the people you'd actually be interested in dating, too - a lot of cis lesbians and bi women care about dating people who aren't transphobic, and it probably wouldn't matter once they get to know you that you're not into trans women in that way, but if their first impression of you is "might be transphobic," they might not want to bother. But that doesn't mean you should have to sit through a weird and awkward coffee date with someone you're not at all into, either.

Like, forget the trans and cis thing. The heart of the matter seems to be that you've been getting approached by women you didn't find attractive, and it's not fun being in a situation where you don't want to be a dick and hurt the girl's feelings but you also don't want to be too nice and make it look like you'd be up for a second date. You've probably gone on awkward dates with cis women you didn't find attractive, too, and while those dates apparently didn't come together as enough of a pattern to make you feel like something had to be done, they're basically part of the same problem: online dating does allow you to be selective of your prospective dates before you date them, but only if you actually put the work into being selective. If "she seems nice and her pictures are okay, sure, we'll go out for coffee" is all the work you put into screening your dates, you're going to end up on a bunch of dates with people who just aren't that hot to you.

Talk to the girls a little more before meeting up. Have a phone call or a Skype call. Exchange more casual pictures. Show each other your blogs and social media stuff, if either of you are into that. You'll probably be able to tell if this is someone who you want to date - and if she's not, you'll probably be able to think of a kind enough way to let her down. You won't be able to be as spontaneous, but that's the price you pay for avoiding those horrible doomed first dates. If spontaneity matters more, those horrible doomed first dates are the price you pay for getting to be able to just go on a date with a girl you met five minutes ago who seems okay. Either way, you can't have it all, but you can have whichever matters most to you.

And if you meet a girl, and you like her voice, and you like her pictures, and her tumblr seems reasonable and not horribly off-putting, and then after a pretty good first date, she comes out to you as a trans woman, is that the sort of person you'd really want to automatically filter out from interacting with you on the dating site anyway?

M? Miracles - If you were OS, I'd give you a Bell Award for "especially many straight people" in combination with declining to address the third letter. But your take on the second letter dealt well with one aspect of what to me kept Mr Savage's response from being a home run. I don't indulge in online dating with profiles, and rather wondered why or whether there mightn't be some way to filter out dealbreakers that don't go into profiles.

Ms Cute - I suspect I can trust you at least to recall, when Elizabeth Bennet tells Jane about half of Mr Darcy's letter, she speculates that between them Darcy and Wickham have just about enough merit to make one good sort of man. Here I think LW1 and W1 have just about enough demerit between them to make one dump-worthy person. Thankfully I don't have to apportion the fault (if pressed, I suppose I'd put it mostly with him); however it's distributed, at least they aren't one of those couples who are both so disagreeable that they need to stay together for the protection of any innocent alternate partners.

And I liked Mr Savage's framing of his second thought, even though I could contradict it (but I know I'm not allowed to give chapter and verse here); he leaves himself the opening that such a man could exist, and would just be one of the men Mr Savage hasn't yet met (whatever that number may be; if I were in a comedic mood, I'd guess the number to be 42).

I was at a party at friends house and he was surrounded by attractive Asian women as we hung out. His brother was dating one of them, but they were all obviously very close. Another one of our closest friend is Asian. In a private moment I asked him if he was seeing any of them and he looked at me and said: I am not just into Asian gals sexually. I am not racist, but apparently my penis is." Most of us have preferences for sexual attraction that are somewhat hard wired - To the woman who doesn't want trans dates, just put in your profile what types you DO want to encourage that, and don't go on any dates with women you don't find appealing. Most online daters ignore a high % of messages as most are not matches. You could always take the time to gently and gracefully reject the trans women who message and earn your karma points by being kind - you would be several steps ahead of most.

" I've never met a man who wasn't fixated on stimulating his dick during sex and/or having his dick stimulated for him during sex."

Bless you, Dan. Bless you.

We could perhaps consider the third letter a tale of conflicting POAs, and maybe proclaim that an "I" POA is more reasonable than a "You" POA or at least a lesser ask. Mr Savage handles this sort of question better for OS couples, I think; the tone of the response feels just a bit off in a weird way that's hard to pin down.

@vennominon: I'm a miss! Also, gay. I didn't have anything to say about the third letter because I thought Dan did a good job with it and there wasn't really anything more to say, but yeah, I don't think straight people are the only ones with those kinds of expectations. I was thinking about my experiences having sex with men before realizing I was gay (where PIV was treated like it was automatically going to be the main event for both parties, and there wasn't really any room to not be into it, or even to do it as something to pleasure your partner, like giving head - and I wasn't really into any of it, PIV or no, for obvious reasons, but looking back, there were all these expectations) versus sex with women (where taking turns is generally pretty much expected.) I wasn't really thinking of man/man couples, and I'm sorry for that! Next time I'll try to keep all possible combinations in mind.

Mr Ven @26 - Genuine curiosity here. If you were the sort of person who used online dating sites to find potential partners - would you be open to dating, or at least going on a first date with a trans man?

Having just celebrated my 21st anniversary with my partner, I will admit that I have never "done" online dating, but if I were to find myself suddenly single and looking, I would prefer to limit my interactions to women I'd be interested in pursuing a relationship with.

For me (if I were looking for something beyond casual) that would rule out bisexual women and women who don't have a passion for boating. While I'm sure that stating my boating preferences wouldn't raise any eyebrows, I'm fairly certain my perceived bi-phobia probably would - especially given Dan's advice.

But if I were to leave the bi bit out (in order not to offend bi persons and bi allies) it seems that online dating would become a lot more fraught and time intensive, what will all the investigating and questionnaires...

I'm interested in hearing your thoughts.

I totally agree w/the posters who are saying stating a preference in your online profile doesn't make you an asshole; this is another example of Dan expressing his rather distorted opinion on the matter but I guess that's what he's paid to do. Oh, and #5? Carolyn Hax may as well have been speaking Martian.

@21: So, SL readers -- who here has their eyes open when coming, and who has their eyes shut?

I don't know about men--I usually come with my eyes open, personally, and I'm told it's normal, for whatever that's worth--but almost no women do, in my experience so far; maybe 1 or 2 in 20. CAYA's wife sounds pretty normal, except for the not-GGG problem. And her style of orgasm isn't what makes her non-GGG; it's normal.

CAYA: Outside of S&M games, one shouldn't ask an eyes-closed type to keep their eyes open.

@5: Hax's script is pure gold, particularly in the way it gets to the question that actually matters.

@34 if you're interested, you might follow the link. Her advice is clearer in context but I didn't want to quote the whole thing.

I horny when hot guy eat broccoli. My boyfriend not GGG? DTMFA?

@4 please learn the difference between vulvas and clits. Also between flogging (?!?!) And slapping. Not going to help this girl. Also, you're an a$$hole. She doesn't have to come in the manner you prefer or that caya prefers just because you/he think she should any more than you're suddenly going to change how you come. Also, @32, caya did complain about how she needed to come. Reread.

Ugh. I was hoping to show Dan's response to LW1 to my husband, since the eyes-closed-during-sex thing is something he likewise has a problem with, but Dan's last suggestion--that maybe it's because the man is unattractive--is the last thing I want him to think (and I know that's what he already does think, despite my reassurance to the contrary). I've mostly given up on keeping my eyes closed, despite the fact that it enhances the pleasurable sensations for me, because my husband feels that it sharply reduces the intimacy of the connection when I don't look into his eyes (and did I mention he's insecure about his looks?)

It would've been nice if Dan had simply stuck to the "maybe that's what she needs to concentrate/fantasize/come" and had left out the "or maybe you're ugly." As it is, I guess I'll stick to trying to come after PIV, assuming I still have the energy.

Ms Miracles - No offence taken, and I don't think every post has to be inclusive of everyone; it was just an amusing combination seeing a suggestion that X was especially a straight phenomenon when there was a Gay X letter right in the column. Nothing wrong with speaking your own experience.

The idea feels a little counter-intuitive, as SS couples who don't choose to lock into "complementary" roles have an easier time going for total equality of outcome. Imagine, say, someone like Ms Gnot demanding a 1:1 climax ratio from a male partner; the mind boggles!

Hey, Philo, I like broccoli!
I’ve had the clit thing drilled into me since my teens, so that I just think of this as SOP. If the girl was actually recoiling away from the penis, would be one thing, but CAYA seems to have that old-school 'self-diddling makes him anxious’ thing, which is separate from ‘I want to get into some more sexually adventurous stuff’ issue.
I’ve always found a girl fingering herself during sex or blow jobs or crosswords or whatever to be hot, though I’m happy to do it myself (left thumb) if she’s on top. Has anyone, who doesn’t have arms like an orangutan, found a way to do this doggie? I pretty much cede that one over.

I’ve never really thought about it, but I can’t remember seeing a girl, either live or onscreen, come with her eyes open...must be one of those things like a sneeze. I never took it as a reflection on me, as with the mouth contortion and everything it was obvious the girl was having a good time.

And really, Dan? Asshole = ‘no fats, no femmes?’ This from a guy who regularly brags on how his husband looks like briefs, i.e. is muscular and athletic, and drools over Olympic snowboarders? (and yes, if you like ‘em thick, like frequent writer Ricardo, nothing wrong with that. Ditto femmes.) Yes, that’s a curt and ungraceful way to put it, but as others here have said, I strongly question the value of what will likely be an increasingly uncomfortable coffee date, where one party thinks that a romantic option is a valid possibility, and the other is taking pains to tactfully scotch that idea while putting out the ‘let’s be pals!’ thing. Stranger Personals do have the ‘looking for friendship’ button, still, right?
I say this as someone who’s 5’7, and thus several inches below what many (a majority?) of women looking online, even ones well below my height, consider acceptable. I don’t think much of a 5’2 girl demanding a guy 5’10 or taller, but I’m not arsed to try to talk anyone out of it, and if she saw me enter the bar or wherever we were to first meet and her face fell as my True Stature was made plain...just, no.
Say what you want, deal with the consequences.

Above should be ‘looks like IN briefs.'

Sexual attraction is not 'fair'. I doubt trans folks want to waste their time with people who will never be attracted to them. If having a sexual preference really makes someone an asshole then that seems like awesome information to put in a dating profile for people who prefer not to date assholes.

Personally (and as a trans woman), I think if someone doesn't want to date any and all trans women (or trans men, or agender people, or any other category), they should be upfront about it. It saves everyone time and stress. Sure, you might lose some dates from trans-allied cis women, but that's life. Have preferences, state them, let other people form their opinions of you based on those preferences.

Often when I close my eyes during direct clit stimulation, all I'm thinking about is the sensation. She isn't necessarily having some other fantasy.
Also, maybe a toy like the we-vibe would satisfy all the right locations?

http://we-vibe.com/we-vibe-3

@40 we share and build on our fantasies during PIV -- our eyes are open and it's very intimate. Usually he comes then, and then he's happy to help me come (my eyes closed, I'm off continuing the fantasy, sometimes out loud but usually silently) with his hands & mouth on me as well a vibrator. Can you try to change things up a little so that he gets the intimacy he wants during "his" time and he lets you be yourself during "your" time?

As miracles said so well @25: "nobody should have to do stuff that they hate, but every sex act under the sun is going to be at least a little more for one partner than for the other."

If he won't let you be yourself, then I would drag him to couples counseling and make sure he understands how much he is undermining the marriage. There's no point in being in a relationship where you can't be yourself.

I think a lot of people are overlooking that he does apparently do the clit-work himself sometimes -- "she's concentrating on the rubbing—whether she's doing it or I am". Like @46, I was going to suggest a vibrator, but I don't think it has to be one of the ones targeted for couples, necessarily. Vibes are less work generally, so it might take less concentration for her to use one, but if she can get off on partner-executed rubbing during PIV as implied, then she might be able to get off from his using one on her (which is harder if the clit-haver being pleasured needs really precision stimulation). Of course, in order to know whether that's going to 'solve' the 'problem' we'd need to know what kind of stuff he wants to try -- partner-vibing helps with some sorts of bondage, but isn't going to change her mind if he wants foot-play and she doesn't -- and whether her necessary concentration is mental, in which case, yeah, the solutions about taking turns are likely the only way to go. i am really not sure what this guy is after -- there are charitable and non-charitable interpretations -- and whether his trying to change or 'fix' the way she comes is actually going to help him get where he wants to go.

Also, for the informal survey of female readers: my eyes are often open for at least part of my orgasm. Eye contact very hot in certain positions.

CAYA seems to be conflating two "problems," one of which is real and one isn't: The first is that she's an eyes-closed type (not a problem; get over it dude), and the second is that she's a no-foreplay, missionary-only type (huge problem, break up). He thinks these are related, but they're not.

Ms Jibe - For at least one reason I shan't state, I could see myself dating a trans man, though not one like Mr Angel; I'd be the wrong choice for someone who'd want being trans to be a distinct plus for a partner. And of course I'd have strong limitations, so that the harder thing to imagine would be why a trans man (I forestall the assembled company from saying "or anyone else") would be interested in me.

In your potential example, one thing that jumps out would be that your dating would be targeted towards serious relationship material, which would seem to be the area allowing for the highest proportion of dealbreakers and dislikes; whether that would be the sort of thing to put in a profile I would not want to say as an outsider, but I can certainly see the Ally Card case. Then it switches over to the question of whether one has to be an Ally to be a decent person. I don't think it's necessary, and am not big personally on requiring Ally status, but LW clearly wants to keep her Ally Card, which limits her options.

I don't want to imply that there's any force behind my opinion. I think I'd rather have dislikes which would rule me out out in the open, rather like the flip side of the way I'd want to know, if I were marrying, that the baker would be enthusiastic about the cake and not providing it out of obligation. But then again, despite some people around here having formed the impression that I'm in need of regular attention from a fire brigade, I haven't been on the receiving end of being ruled out by 90%-95% of people I might find interesting before there might even be any chance of being acquainted (not quite Anne Elliot and Captain Wentworth, but on that spectrum). Oh, dear.

Personally I think that while it is fine to have your preferences, and to be aware of what turns you on and attracts you, and what doesn't, that if you automatically discounting people due to theirrace is racist (because their race is the only thing that is playing into the decision). I can see someone being transgender being the same way.

Do I think I would ever find myself wanting to be with a transgender person? Not really. That dick is kind of important to me and a FTM transgender person is inherently going to lack a fully functioning dick. I would be equally unlikely to start something with a non transgender man who's dick didn't function fully (and no, if I was involved with someone already and their dick stopped working I wouldn't leave them, but I don't see starting off with someone knowing there is going to be something missing that matters).

But saying that who knows? Maybe if I met that one special FTM transgender person I wouldn't care. Same would go for race. I may have my preferences but who knows? Maybe that one guy who doesn't fit my regular preferences might turn me on.

Sure, parsing folks down if you happen to be the type who gets a lot of responses that it really is a problem to sort them makes sense. But there are ways to do it without being a dick. You can say something like, "Asians and Cisgender a +" rather than "Whites only and no transsexuals".

But really, is it so hard to just let people reply and then only respond to the ones that actually attract your attention. And just because black guys or women never attracted you before doesn't mean that the next one that replies to your profile won't knock you off your feet. You aren’t a racist for not having found people of a certain race attractive so far. You are a racist if you discount the possibility of ever dating someone of a certain race due to their race alone.

Knowing what you have liked in the past and what you generally like now doesn't mean you can't be at least a little open minded.

I also think Dan got @CIS wrong; there is nothing wrong with expressing your preferences for dating/sex. Perhaps it centers on this: I still feel/believe there is a bigger difference between a non-op transwoman and a cis-woman than just "you're heavier than in your photo". Completely reasonable for CIS to say "not attracted to transwomen".

@24 - the difficulty is that quite often many trans folks don't disclose. Just like many people use old photographs that fail to show weight gain or hair loss, what have you. It's a deliberate bait-and-switch.

Having run into (more than?) my share of women who are of the same stripe as @6, @9, @13 & @21 (and being of the shut eyes variety at times myself) , I'm inclined to agree that this is probably what's going on. She's trying as hard as she can to get off the only way she knows how, and yes, it's probably precluding engaging in other stuff. I think @CAYA needs to back off the pressure, and start paying attention to what his wife is doing, and getting creative with coming up with newer and better ways of providing stimulation to the same places.

@4 - love the Hax version myself. It does address a particular catch-21 with ultimatums.

The original letter:
My wife is one of those women who need manual stimulation of her clit during sex to climax. Before meeting her, I had several long-term girlfriends, and not one needed to do this in order to climax. Before we got married, I explained that I wanted to explore and push the boundaries, and she promised me that would happen. But she has no fantasies, kinks, or fetishes, and she's not into any of the things I've proposed. Bringing this all together is that when we are having sex, she's so fixated on stimulating her clit, it's almost like we are in two different worlds. When she's working toward an orgasm, her eyes are shut and she's concentrating on the rubbing—whether she's doing it or I am—and I can't help but wonder if the work it takes to get her to orgasm is part of the reason she's not interested in exploring. I've talked to her several times about how I'm yearning to do more, but I haven't brought up my thoughts on how the way she comes may be affecting things.

As others have pointed out, CAYA is conflating three issues that should be teased apart: his wife doesn’t come the way he wants her to, she seems not to have any “fantasies, kinks, or fetishes,” and she is reluctant or unwilling to change up what he feels is a stale routine in their sex life by introducing certain acts or whatever it is he defines as pushing boundaries.

So let’s start with the first issue: that CAYA’s wife doesn’t come the way he wants her to, which actually breaks into more than one component: (1) He wants her to come through PIV sex alone (all his previous girlfriends seemed to be able to climax hands-free). (2) She seems to turn inward more than he’d like, focusing on the stimulation she needs to climax and closing her eyes. (3) He thinks that the fact that it is an effort for her to orgasm is what might be keeping her from being more experimental with the sex they have.

I have to agree with Dan that it’s suspicious that none or CAYA’s prior girlfriends needed anything more than his penis in their vaginas to orgasm. If he’d had only one that was able to come that way, that’s one thing, but given that all of them were able to come from PIV alone is too much of a coincidence. Given his attitude that his wife is somehow doing sex-and-orgasm wrong because she needs digital stimulation, I can imagine that those earlier girlfriends felt pressure to give him what he wanted and realizing it wasn’t going to happen for them anyway, just faked it. CAYA, one way of looking at it is that while you can never be sure that your previous girlfriends were actually orgasming, you know beyond a doubt that when you have sex with your wife, she ends up satisfied. Either your fingers and her thoughts or her fingers and her thoughts are bringing her to orgasm. That’s great.

For what it’s worth, up until recently with the sex I have with my current boyfriend, I needed to go really inward and focus on my own thoughts--I didn’t mind sharing them with my partner in theory, but in reality, in the moment, it takes too much energy and moves the focus away too much to start to articulate the thoughts as I get closer to orgasm. Sometimes in the earlier phase of a relationship, before we really knew each other’s responses and had developed our own patterns, I had to actively shut him and what he was doing out of my mind if I wanted to come, not because I wasn’t attracted to him, because I really was, but because even hearing him say things that weren’t part of my fantasy could throw me off. My orgasms were sometimes a bit elusive and took a lot of work—and if I was interrupted in a variety of different ways as I neared the approach, everything risked being thrown off. Happily, I was fortunate enough to have been with several partners who didn’t take it personally, who realized their contribution to my pleasure and orgasm was significant and substantial, even if it was my fingers or my hand holding the vibrator, and who found my orgasms arousing. As we got more comfortable with each other and more in sync, I was able to keep my mind more with the man himself and what he was doing, which was great. But until quite recently, I couldn’t come from PIV alone, and until several years ago, I needed to go into a more inward mental state to get all the way to climax. Most of the time, my eyes were/are closed at orgasm. Sometimes it’s part of the way I focus on the mental state I need(ed) to be in, blocking out distracting even if not unwelcome sights; sometimes it just helps intensify the physical sensations; sometimes it’s involuntary.

But really, CAYA, this is how her body works. She might be unable to come any other way (at least for now); she might be unable to keep her eyes open at the moment of orgasm. So the question you have to ask yourself is do you care more about her genuine pleasure or do you care more that she conform to whatever it is that you think her pleasure should look like?

As far as the other issues go, there is no reason to assume that because she doesn’t orgasm on demand from PIV she is unwilling to explore more boundary-crossing activities. If indeed she isn’t willing or enthusiastic about exploring less vanilla acts or using more unusual props it likely has nothing to do with the way she ultimately comes. And she really may not have any fantasies, kinks, or fetishes. Or not any that she’s willing to share with you yet (she may be embarrassed). Or she may not have any yet, but that doesn’t mean that someday she won’t. I’ve found that some women, me included, didn’t have any fantasies, kinks, or fetishes when we were younger and we’ve kind of grown into them in middle age—say starting in mid-30s. Maybe she’s just not there yet. Again, I think you need to decide if your wife as she is—with her attraction to you, and all the things that make her uniquely herself—is exciting enough for you or whether you care more that she conform to whatever it is that you think she should be and want.

But lastly in response to the issue of her unadventurousness , yes, it appears that she’s not being ggg. Have you really let her know how much you want to try some of these boundary-crossing acts? Don’t mix that desire up with the way she comes or the fact that she doesn’t appear to have any unexplored interests herself; just have a conversation about what you want to do. Pick an activity that interests you that doesn’t seem too threatening for her to start. Tell her that you have always wanted to explore this and you are excited at the idea of doing it with her. Listen to her response and don’t nag her, but if she continues to put you off with some vague offer of someday, realize that that probably means it’s never going to happen. So if that is what she gives you, you have some other decisions vis a vis your marriage to consider.

@SilverChimera: As a man, I can related to the desire for eye contact during sex. It seems I can never get enough. Sex or eye contact. But a guy has to be realistic and flexible and appreciative of what he has. If eye contact is important, ask her to stare mischievously or (better yet) devotedly into your eyes as she holds your dick deep in her mouth or runs her tongue up and down it. (Hot!) Or when she's finished coming and it's your turn, ask her to stare deep into your eyes and take you over the falls. (Winning!) If she's willing to give you eye contact in some contexts, you really have no business hassling her about keeping her eyes open specifically during orgasm.

P.S. Also, it's her orgasm, let her have it her way so that it's as enjoyable to her as possible. If you're getting her off the way she likes, that's usually means you have less to be insecure about.

@21: I think most if not all women I've been with closed their eyes during orgasm. I sometimes do, too.

I'd be interested in knowing what trans women who seek women would have to say to CIS. Would it be more, "Give me a break. You can't waste your time looking at me over coffee?" or "Actually I'd prefer it if you didn't waste my time." On most issues like this, there's a split.

@1 nocutename and @29 NopeNopeNope: For the win! I third that.
Once again, congrats on slamming yet another Grand Salami, Dan the Man! I especially liked your advice to CAYA.
@21 BiDanFan: My eyes are definitely wide shut during stimulation, and largely due to recurring wild fantasies running simultaneously with intercourse.

The answer to CIS is plain wrong. Saying "No she-males" would make someone not an ally. Saying, "cis women only" is simply being true to herself and her attractions. This also goes with people's preferences on race, sex, size, age, values, beliefs, ideologies, etc. We're talking about trying to fall in love and spend our lives with people. Early dating is the time to be picky.

I swear, it's like no one thinks they should be offended our disappointed anymore. We are still live in a world with other people, right?

It would probably drive away a lot of the people you'd actually be interested in dating, too

I wouldn't want to waste time on someone who thought my preference for non-trans people made me a transphobe.

On reread, I become more and more convinced that CAYA is starting from some really inaccurate assumptions:
1. Both parties must orgasm at the same time or from the same activity.
2. Certain orgasm styles aren't legit.
3. Orgasm style influences whether or not you're willing to indulge your partner.

That last line, though... "but I haven't brought up my thoughts on how the way she comes may be affecting things."

It's a good thing you haven't brought this up, CAYA, because those thoughts aren't correct.

And even if they were, what would that accomplish? Telling someone that the way they come is causing problems is just going to make them feel bad, it's not going to change anything.

@59: Yeah. If a straight man puts up an ad only for women, does that mean he's not an "ally?" What's an ally? If "ally" means "have sex with who I want you to have sex with, rather than who you want to have sex with," then no thanks. That's pretty rapey.

Of course, as you say, a straight man saying "no fags" is an asshole and not anyone's definition of "ally," but that's not the same thing.

I haven't read the comments. But for #1, the one argument I have with Dan's answer, which was right on otherwise, was the "not attracted to" thing.

No no no!

It doesn't matter how attractive we find you, men. If we are on the challenging side of the arousal spectrum (it seems like this woman is, me too) you're either contributing to the cause or you're disrupting it. And if you put pressure on us to be doing it faster or easier or more sexily or whatever, you're disrupting. And we'll forgive you, but we'll also shut you out so we can get there without your expectations getting in the way.

She isn't trying not to see you, she's just trying to not get off track.

One thing to do- read up on how the whole orgasm thing works for women. Some women have a long "plateau" phase and honestly men get really impatient and start to feel like nothing is happening. They want to change things up, which can be counterproductive (depending).

But if course you'd know this if you were interested in how she works sexually rather than what she could do for you sexually, right? I am betting that getting her to the "exploration" stage is going to start with you figuring out how she works and what makes her feel good.

And the first step is asking how you can be part of her orgasm rather than a distraction she has to contend with.

Great answer for CAYA from Dan but I would add the reminder that most/many women are not as visual about sex as men. Don't assume that just because her eyes are closed she isn't paying attention to you, she just could be deep into her other senses in those moments. It sounds to me like the issue is you don't have good open lines of communication in the bedroom, and that is where you should put in the work. Good sex is a journey, not a destination.

I am with Dan on letter 2. We all have preferences in dating, and some of them are more discriminatory than others, but when we make them into rules we limit ourselves.

Don't limit yourself based on external factors. There are a lot of amazing humans that travel in unexpected forms.

@62: Estarianne, I since modified my stance re my comment @1, which was really mostly for the third letter.
See my (too long) post @54 about closing my eyes to avoid getting off track.

Dan, it is rare to see you SO WRONG like you were with CIS.

Arguing that in order to be a trans ally you must be willing to date trans people is as ridiculous as arguing that in order to be an Gay/Lesbian/Bi ally you must be willing to date someone of the same sex. As a cisgender hetero male I would not date a trans woman, but that does not make me less supportive of equal protections for trans men and women in all aspects of society. I have no problem working with trans people, living with them, hanging out with them, I just would not want a sexual or romantic relationship.

Considering how much offense cis-gender people would take to being asked "are you trans," until dating websites allow people to specify whether they are interested in trans people, I feel the rule of thumb trans people should follow is "If the relationship would lead to sex or romance, disclose while exchanging messages (if not on your profile)." For all other relationships (work, social, educational, etc.) when or IF you disclose is up to you.

Estarianne @62 "the first step is asking how you can be part of her orgasm rather than a distraction"

Great advice!

@Estarianne/ #64, if someone asked you in person or via a dating website "are you trans" would you be OK with that? How many people do you think would think would not take offense to being asked that? The implication of that question is that the man has significant feminine aspects to their appearance or a woman has strong masculine characteristics, ergo most people find that insulting, cis or trans.

Sorry, I meant letter #1, not comment #1. I haven't really read all the comments! Should have been clearer.

#68. I am not sure what you're asking? I guess I am not sure what you thought I was saying that this question would be necessary?

Who would ask such a thing? It's an offensive question. What is under my clothes isn't their business until I make it so.

That's my point. Don't make getting to know people about what is under their clothes. If you're only attracted to super feminine women, there are a lot of cis women who won't meet that requirement, and some trans women who might.

But you'd have to be honest with yourself. If someone didn't tell you and you were attracted to them, would finding out they were trans change that? Because that's something different.

I guess I don't understand the focus on genitalia. If I met a man and was attracted, would I be disgusted if I found he'd lost his penis to injury? Would I dump him if I found he was impotent but not a asexual?

How is it different to find he was born without one?

I think the issue of "Right to know" for trans people is very personal. Certainly they should divulge before clothes come off, but just getting to know someone? No, it's nobody's business.

If someone really would be horrified to find a person they liked and was attracted to was trans, then they should certainly put that in their profile. But I agree with Dan that it reveals something, because it says "even if I am attracted to you, your genitals are not up to my standards."

And yes, I know trans men can have penises. I chose the extreme case.

@70: " Don't make getting to know people about what is under their clothes." Dating isn't only about getting to know people. It is an aspect of life in which what's under someone's clothes is pretty important to just about everyone. Gay, straight, bi, cis, trans, unless we're completely pansexual, we all have preferences about what kind of genitals we hope or expect or want to find under the clothes of someone we're considering getting naked with.
Dating is different than working relationships or friendships. And while I can easily have coffee with someone whose genitals I don't wish to bonk, and I have had plenty of first-and-last-meeting-for-coffee-or-a-glass-of-wine dates with cis men whom I didn't want to see again for a host of reasons (nor they, me), I have every right to a preference about what's under the clothing of a date. To suggest that everyone should be perfectly willing to date someone whose genitals don't match up with what they want to have sex with is disingenuous.

When you say, "But you'd have to be honest with yourself. If someone didn't tell you and you were attracted to them, would finding out they were trans change that? Because that's something different," you are suggesting that if your initial attraction to someone changed once you discovered that their genitals were otherwise than you had had good reason to believe, you need to do some serious self-evaluation or you're a bigot. I disagree.
Fortunate @52 and unknown_entity @66 are spot on.

@71: "If I met a man and was attracted, would I be disgusted if I found he'd lost his penis to injury? Would I dump him if I found he was impotent but not a asexual?"

It reads like you're presenting these as rhetorical questions; in reality, these are rhetorical questions for almost nobody.

"I guess I don't understand the focus on genitalia."

Are you unaware that sex typically involves genitalia? It is a common thing for us humans.

More seriously, belittling other people's preferences is not actually an excuse to try to coerce them into having sex with people they don't want to have sex with.

No means no, even if you think it's rude for other people to say no. Your opinion isn't the one that matters; if you want them to say yes and they say no, then no.

I guess I don't understand the focus on genitalia. If I met a man and was attracted, would I be disgusted if I found he'd lost his penis to injury?

Why are you using loaded terms like "disgusted" and "horrified"? Who else in this thread has implied he or she would have such extreme reactions?

Is anyone else who listened to this week's Lovecast wondering which four SLOG commenters are, as alleged by Sherman Alexie, all the same person?

If it turns out they're nocutename, vennominion, lolorhone and Ophian, I swear my head will explode.

For the record, I think it is obnoxious and boorish to put something like "no trans people," or "cis people only," or "only men with full heads of hair will be considered," or "no one under 6'1" or the like.
I'm not even sure that it's not kind of obnoxious to put something in a profile like "I prefer cisgender men," or "tall with a slim build is a plus."

I think dating profiles should be best used as places to sell yourself, but honestly. Don't post out of date photos or try and disguise your baldness by cropping your photo super-duper close-up. Don't give a fake weight or body type or age. Don't disguise the fact that going to the stock car races or the opera is very, very important to you. If you have extreme pet allergies, better to list them so the pet owners can weed themselves out. If you have a pet, especially if it lives indoors or sleeps in your bedroom, you should put that out there so the highly allergic can weed themselves out.
I'm a big believer in disclosing the kind of stuff that's likely to be a deal maker or breaker right up front so as to save both parties time and angst.

I have seen trans men who have identified themselves as trans on their profiles, and have been grateful to them for that, as it kept an awkward moment from happening later. I disclose all my warts (well, wrinkles, more like) because I don't want to waste my time meeting someone who was possibly expecting someone younger and will be disappointed. I'd rather simply not have had the initial conversation. I'm overweight and say so, describing my body type accurately and posting representative photographs. I don't do this to spare the man's feelings or to make it less uncomfortable for him; I'd rather not have to see the look of disgust or horror in someone's eyes if he thought I was going to be slim and he's repulsed by me. It's a self-protective proactive maneuver.
As a matter of fact, I'm currently dating a guy who said he saw my profile and was initially attracted to everything about me except that my body type wasn't his usual type. So he passed; he didn't contact me (I had not seen his profile and had no idea he'd seen mine and rejected me, so I had no reason to be upset). Then several weeks later, he came across my profile again, decided that everything else looked so promising that he'd reach out and start a conversation. And now we're in love and the attraction is intense. So he re-thought and re-examined and initiated a dialogue. But it wasn't like he had contacted me to tell me that I wasn't his type and he was repulsed by me. He just had all the information he might need or want to help him make some initial decisions.

Really? Being gay or straight is about genitalia?

I like penises, sure, but a penis is not a person. I don't go to bed with genitalia, I go to bed with a person (the same one, for 22 years).

Do you see a trans person as being fundamentally different from a person who has had their genitalia lost or damaged or changed? Does a man who has no penis due to cancer have the same responsibility to others as a trans man?

If you have specific requirements for genitalia, how is that restricted to trans people? Maybe "only working penises over 6" should be the warning. That way men with micropenis will know they are not welcome also?

Personally, I'd not respond to a profile that saw my vagina as a key to my value in a sexual relationship. Being one of those odd women described in letter 1 and all. If vaginas are the end all be all for sexual gratification, that leaves we 75% feeling like we get the leftovers.

And I'll add that self reflection is never a bad thing. If you can be insanely attracted to someone without seeing their sex organs, why would seeing trans organs shut that off?

@Fred Casely: Ha! Nope, I'm just me. Considering I have crushes on all three of those guys (none of whom would be interested in me) that would be the height of narcissism. Besides, if I am also someone else, I'm seandr. Notice that you've never seen the two of us in the same room at the same time. And he's been MIA lately . . .

Really? Being gay or straight is about genitalia?

That's not anywhere close to what Eudaemonic said. You're reading a LOT into these posts that aren't there.

And I'll also add that if sexual orientation is based on genitals, that basically means that trans people are a separate gender.

Can you say that and consider yourself a trans ally? Isn't accepting people as the gender they present part of the ally club rules?

"Really? Being gay or straight is about genitalia?"

Anti-gay bigots often pretend to think so, just as you're currently pretending to think about everyone who isn't bi.

Try some of that self-reflection you're recommending: Right now, you're trying to shame people into having sex with people they don't want to have sex with. If it works, you're a rapist. If it doesn't work, you're completely wasting your time and being an asshole.

Why are you doing it?

#80 sorry, I'm not tagging my posts. My bad.

That was in response to #73

Gay, straight, bi, cis, trans, unless we're completely pansexual, we all have preferences about what kind of genitals we hope or expect or want to find under the clothes of someone we're considering getting naked with.

82

So only bisexual people would have sex with trans people?

Also, please point out the quote where I said "you should have sex with a trans person."

I get that some people are confusing genitals with gender.

That's part of what you have to get over to be a good trans ally.

Gender is not determined by what's under your pants. Or dress.

Thank you for Eudamonic and nocutename for your contributions on CIS' letter and your thoughtful, well reasoned rebuttals to Estarianne.

Eud - It seems that you and I sorta agree for once. My only objection is your repeated use of the term rape. Please stop. You don't need it to make your point, and for those of us (and this includes you) for whom the term holds personal meaning - it's jarring and disturbing.

Estarianne, I see you missed the part about self-reflection. What are the intended goals of your crusade against allowing people to have preferences?

Stop trying to blow clouds of squid ink and think for a moment. Why are you doing what you're doing?

@30: What is a POA?

@39: I think @32's point was that CAYA was confused about the real issue.

Ms Cute @73 last paragraph - That TW/CW discussion is the sort of thing I see from time to time elsewhere, and it can escalate pretty quickly with attempts to juggle all the cakes on both sides. The end result of the conversation does frequently appear as if most of the participants are left with figurative cake on their faces.

Again, I'm outside this circle and only offer the thought tentatively, but do some consider the coffee meeting more of an interview than a date? Some people will still need to be more focused than others and only see serious candidates.

It does seem a little horse-behind-cart sometimes that, if we take a recent polarizing example, not many people would blink twice if A decided not to date B if B liked (or didn't like) Mr Morrissey, but serious and farther-reaching incompatibilities can produce so much wringing of hands and agonized analysis.

Dan's response to the lesbian is problematic. He fancies his bloke for reasons not-unconnected with his being muscular, attractive, gorgeous in tiny briefs, which makes calling a 'no fats, no fems' advert 'asshole' a possible double standard. He has several times (seriously or not) pointed out that women's bits are icky and he doesn't want to date a person with a vulva, ever. This sort-of implies that fancying particular types of people can sometimes be non-negotiable, which further implies that he would never go out with a trans man, regardless of personality etc. Which implies that it may be unfair for him to hold this lesbian to a different standard, especially since genitals are considered a Big Deal in society and this actually might be the point she's trying to make ('even if she's a gorgeous woman, the dick gets in the way of the attraction'). I think if it is something like this, it's only courtesy on both sides to clarify it first, because most romantic relationships do have an implication that the clothes will come off some time.

I can't help thinking the husband who feels funny about his wife rubbing her clit (eyes-closed is fairly common among women who need to concentrate to get off, I should think) has had a higher than usual proportion of fakers in his past. If he thinks women's masturbatory operating procedure is weird and a turn-off, he seems to show all the signs of thinking a woman's sexuality is there for the man's benefit, and the others had suspiciously convenient orgasms that didn't bother him by getting in the way or taking too long.

Women! Do not fake, for the comfort of your ex's next girlfriend. You don't want him to get the impression that the female orgasm takes no work, shows no undignified expressions, and requires no knowledge of the external clitoris. People generalise anyway (I remember how surprised I was the one time I encountered a man who preferred to be stimulated at the base of the shaft rather than the glans), but faking and porn can lead to ridiculous expectations of how the female orgasm works.

89

I see you still think I pay attention to the posts you intend to be insulting. I don't usually read past things like calling me a rapist.

I don't think this is a reasoned argument at all because in your offense you're arguing your apples against my oranges.

You are saying you do not want to have sex with this person. Well, if you don't want to have sex with them, don't get them naked. Problem solved.

But that's not the situation I was talking about, was it? You won't even talk about that situation, in which you DO want to have sex with them, and then find out they do not have the parts you were expecting.

Now I did say that disclosure was necessary before clothes come off, but playing this scenario out, what is it about the unexpected genitalia that suddenly turns you off?

The comments here have made it seem like you think that being attracted to a transman/having sex with a transman would make me something other than heterosexual. If you're accepting that trans people are the gender they present as, why is that?

@42: I'm skinny, and tall guys have been able to reach my clit during doggy-style. It generally works better when I do that myself though. (It's the only way I can come during doggy-style, though I can come from PIV when I am facing my partner and his body rubs against my clit. Or vice versa. But not from slapping balls (@4) -- that feels kinda cool but it's nowhere near enough sensation to come.)

@83: No, Estarianne, being gay or straight isn't just about genitalia. But part of dating is about having sex, and if you prefer or are only attracted to a particular sex's genitals, I think that that is relevant information. Most of us have every right to expect that we won't be surprised by the genitals of a person we're going to get naked with. And it doesn't make me a shallow bigot or not a trans ally if I don't want to have sex with someone who has either a vulva or a surgically created penis. You say, "Personally, I'd not respond to a profile that saw my vagina as a key to my value in a sexual relationship. Being one of those odd women described in letter 1 and all. If vaginas are the end all be all for sexual gratification, that leaves we 75% feeling like we get the leftovers." To which I reply that a man who goes out with me expects to find a clitoris and a vagina. I'm not affronted by that. And if that wasn't the case, I'd want to spare myself a Crying Game moment and let him know well beforehand. If there was a penis under my dress, I'd work that fact in on my dating profile.

You say:" I like penises, sure, but a penis is not a person. I don't go to bed with genitalia, I go to bed with a person (the same one, for 22 years).

Do you see a trans person as being fundamentally different from a person who has had their genitalia lost or damaged or changed? Does a man who has no penis due to cancer have the same responsibility to others as a trans man?"

I think you're being disingenuous and taking a fairly holier-than-thou attitude. I don't see a trans person as being fundamentally different from anyone, I don't see someone whose genitals have been lost or damaged due to illness or accident as being fundamentally different from anyone--on any level except my interest in having sex with him. I like cock. I have a reasonable preference for a natural, human penis. I'm not going to be guilted into feeling like a bigot for that. If I was already in a relationship with a man who lost his genitals though disease or accident or had to have them surgically altered, I wouldn't leave him. And like you, I go to bed with a person, not a disembodied penis--but a person with a functional penis. I can be attracted to someone sexually upon an initial meeting and have that attraction shift into a warm friendship or admiration for all kinds of reasons. If I find that any of a number of criteria aren't present I have every right to no longer want to fuck that person just because was attracted to him when I read his profile or saw his photograph or spoke on the phone or even met in person and had a nice lunch. As it happens, I have gone out with a man who turned out to have a true micropenis (about a half inch long). We didn't meet via a dating website, but through friends and we hit it off well enough. I was attracted enough to want to have sex with him, and he hadn't disclosed it before our clothes came off. I behaved graciously and gracefully in the moment, and we did have sex, but penis-in-vagina sex, feeling that filled-up feeling is extremely important to me and I didn't want to have sex with someone who couldn't satisfy me that way. Without telling him why, I shifted the terms of our relationship to one of non-sexual friendship. I wasn't rude; I wasn't horrified; I didn't scream. But that initial attraction evaporated and I don't think it was due to a lack of self-reflection on my part. Or should I have continued sleeping with him to earn your approval of being open-minded?

You sound as if you're one step away from saying "well if you liked him when you met for coffee, you have no excuse for not having sex with him later." People are allowed to have their hard limits without being castigated for them. You say you have been with your husband for the past 22 years--I don't know whether you two are monogamous or not. But it sounds like you're well out of the dating scene and trans people weren't as prevalent 23 years ago. Perhaps if you were back on the market you'd find your practices were a bit different from your preachings. If not, that's fine, but if so, that would be a legitimate reaction.

92

I considered that aspect as well. But this isn't about dating people, it's about meeting people.

I wouldn't blink if someone said "I don't date Republicans." But if they said "I won't meet a Republican?" That would make me think they were intolerant.

People are so complex and are so much more than any one thing. Narrowing people down to a single trait is very limiting.

Ms Fan - Price of Admission (Mr Savage's term). Mr S advises LW to frame accepting sex-without-LW-always-climaxing as a POA, but we could consider that BF is acting as if sex-with-both-(or-neither-)climaxing-every-time is *his* POA. I think Mr Savage's tone is a holdover from his taking the woman's side when this disagreement occurs between the halves of an OS couple, which is fine for the OS problem, but doesn't really apply here.

96

I asked a question. Where did I say that there was only one right answer?

I said that if you were focused on someone having a penis, that was a different thing than being focused on them not being trans. Is this not so?

Why is it acceptable for you to not get my point of view, but my not being able to get yours is "holier than thou?" I never said you had to have sex with a trans person, not did I say the LW should have sex with a trans person.

My issue was with your bringing sexuality into the discussion about genitals. Because that implies that someone without the genitals of a genetic female can't really be a woman. And it was added to by the implication that someone who would go to bed with a man without a penis is bisexual.

When I think of pansexual, I don't think of people willing to go to bed with transpeople. I think of people willing to go to bed with people without binary gender, as well as men or women.

I don't care if you demand a penis. But make it about demanding a penis, not about the person's sexual identity.

@6 and @9 and @13 (and anyone else in the same boat - I *had* to comment before reading anymore) - Thank you SO much for reassuring me that there are more women that find it difficult to orgasm unless they intensely focus on their clit. I've never posted before (long-time reader/lurker) and the first letter really irked me because the LW's attitude seems to be so pervasive.

#79, damn, didn’t get a crush...
I don’t like long goodbyes. I’ll see myself out, there’s a letter for you on the dresser.

#90 - Piece of asteroid?

#85, you’re being disingenuous when you ask ‘Where did I suggest you have sex with a trans person?’ This discussion has become (mostly) about personal ads and dating, two activities that for the majority of people participating have a sexual relationship as one of the goals (those who don’t, can check the ‘looking for friends’ box, but who is drinking buddies/card night pals with whom doesn’t seem to be an issue here.)

Likewise with the ‘reducing people to genitals’ trope, also known as the ‘Fallacy of the Undistributed Middle.’ “You like the feel of a pussy, and all women have pussies, therefore, all women ARE to you are pussies!” Come on. Let’s not go back to Marcelina territory.

So if we’re talking about ‘dating’ or ‘romance,’ we’re talking about sex.
#86, if you mean the social construct of ’gender,’ how you self-identify, your name, which bathroom you use, who you choose to pursue romantically, yes, that doesn’t depend on what’s in your shorts.
If you mean biologically, yes it does. Ultimately, this turns into a semantics debate. You’re able to conjure up, as we’re all just talking here, an irresistible, engaging women to whom a straight
guy is attracted...And then she reveals the gender she was born with?! What to do...
I imagine our protagonist, if faced with such a choice, will decide that then.
It’s easy to come up with situations like this; as someone once said, ‘if’ is the biggest word in the English language (don’t know who, I first read it in a Flashman book.)
If you’re saying that trans people have a tough hand to play in the dating game, I won’t argue. You still have to allow people their choices, or rather, deal with their choices, as they’re gonna make them how they want anyway. You (seem to) think straight guys should be more open to dating transwomen. I think women should ease their height requirements, but in the meantime, I’m soldiering forward, and not wearing lifts.

@68/@70: (Sorry for the multiple comments, I should have combined them into one)

I have been asked by a straight guy I sent a pic to via a personal ad whether I was a cross-dresser. I am not, I am a cis female, though a decidedly un-curvy and somewhat androgynous one. I chose not to take it personally. Some cross-dressers look damn hot!

@71: I once went home with a girl I met at a fetish club, who turned out to have a penis. I'm bi, but even so, I would have preferred to know up front what I'd find in her panties. I don't think it's unreasonable for hetero or gay people to have a preference for a certain set of genitalia. Sex DOES involve the genitalia and no one should be obligated to interact intimately with genitalia they don't find arousing.

Estarianne: The letter in this week's column was from a woman on a dating website. The resulting conversation has assumed that we're talking about meeting as a prelude to dating, not just meeting someone from the office for coffee, or making a new friend. Obviously in those situations, genitals don't come into consideration.

When you "meet" someone through a dating website, you both are presumed to be interested in dating. That first meeting is often a combination of an interview and a real date, but even if it's unspoken, both parties know that the possibility of sex (either then or more likely at some future date) is on the table. If that coffee "date" goes well, it will lead to another and ostensibly, unless something happens to stop someone's interest, to sex.
It's possible that you mean that someone should disclose if their genitals don't match reasonable expectations somewhere between that first meeting for coffee and a later, more romantic date, but
(a) sometimes that coffee date segues almost immediately into sex, so that first meeting is the only pre-sex date,
and
(b) the more time someone's invested, the bigger the disappointment should there be an impediment to having a working sexual relationship which was known to one person from the beginning.

Again, I repeat that I think it is rude to specify a non-interest in trans people (or a non-interest in people of a different race or with different physical characteristics) in your profile; but that isn't the same as suggesting that it's in many people's best interests to disclose as much as is safely possible on your own profile or before the initial date.

Lastly, our most recent posts crossed, but rest assured, I know the difference between gender, sex, sexual orientation, and genitals. I choose my words pretty deliberately.

Hey Cat Bro, our posts crossed and I see we made the same point.
Thank you.
Yes, you silly goose, I still have a crush on you. You can--and should--rip up your note and throw it in the wastebasket.