Follow Dan

Facebook    Twitter    Instagram    YouTube
Savage Lovecast
Dan Savage's Hump
It Gets Better Project

Savage Love Podcast

Got a question for Dan Savage?
Call the Savage Love Podcast at 206-201-2720
or email Dan at mail@savagelove.net.

Savage Love Archives

More in the Archives »

More from Dan Savage

More in the Archives »

Books by Dan Savage

Want a Second Opinion?

Contact Dan Savage

Savage on YouTube

Loading...

Judgment Day

April 15, 2010

I am a mostly straight, 22-year-old woman. I am a pretty GGG kind of gal. So I just started seeing this guy. I haven't known him for long—no serious sexual activity yet. The other night, a few drinks in, we ventured into talking about sex and porn. When I asked what type of porn he watches, he said that he likes videos of "dirty whores, rape scenarios, and gang bangs." Now mind you, I like being treated like a dirty whore. And I love porn. But for some reason, this put me off. I ended up heading home early, and I am apprehensive about seeing him again.

Was my reaction legit? I've indulged other partners in bondage, BDSM, power games, and so on (which I am very much into). So why am I judging this nice, good-looking guy as a creep?

Turned Off And Displeased

First, TOAD, I want to praise you for trusting your gut and getting out of there. Everyone should follow your example: When someone is making you uncomfortable, folks, emulate TOAD—make your excuses and bolt. On to your question...

You've liked being treated like a dirty whore and you've done BDSM with other guys, so why are you judging this particular guy?

Someone who's turned on by extreme power games—hardcore BDSM, degradation, verbal abuse, role-play scenarios, sexist stereotypes—has to demonstrate that he (or she) is not just extremely trustworthy, TOAD, but extremely sensible. And when this guy shared his interest in some pretty extreme kinks so early in the relationship ("haven't known him for long"), your gut rightly told you that this "nice, good-looking guy" wasn't someone with whom you would feel safe.

You simply didn't know him well enough to say to yourself, "Hey, that's some hardcore shit there—but he's proved himself to be a good person and I would feel safe doing this stuff with him." And not only didn't you know him well enough to come to that conclusion, he should've known that you didn't know him well enough to come to that conclusion.

By sharing his kinks too soon, TOAD, this seemingly nice guy demonstrated poor judgment and worse impulse control. And rock-solid judgment and gold-plated impulse control are the first and second things we should look for in someone whose sexual interests are way the fuck out there.

I don't think he should've lied, TOAD, but he should've had the common sense to kick the conversation down the road or downplay without misrepresenting, i.e., instead of saying, "I'm into dirty whores, rape scenarios, and gang bangs," he could have said, "I'm into experienced business women, some intense role-play scenarios, and I'm intrigued by group sex scenes with significant gender imbalances." Then, after he had proved himself to be a decent, trustworthy guy with rock-solid judgment and gold-plated impulse control, he could've given you a clearer picture of his kinks without creeping you out.

I'm not saying that he's a creep or an abuser—or that he's not. Maybe he's just young and inexperienced and hasn't learned how to talk about his creepy kinks without creeping people out, TOAD, or maybe the booze caused him to blurt out something he usually rolls out with more finesse. It's up to you whether you give him a second chance—but make the next date a dry one, and if he creeps you out, trust that gut of yours, make your excuses, and bolt.


I'm in my 30s, male, married, and bisexual. I have a problem with my wife. She does not accept my bisexuality as "real" since I never took it in the ass. Furthermore, she gets embarrassed when we are with our gay friends and tales of my man-on-man experiences come up. She wants me not to talk about it at all. I'm not hitting on anyone, or contemplating cheating on her with a man, or anything, just talking about the past—or agreeing with her when she says Clive Owen is totally hot.

Am I wrong to think that she is being kind of an asshole? Or am I just being selfish in not soothing her faithfulness fears?

Likes Men But Loves Wife

Hm... your wife refuses to believe that you're bisexual because you never got around to taking it in the ass. There's a simple way to solve that problem, LMBLW: Take it in the ass a couple dozen times and present your wife with a lovely boxed set of commemorative DVDs.

That would mean cheating on her, though, something you're not interested in doing and something she fears. I suppose you could point out that women with straight husbands aren't exactly guaranteed an adultery-free ride. Sandra Bullock, Jenny Sanford, and Elin Nordegren all married 100 percent heterosexual men—at least so far as we know at press time—and despite their husbands' failure to take it in the ass (no man's perfect), all three women wound up on the cover of In Touch, Us, and People.

But, while I think your wife is being a bit of an asshole by not accepting your bisexuality, LMBLW, regaling gay pals with tales of your man-on-man experiences could annoy a spouse who was comfortable with your sexuality.


As a "not-stereotypical-looking" lesbian attracted to other "not-stereotypical-looking" lesbians, I wish EVERY "single and looking" lesbian wore something that said so—like the lesbian reader last week who was thinking about going out in a "Single. Lesbian. Interested?" T-shirt. When I do go out to the one lesbian bar in my city, people look at me with that "What are you doing in OUR bar?" stare.

Show Me Your Status

There are nearly twice as many gay-identified men out there as there are lesbian-identified women. This fact alone is all the proof we need that homosexuality isn't a choice. Considering what shits straight men can be—judging from my mail—surely more women would choose homosexuality if they could.

Anyway, it seems to me that what single lesbians need—in addition to dyke bars, internet personal ads, women's softball leagues, and cat-food aisles in grocery stores (man, those lesbian/cat jokes never get old)—is a secret sign. I'm thinking something subtle, SMYS, not because I'm pro-closet, but because I'm pro-tasteful. Message T-shirts? Never tasteful. And "Nobody Knows My Girlfriend Is a Lesbian" T-shirts are very 1995 (and highly unlikely to get a single girl a date).

Instead, maybe all lesbians everywhere should start wearing a button. No words, just a solid color, something small and tasteful that could be pinned to the strap of a purse (popular with "not-stereotypical-looking" lesbians), the lapel of a jacket, or the belt loop on a pair of jeans. Thinking outside the lavender/pink/purple box, I think the button should be green—green for "go," green as in "Go ahead and hit on me, ladies. I'm a lesbian."


I will be answering love and sex questions in Questionland on April 22. Visit thestranger.com/questionland to ask me questions and see my answers.

mail@savagelove.net

 

Comments (228) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment
1
I like the green button idea. Didn't the gay men of Oscar Wilde's time wear a green carnation?
Posted by keep forgetting my login details on April 13, 2010 at 6:03 PM · Report this
2
Dan, thanks for a good few minutes of laughter. I needed that.

"There's a simple way to solve that problem, LMBLW: Take it in the ass a couple dozen times and present your wife with a lovely boxed set of commemorative DVDs."
Posted by PR56 on April 13, 2010 at 6:03 PM · Report this
bigg 3
I'm curious as to whether the bi-married guy shared his sexual past with his wife in that kind of detail before they were married.
Posted by bigg http://biggblah.blogspot.com/ on April 13, 2010 at 6:24 PM · Report this
4
You could just do the nazi-germany thing and wear a pink triangle.
Posted by plutonian on April 13, 2010 at 6:30 PM · Report this
5
I totally agree with Dan's advice to TOAD. Was the guy joking? Maybe he didn't really care about TOAD? Or maybe just a jerk? My partner is into BDSM. I hadn't really tried anything like that before - but quickly realized that it was awesome and I loved it! But it was something my partner eased me into fairly slowly... and to his benefit! I'm doing things I'd never thought I would be into.

But as open-minded as I've become, I would run from this guy too TOAD.
Posted by waters18 on April 13, 2010 at 6:32 PM · Report this
6
LMBLW should stop rubbing his wife's face in it. If there is one thing wives don't like hearing it's their husband's previous "experiences" - straight or otherwise. At least that is what I have been led to believe.
Posted by JohnnyBoy on April 13, 2010 at 6:38 PM · Report this
7
Or, you know, lesbians could learn to cruise! Last evening on a crowded subway car in Hong Kong, I a 40-year-old white guy, picked up a hot 35-year-old(ish) Japanese guy. Neither of us was wearing anything stereotypical, (I was in in business wear, he was wearing jeans and a t-shirt). Yet we managed in a 15 minute subway ride to meet, flirt, exchange numbers and quickly take a face pic of each other without *ever* speaking!

So my sapphic sisters, for f**ksake, learn to flirt and cruise.
Posted by yyz-hkg on April 13, 2010 at 6:39 PM · Report this
8
SMYS could also just develop some gaydar like the rest of us. Fuck, life isn't that difficult. Yeah, I'm lucky, I *like* dykey looking women, the dykier (is that a word?) the better. But fuck, flirt with the girls you like, and make a move. Most queer people in my experience don't really look all that queer- at first glance.

Or you could try out craigslist, there are *tons* of femme women looking only for other femmes on there.

Can't help you on the gay bar thing... could be you're hitting up the wrong scene, if all there are are 'stereotypical' (I guess you probably mean butch? dunno) homos in there... but seriously, I think most lesbians/ bi girls are femme, so I'm not sure how you all are having so much trouble finding each other.
Posted by Faer on April 13, 2010 at 6:45 PM · Report this
9 Comment Pulled (Spam) Comment Policy
10
I totally loved your lesbian/cat joke. I'm a cat person but not a lesbian. Hmmm, maybe I need to pay more attention when I get questions in that aisle. I may have a bigger dating pool than I thought.
Posted by WhyIsItSo on April 13, 2010 at 6:48 PM · Report this
11
lesbo here. Two cats. Love 'em. Why not?
Posted by kitty kitty on April 13, 2010 at 7:20 PM · Report this
12
The other advantage of your button idea is, of course, that straight guys could stop hitting on femme lesbians who had the button on. As a straight man who has stereotypically poor gaydar, I know I'd appreciate it. I can't imagine it would be anything other than a boon to the unfortunate lesbians who would otherwise be subjected to my questionable charms, either.
Posted by MogTM on April 13, 2010 at 7:44 PM · Report this
13
WTF people. He didn't spring it on her or put a dvd in without warning. He didn't even say he was into that sort of thing in real life. All he did was answer a question honestly. There is alot of porn that I like to watch that I would probably never do in real life.
Posted by Ultimate1 on April 13, 2010 at 7:48 PM · Report this
14
@12

except, you know, all the other straight men who would hit on them bc they were wearing the lesbo-button... or more likely wouldn't notice the button at all, and would care even less.
Posted by Faer on April 13, 2010 at 7:54 PM · Report this
15
Dan's answer to TOAD was so good I'm practically welling up. Trust your gut. It sounds like some sort of unfair, complicated game to horny teen boys – But if she likes it and won't tell me and I can't tell her how will we ever work it out wahhh my boner! – but it's not. If he couldn't gauge her attitude enough to know how to answer that question, he probably wouldn't have been great at reading her in other areas. And this goes for a lot of relationships. A blowjob, a facial, rough sex: they can all be amazing or degrading (in the bad way, not the good), depending on the guy's attitude. 9 times out of 10 when a guy 'expects' it it's the latter.
Posted by Li Li on April 13, 2010 at 7:57 PM · Report this
Tiesupnell 16
Sorry MogTM, you may be a gentleman but ask any Lesbian who's run a personal ad...

How about a fertility symbol to indicate they don't use birth control, that might actually discourage a few guys.
Posted by Tiesupnell http://tiesupnell.blogspot.com/ on April 13, 2010 at 8:10 PM · Report this
17
Confusion may arise if a straight girl wears the lesbian signal just to ward off hits from straight guys.
Posted by boatman on April 13, 2010 at 8:22 PM · Report this
18
A green button? Why not just be honest with yourself tell the girl she's cute? Might even be the one to change her disposition (if only for one night).
Posted by piping plover on April 13, 2010 at 8:35 PM · Report this
19
A green button? Why not just be honest with yourself tell the girl she's cute? Might even be the one to change her disposition (if only for one night).
Posted by hello kitty on April 13, 2010 at 8:38 PM · Report this
20
@15

It seems like like it's an unfair complicated game, and more just that we just can't win for losing.

If I shy away from that revelation early on, and I obfuscate (which, let's face it, is lying), I'm a bastard. Brass tacks, when it comes down to it, the only way to get out of saying "I like rape, dirty whores, and gang-bangs" if I like those things is to be misleading. I can always say "well, I like a lot of different things, and "oh, I like oral sex, I guess", but that's just as much a lie as if I'd said "I don't watch porn". Then, later, if I mention it once we're really close, I've been hiding it, and if she does think it's sick and wrong, she's going to backlash against it (remember, please, the guy from last week whose girlfriend did just that).

So, I can't hide it.

But if I'm open, and honest, even if that honesty is a matter-of-fact "this is what I like" in a way no different from if I said "I like footplay", then I'm some creep. She asked him what type of porn he liked. He answered honestly. Isn't that what we kinksters are supposed to do? No springing fetishes on people, let them know what they're in for? And protect ourselves from getting emotionally involved in a relationship wherein our sexual needs won't be met.

I place the blame with her. If she didn't feel close enough to him to know what really gets him revved up, why the hell did she ask?

Finally, please don't lump oral sex in with facials or rough sex. Oral sex is a basic right in a relationship. I get to expect to get blowjobs, my girlfriend gets to expect that I'll go down on her. Your attitude of "he only gets what she wants to give him" isn't a good basis for a relationship. If I truly care about my girlfriend, I don't need cajoling to go down on her, she doesn't need to be "read" for her to go down on me.

If it's about the guy having to persuade the girl for something as simple and which should be universal as oral sex, that's just wrong.
More...
Posted by Seldon2639 on April 13, 2010 at 8:46 PM · Report this
21
Er, what about all the queer and bisexual girls who aren't lesbians? Doesn't it make way more sense for female-bodied people who are into other female-bodied people to wear buttons?
Posted by mint on April 13, 2010 at 8:46 PM · Report this
tinuviel 22
But 20, did he really need to say 'dirty whores'? That's a pretty emotionally charged word, and it might turn him on in the context of the porn, but by saying it out loud to a woman he's expressed romantic interest in, it might make her feel like he judges real women as being whores or otherwise, you see?
If he'd just said 'rape fantasies and gang-bangs' she might have raised an eyebrow, but it would have been easier to define as being in the context of his pornography, with possible shading into a real sex life. But 'dirty whores' just somehow charges right through the mind barriers that most sensible people erect between fantasy, pornography, and real sexual encounters.

Some women may like being called dirty whores when they are turned on, but I would hazard that fewer like the IDEA of being called dirty whores when they are not.
Posted by tinuviel on April 13, 2010 at 9:01 PM · Report this
23
@12 Unfortunately directly shining the lesbo signal tends to lead to WAY MORE attention from straight dudes, not less. Which is a big part of the difficulty, really.
Posted by super_i on April 13, 2010 at 9:07 PM · Report this
fannerz 24
Just hit on the ladies you are attracted to. You'll strike out a few times with the straight girls, but so what? A very lovely lesbian chatted me up on the subway just this morning. I smiled and said, "You are really hot. But I am currently in a relationship with a being that has a penis. Sorry!" She laughed and everyone was happy.
Posted by fannerz on April 13, 2010 at 9:09 PM · Report this
25
I sometimes wear a rainbow necklace or a Labrys charm on a necklace (a Labrys is a double edge ax, it is the symbol of the Amazon.) the Labrys is more subtle, it tells "those that know" that you are one of us, but usually doesn't make it like a "I'm A LESBIAN" t-shirt.
Posted by BG on April 13, 2010 at 9:14 PM · Report this
26
@22

Eh... Again, though, we kind of have to accept that if he had omitted that detail, it could very well have ended up in a situation like the boy from last week. If he likes dirty whore verbal abuse stuff, and doesn't tell her openly upfront, then she'll just be back three months from now writing

"I have this really great boyfriend, and we have a good sex live, we're both GGG, but something came up. He told me he likes verbal abuse, and porn about 'dirty whores' after I saw some of that porn on his computer. I guess I'm just kind of freaking out, because this seems so degrading. But, the bigger problem is that he hid it from me, even though it's something he really likes. Should I be angry that he didn't tell me, and went to porn to get this, even though I'd asked him what he likes?"

Worse yet, what if that kind of fantasy is actually integral to his sexuality? Could you have a healthy sex live (much less a happy one) if you were hiding something you really like?

There are two possibilities. Either this is a BFD to him, and he needs a girlfriend to understand and accept it, or it's so inconsequential to him that he doesn't mind spilling his guts early on. If it's a BFD, he has every right to say 'this is who I am, take it or leave it'. If it's not a BFD, then the girl is overreacting.

We don't get to pick our kinks, but we do get to state upfront "this is what I like, this is what I need. If you can't do that, we won't work as sexual partners"
Posted by Seldon2639 on April 13, 2010 at 9:20 PM · Report this
27
@TOAD, I love what Dan said about trusting your gut, you really can't go wrong with that.

And for the kinksters out there, it's the WAY you say it! Blurting out 'dirty whores' is definitely poor form, but lead into it gently. Something like, "well...(a little bashfulness here helps)...some of the things I watch on porn are pretty rough. I guess I like the fantasy of it, you know? (then when pressed - and only when pressed - to reveal more - you will be, don't worry) Well, sometimes I watch gang-bang type stuff, not that I'd ever do it in real life without a consenting partner mind you, but I kinda get off on the power fantasy stuff, at least when I'm in my room alone jacking off!...etc." That way you're being honest and upfront (I really don't think you can go too wrong with that either - people like honesty and it's the ONLY basis for a good relationship - but they may not like your kink, so accept rejection gracefully) but like any respectable kinkster you're qualifying it, acknowledging it's an out there kink, putting reasonable conditions on it, making sure it's comes across that it's not just the kink you want from this partner but that in the right context of a trusting relationship it will be something that you'll bring up from time to time and hope to share with your partner.
Posted by LAN8 on April 13, 2010 at 9:46 PM · Report this
28
here's what you do, all you men who are wondering how to express to your girlfriend that he likes socially unacceptable porn.

Girl: So what kind of porn do you like?
acceptable answers:
1. Guy: What kind of porn do YOU like?
2. Guy: Idunno, lets get together and compare collections sometime.
8. Guy: Well my favourite title is 'Lesbian Spank Inferno'
3. Guy: Oh you know, whips, chains, electrified butt plugs *wink*
4. Guy: Hahaha, ask me again in a month.
5. Guy: I'll tell you when you're older *wink*
6. Guy: If I told you, I'd have to kill you!! *wink*
7. Guy: (horrified look) But I cannot break the sacred coooode! The only way you can find out is snooping through my CDs the morning after. Anything else is a flagrant breach of the Bro Code.
9. Guy: Well, to be honest, I think it's really cool when a cool smart girl, lets go of her hang-ups, and just gets into a role playing situation.

Then CHANGE THE EFFING TOPIC.

downplay without misrepresenting, like Dan said, is Key.
Posted by Caralain on April 13, 2010 at 9:58 PM · Report this
Neptune 29
Perfect advice all around, Dan!

I couldn't agree more about people needing to learn to trust their gut instincts. It drives me crazy when I hear a girl say something akin to, "He creeps me out every time I see him, but I feel so rude if I try to walk away. I'm trying to give him the benefit of the doubt." I always look the person straight in the eyes and say: No. Trust your instincts. If you don't feel right, if you feel creeped out by someone, trust that. Hurting his feelings is a lot easier than the possible negative outcomes of making a creep think you enjoy seeing him.

And you were spot-on about why she felt uneasy about that guy! Disclosing very specific personal info when you barely know someone is rarely a good sign. That's not the kind of thing you need/want to know when you're just getting to know someone.

And I think the green button for lesbians is genius! To make it catch on faster, how about pinning right next to a rainbow button at first? As in, "Yep, I'm gay! And, yep, you have the green light to hit on me!" Just a thought.
Posted by Neptune on April 13, 2010 at 10:39 PM · Report this
30
"I am apprehensive about seeing him again." Well then, for the love of FSM, don't see him again!

This is not an issue of how to tell someone about unusual porn preferences ... this is an issue of trusting yourself and respecting your own emotional reactions. If you don't want to see him again, DON'T SEE HIM AGAIN. Period. You don't owe him anything. In particular, you don't owe him a second date "to give him a chance," not even in an alcohol-free, well-lit, heavily-traveled public place.

Who knows or cares why this particular guy makes you feel uncomfortable? He just does, so clearly he's not the guy for you.

Who cares whether or not he's "really" a creep, or "why you're judging him"? He gives you the heebie-jeebies and you don't want to see him again, so DON'T.

Go find someone else to date. There are plenty of boys out there who won't creep you out and who will be thrilled that you like rough sex.

I strongly recommend the book The Gift of Fear- grab a copy, it's a quick and informative read. You need to learn how to respect yourself well enough to trust your instincts.
Posted by pelican on April 13, 2010 at 10:46 PM · Report this
31
@27:

Yes, exactly! Someone gets it! It's not even that they just met. It's that the way he said it made it sound like he liked degradation in real life, not just in a consensual fantasy. There's a big difference between saying "I like it when girls get called names sometimes" and "I like watching dirty whores"... the way he said it, he was actually being degrading and insulting OUTSIDE of a consensual fantasy.

It was pretty clear to me that the guy in question was not a kinkster who's into consensual, respectful BDSM: he probably never heard of it. He was just another asshole who doesn't care about respect.
Posted by K765 on April 13, 2010 at 10:48 PM · Report this
32
What happened to EYE CONTACT! You young bloods are so lucky, you can hit on just about anybody and not get a sock in the eye (unless you live in bohunk).
Take advantage and take your chances. I could never understand lesbians who put no bbb's in their personal ads (Big, butch, and burley) and don't feel a bit sorry for them when they get dumped for a dude. Bi-sexuals are not worth the hassle.
Just an opinion.
Posted by rosecantina on April 13, 2010 at 10:53 PM · Report this
33
To the first letter writer: Trust your gut, move on & don't be so hard on yourself.

LMBLW: Your wife is being a control freak and homophobic. Which one of you gets to define your sexual identity? But maybe don't go into the delicious details of your past in front of her. She obviously can't handle it. Or she really likes it and that scares her, OR she's worried you'll 'go back' to men???

SMYS: Us lesbians already have plenty of subtle signs and symbols to broadcast to each other. The labrys has already been mentioned, the rainbow, the female symbol, goddess images, the triangle, equal sign... Those "What are YOU doing HERE?" looks at the bar in what I assume is a small town are a defense mechanism. Keep going to the bar to prove you're not just slumming and ideally they'll get used to seeing you and relax... Or maybe meet lesbians in -other- venues (social causes are a biggie). Some of us do not do the bars. Good luck! (P.S: My cats are awesome!)
Posted by My cats are awesome on April 13, 2010 at 11:24 PM · Report this
34
@26

Oh, please. She said she's a kinky girl. She's not turned off by his kinks. She's turned off by his vibe; by the way he is presenting this stuff in too-charged language too early (and in the wrong context). I'm a kinky girl, too, and I, too, would have run away from that guy.

Can you really not see the difference between saying "I like watching double penetration sometimes" and "I really like it when a dirty whore takes it up both her slutty holes at once, oh yeah!"? The first is a decent way to answer a question posed by a possible romantic interest you haven't had sex with and don't know very well, because it uses neutral language. The second is not.

I mean, do you tell your co-workers all about your irritable bowel syndrome when they casually ask how your day is going? Of course not, but you might if, say, your wife asks. Same question, different responses, because of the different level of intimacy. Telling things that are too intimate for a given situation is CREEPY. Using dirty-talk language in a non-sexual situation with a girl you don't know well definitely qualifies as "too intimate." Thus, creepy.

Dollars to doughnuts, if he'd said "I really like to watch scenes with unequal power dynamics/power play/submission" she'd still be around.
Posted by Bon on April 13, 2010 at 11:33 PM · Report this
35
Dan, that was some really great advice to TOAD!
The "trust your gut" part is exactly right, and you even avoided the standard victim blaming follow up (as in "trust your gut, and if you don't it'll be your own fault when you get raped").

I agree with @27 and @34 - the choice of the words "dirty whores" definitely raises some red flags. I've known plenty of safe, responsible BDSMers and NONE of them would blurt out something like that so early in a relationship, and certainly not in that way.

This guy blew it, and TOAD is well rid of him.
Posted by argyle on April 14, 2010 at 12:10 AM · Report this
36
@31
I agree that this guy has never been involved in kinkster relationship, or else he'd have better manners. I disagree, though, that his language, per se, is the problem. I actually thought about it while I was writing my first comment; thought about how distasteful it was that he was talking about the porn actresses as if he couldn't distinguish them from the characters they portrayed, but I decided that wasn't it, exactly.

If a partner that I already knew, trusted, and was having sex with said
"hey, I just downloaded some new stuff from kink.com...wanna watch some dirty sluts get what they deserve?" I would say "ooh! ok!" because I would already know, based on previously gleaned knowledge and experience (ie, a high level of intimacy) that he doesn't think that women are sluts, and that he would never call a women out on the street a slut, that he would never call me a slut in anger, and that he's well aware of the difference between a porn actress and her character.

The problem, as I see it, is that TOAD doesn't know this guy well enough to know these things; they don't have a degree of intimacy that allows for that kind of language. He's coming off as a giant creep precisely because his language is too intimate for how long they've actually known each other.

Which is not to say he's NOT a giant creep who can't tell fantasy from reality; just that the use of "sexist language" alone doesn't automatically make a guy a giant creep-- it all depends on context.
Posted by Bon on April 14, 2010 at 12:12 AM · Report this
37
@30
thank you.

Dan, you don't have to qualify otherwise perfect advice with the idea that she should go out with him again FOR ANY REASON. Her question was, 'Was my reaction legit?' and the correct answer to that question when it's clear she trusted her gut is, 'Yes. Always!'
Posted by happyhedonist on April 14, 2010 at 12:49 AM · Report this
38
@27, you can lead into it gently, but the message is equal. Why not just be like f you and get it out?
Posted by iceicebaby on April 14, 2010 at 1:03 AM · Report this
39
@34.

She's a very kinky girl? The kind you don't take home to mother?

What we're seeing is her side of things, which is only half of the equation. Unless she prefaced her statement with "and, you know, I really like kinky things, too", his natural assumption was probably "well, she may not be into kinky stuff". If that's what he was thinking, I can see how a considerate kinkster would come back and (essentially) lay it all out there. Again, if honesty is part of a good relationship, he answered the question directly and honestly. When did that turn into a bad thing?

The neutrality of the language only exists because we deem it to have. We, here, are more comfortable with double-penetration qua double-penetration. But if what he truly enjoys about it is the degradation aspect of it, then he's just being upfront about what he likes when she *asked him what porn he likes*.

He didn't volunteer it. He honestly answered a question. That's being upfront and honorable. Why are we demonizing some guy who's doing what we should demand everyone do?

And this isn't the same as someone asking about my day, and getting gross details. She asked about the porn he watches. He told her about the porn he watches. As Dan has written before, if you reject the honest foot-fetishist (or, in this case, degradation-fetishist) you're going to end up with the dishonest necrophiliac. I think we're glossing over the fact that she asked him what he liked. And then he can't win. If he tells the truth, she rejects him. If he lies (and saying "I sometimes watch double penetration" when really I like "seeing whores get their asses pounded like the sluts they are" is a lie), it eventually bites him on the ass.

There's also a vast difference between "unequal power dynamics/power play/submission" and the type of degradation/humiliation/she's-a-nasty-slut play that he enjoys. You're asking him to lie about his interests. That's fine, but seems to go against what we've been telling ourselves is important.

Let me give another example. If I really like footplay in the sense of "I want to cum on my girlfriend's feet and watch her lick it up", no one would accept saying "oh, I like rubbing your feet" as a synonym. If I said the latter, and eventually indicated my real interest in the former, my girlfriend might dump my ass.

Why should he have to invest emotional energy in a relationship without first ascertaining whether it would be sexually appealing?

@27

That's not real honesty, though. If what I actually enjoy is a dirty whore being degraded, I don't just like "kinda rough" stuff. The fantasy isn't just the rough sex, it's the degradation, the girl being treated like a slut. We keep coming back to the fact that Dan has said the guy should have lied.

And that's fine, but let's call a spade a spade. Let's not pretend that there's a way to downplay either the extent or importance of a kink without misrepresenting it. If I can't live without ageplay, I should be upfront with prospective girlfriends (albeit I'd prefer later in a relationship, but bear in mind that *she fucking asked him*) about what I would eventually likely demand of them.

@28

So... Lie.

Awesome.

Maybe I'm confused, but all of your "acceptable" ways are simply various shades of lie, damned lie, and statistic.

You're either evading the question (that's omission, which is a lie, no matter what the Catholics say), as in answers 1, 2, 4, 5, and 7

Or you're simply stating something which is untrue. Blatantly, directly, and unequivocally untrue. As in answers 3, 6, 8, and 9. You wouldn't have to kill her, his favorite title wasn't what you stated, he's not into plugs, electricity, and other "acceptably deviant" kinks, and he's not just into a "cool girl roleplaying". Those are lies. Simple, and direct, lies.

Why would you lie to a prospective girlfriend?

And, please, before someone comes back with "clearly you're inexperienced, you don't know what it is to really be in a D/S relationship", I'll admit you're right. I've only ever been in a relationship, but if my girlfriend asked (as most of them have) what kind of things I like in porn and sex, you're damned right that I wouldn't prevaricate or evade, or omit. If she's asked a question, she gets an honest answer.

The fact that TOAD is blanching at having been given the kind of forthright and honest answer that most people would jump at from a partner speaks volumes about her, not him.

@36

Hello, again.

Perhaps I've simply never been in a situation where a girl ever thought I would be the type to use slut or whore or bitch outside of either teasing or roleplay, but your criticism doesn't make much sense to me.

Remember, as with everything I've said, that she asked him a direct question. She didn't ask 'what kind of porn do you like that I might like, too?' or 'do you have any porn recommendations?' She asked him straight up what he liked.

But, even ignoring that, the fact that you would assume he's unable to distinguish from fantasy and reality is far more of a logical leap than I'm willing to make. If I talked about really liking a character in a book, would you suspect that I thought the book was real? Or would you accept that "I really like what Harry did in the middle of the latest Dresden Files book" is shorthand for "I really like what the author, Jim Butcher, portrayed the fictional character of Harry Dresden as doing within the entirely made-up world of the Dresden Files"?

If a girl says she likes vampire romance, does that mean she really wants a vampire to suck her blood? Or does that mean she likes a genre of fantasy?

But, even beyond that, the language thing is very, very, irrelevant in my mind. You (and TOAD) are assuming that if a guy likes seeing "whores treated like they deserve", he might think all women are whores, or be willing to call other women whores, or call you one in anger, or (as previously rebutted) can't separate fantasy from reality.

Instead, what I hear is "I like the fantasy of..."

Let me give a personal example. One of my girlfriends liked rape fantasies. She didn't explain it as "I really like the idea of, in a completely consensual and safe setting, being violated in previously-agreed-upon ways, and with the constant knowledge that I could stop the action if it got dangerous or really scary". She said she liked rape fantasies. Good god, are we really so suspicious and paranoid that simply because someone doesn't go into the permutations of "I know it's fantasy", they must live their fantasies every day?

One of my flings liked to be verbally abused in sex. Did I ever for one second think she thought she really was a worthless slut? No. Even though she only ever said "I like to be called names" when the subject of our kinks came up. It's just about being reasonable.

TOAD has every right to say "nope, not for me". But this guy did nothing wrong except hope that someone who asked him "what porn do you like" could actually accept an honest answer.
More...
Posted by Seldon2639 on April 14, 2010 at 1:13 AM · Report this
40
22 hit the nail EXACTLY on the head. As a single straight girl who's NOT particularly interested in rape fantasies or gangbangs, I would still not have a problem with dating a guy who was, or indulging my bf in roleplay of those kinks. I even like being called a dirty whore during sex. But a guy, especially one I'd just started dating, saying he likes videos of 'dirty whores' would pretty much guarantee I'd dump him quickly. Watching 'videos of dirty whores' makes it sound like the guy either has no respect for women and actually believes the actresses in the porno ARE dirty whores, or sometimes blurs the line between fantasy and reality, which is NOT a desirable quality in someone into scenarios that portray considerable force, degradation play, and power imbalances. Run, TOAD, run.
Posted by Peri on April 14, 2010 at 2:13 AM · Report this
41
Hey Dan-
pink triangles for male homosexuals, black triangles for female homosexuals. Oh wait, isn't that what the Nazis did?
Posted by Daddy Bobo on April 14, 2010 at 2:59 AM · Report this
42
pink triangles for homosexual men, black triangles for homosexual women. Hey, at least that's what the nazi's thought was a decent system. Even as a straight, white male, Dan, please tell us all you were being sarcastic
Posted by Daddy Bobo on April 14, 2010 at 3:06 AM · Report this
43
I am really TIRED of lipstick lezzies going, "OH NOES, those nasty butchy-butches keep giving me sideways looks when I hit the girlie bars!!1!"

Firstly, ignore the stupid bitches who do that. They're obviously incredibly juvenile/insecure not to know by now that dykes come in all configurations.

Secondly, consider the fact that you're kindly giving dykes-who-like-femmy-chicks like me some nice eye-candy when you hit the scene.

Thirdly, if someone catches your eye, then INITIATE A CONVERSATION. Just because a few idiots are giving you a sideways look - if it's -all- the bar, then go elsewhere - doesn't mean plenty of others won't be interested in you if you show you're interested in them.
Posted by Trix on April 14, 2010 at 3:06 AM · Report this
44
@36 - personally, I think the only time that anyone should engage in sexist language is behind the bedroom door, if and when BOTH participants have expressed their desire to use that kind of language in THAT context.

I can't see how, anywhere outside a bdsm dungeon and often not even then, that a first date could be considered in any way a suitable context.
Posted by Trix on April 14, 2010 at 3:09 AM · Report this
45
@39 Dude, If i ask what kinda porn a guy likes on getting-to-know-them kinda date, and his answer is "Dirty whores, rape fantasies and gang-bangs" I'm never going out with the creepy twit again. Maybe for you the language doesn't suggest someone whose emotionally or mentally unbalanced, but for me it does. Tact goes a long way, and I'm going to go with the guy who says he's into power play, role-play, rough sex, etc over the guy who says dirty whores.
I think it's more telling that you want to blame TOAD and project her crying "But he wasn't honest!!!!" later if the guy in question actually had any sort of common sense. There are plenty of non-creepy ways of saying he's into what he's into without saying dirty whores and setting off every female's douchebag-defense-system, most of which were mentioned but apparently weren't honest enough for you. Anyone who's okay or GGG and hears a partner express an interest in power dynamics or role-play probably isn't going to balk when they suggest a rape fantasy, and if they did the kinkster is better off without them.
Posted by chibiyui on April 14, 2010 at 5:56 AM · Report this
46
I am SO getting a green button =D glad I've got a button-making kit around here somewhere. Thanks Dan! I really hope that catches on, cause it's an awesome idea.
Posted by Kitsunesan on April 14, 2010 at 6:18 AM · Report this
47
dirty whores = experienced business women

LOL! I'm embarrassed to admit that it took me a minute to get that.
Posted by Diagoras on April 14, 2010 at 6:31 AM · Report this
48
There already is a secret sign: the labyris.

http://www.milk-and-honey.com/images/jew…

You can get tons of jewelry (pendants, rings, earrings) with this symbol. It's fallen out of fashion, but I think we should bring it back.
Posted by Just any name on April 14, 2010 at 6:56 AM · Report this
49
Someone needs to develop the Betan earring system, that way no-one would be confused.
Posted by SpookyCats on April 14, 2010 at 7:01 AM · Report this
50
@LMBLW What do you mean "tales of my man-on-man experiences come up"?
I think most people would readily understand why your wife would be uncomfortable if tales of your sex life with other women were "coming up" in social situations,
So why so different with men?

About Toad,
I am surprised that nobody has addressed putting of answering. If he had said he is into violence and degradation fantasy and declined to go into detail, she may have asked for specifics, but even then I think his answers, tactfully put, would have been more welcome. @ 39, some of these less harsh suggestions about ways to say it may be inaccurate to varying degrees, but it doesn't mean there aren't more accurate, less offensive ways to describe it. For example "degradation fantasies" seems like it accurately encompasses specifics like the dirty whore fantasy. Hell, even if he had said "dirty whore fantasies" it would have been better. We can't just assume he means fantasy in the same way we can assume that people who like vampires do because unlike vampires, sexist douchebags exist-they're everywhere!
Posted by Miss Ohio on April 14, 2010 at 7:08 AM · Report this
51
I'm surprised Dan didn't point out to LMBLW, as he has several times in his column, that many gay men (including myself) simply do not take it up the ass, and there are plenty of other ways he could be having sex with men. Of course it gets rather confusing when you realize how many men who call themselves str8 crave cock up their asses, proof of which you can find on the craigslist personals at any given moment.

The real question here is, if this woman has a problem w/her husband being attracted to men, why is she married to him? Je ne le get pas.
Posted by wayne on April 14, 2010 at 7:09 AM · Report this
52
Am I the only one who notices that the question is what kind of *porn* the guy was into, not what he was into doing himself?

There could be a big gulf between what he likes to watch and what he wants in real life.

As for Mr. Savage's advice: fail. The guy was asked. He disclosed. Absent some other indication of creepiness--and disclosure of fairly normal porn preferences is not creepy on its own--this whole "alarm bells" stuff is pretty, well, sex negative.

BTW, I love how 43 says this in 44: " I think the only time that anyone should engage in sexist language is behind the bedroom door, if and when BOTH participants have expressed their desire to use that kind of language in THAT context." But in the immediately prior 43 post she engages in some ugly talk about "bitches"

0_o
Posted by Suspects that centaur porn lovers =/= horse lusters on April 14, 2010 at 7:11 AM · Report this
53
lol @ 1st letter... I'm totally that guy... not that I share those kinks, I'm more of a submissive, but I am certainly the guy who brings up freaky-deaky sex stuff on dates 1 & 2. I always thought it was me being quirky and open, but know I'm starting to see how a frank disclosure of corpophagia somewhere between ordering drinks and the arrival on the entree might creep someone out ;)
Posted by stormcrow on April 14, 2010 at 7:25 AM · Report this
54
Good advice to TOAD, but I have to say, if you aren't ready to hear what kind of porn someone is into, DON'T ASK WHAT KIND OF PORN HE'S INTO. This really puts the burden on this guy to "protect" TOAD from the question she asked. Which I (a woman) would find kind of patronizing, to be honest. How does he know whether she really wants to know or isn't ready to hear it? Definitely, if you feel creeped out, then get out of the situation, but she'd be more likely to develop a good relationship with potential partners if she took responsibility for questions that SHE asks.
Posted by LadyJay on April 14, 2010 at 7:42 AM · Report this
55
Regarding the advice for TOAD: I completely agree with her trusting her gut. She's someone who IS GGG, who has enjoyed experiences just like the guy said he liked in porn--and yet what he said creeped her out. Until well into my thirties, I tried to rationalize away the "vibes" I was getting from people. I finally realized that the vibes were correct, and while I can't explain them logically, they are the result of picking up on subtle information and they should be trusted.

While reading the column, I was, however, aware that someone who is not already GGG, not comfortable with new sexual things, will probably have a reaction that feels very similar to the "bad vibe" feeling when they are first told about a partner's mild kinks or fantasies. I don't know what to suggest for that, I just see it happening. Definitely, though, if you're a sophisticated, Savage-Love reading, GGG person and you get creeped out, you'd better trust that reaction.
Posted by ratty rat on April 14, 2010 at 7:44 AM · Report this
56
Can I just say that there's a world of difference between real people who practice power trips/BDSM/bondage and a dude who reveals that he watches so much gonzo porn that he stupidly reveals that he doesn't know the difference between the the two?

He wasn't describing "kink." He was describing a niche of pornography--ya know the stuff where the guy fucks a girl's throat until she vomits and where the men treat the women like they're not human, not even present in the sex itself?

To me, kink is edgy--it requires ongoing communication, carefulness, seeing where a person's lines are and experimenting with going beyond them: together. It does not involve boys who are so afraid of women or resentful of them that they psychologically split them into virgins or whores. An experienced kinkster would know better than to be so blunt and contemptuous outside an actual scene and before any sexual contact with a potential new partner. He was not given permission to treat her that way--he revealed that he holds her, by the way he spoke to her, in contempt. His poor choice of words and lack of restraint implied a thoughtless about his own desires--that he hasn't thought about how being turned on by power plays will play out in real sexual relationships with real women.

I'm one of the kinkiest straight gals you'll ever meet, and I would have run from this guy too. The red flags here are about unexplored misogyny, immaturity and social cluelessness. Please don't dignify it by calling it kink.

Posted by maddy811 on April 14, 2010 at 8:21 AM · Report this
57
@51: Same thoughts -- except for where she has a problem with him being attracted to men.

I don't think that's the problem; it's his sharing. Wives who don't like their husbands flirting with women aren't described as having problems with them being attracted to women ... it's to OTHER women. I don't get her ridiculous "buttsex" hang-up at all, but I get why she's a little discomfited about him regaling possibly sexually interested parties with his adventures.

THAT SAID, his letter doesn't say how explicit his stories are. It's totally possible that he's just talking about men he used to date ... but that can still be a no-no with some SOs. Depends.

Sounds like they need to talk about this more, and get some communication on social conversation boundaries (topics, audiences, etc.) that they can both agree on. Can he share stories with their straight friends? Female friends? What kinds of stories? Etc. I think they can strike a balance between his desire to have friendly, interesting adult conversations and her desire to be comfortable.

But it's no question she's being a dick for making up a totally arbitrary definition of his sexuality.

And bravo on TOAD, Dan. Good answer, covers all the bases.
Posted by Gloria on April 14, 2010 at 8:22 AM · Report this
58
I was really glad to read Dan's response to TOAD. I'm "out there" in the dating thing (online largely), as a single adult woman, and am constantly given shit by men who want to get into the kinky sex discussion RIGHT away -- sometimes even before the first date. When I gently brush it off, I'm called a prude (if they had ANY idea...) and hollered at about being closed-minded and "if we're going to get together, even eventually, THIS STUFF IS IMPORTANT" and all this other pushy nonsense. Obviously, I take all of this as a clear sign that the guy I'm currently talking to is not right for me (since I'm not interested in dating assholes). Sadly (for them and for me), I AM a rather kinky, exploratory woman, and if these creepoids had any idea how to approach a non-totally-damaged woman, they'd be amazed at what they could actually have.

Now, I understand she asked HIM, but the general attitude/interplay is what I'm talking about. I'm relieved to read Dan say that it's not always a great thing to push that conversation too early, and fellas, it IS NOT an indication that the woman across from you is some sort of leg-clamping fundamentalist because she doesn't want to tell you her dirtiest stories before appetizers.

I'm starting to think I should reference this link in all of my future online profiles. The people in the responses here who agree with me have given me some hope -- YOU are the people I'm hoping to meet! Thank you!
Posted by shefightslikeagirl on April 14, 2010 at 8:41 AM · Report this
59
For TOAD, in my opinion, anyone (male or female) who uses crass talk with someone they don't know well is either a) oblivious / lacking in basic social skills, b) immature enough to think that it makes them look powerful and confident, or c) an abusive type who enjoys making other people feel uncomfortable.

I understand and agree that people should be accurate and honest, but generally you take it slow with someone you're getting to know. The way this guy answered the questions was the equivalent of shoving his tongue roughly down her throat during their first kiss. Even if you both like it, it's generally something you want to work up to.

At best, this guy is oblivious or immature. At worst, he's a creep and abuser.
Posted by strange observer on April 14, 2010 at 8:49 AM · Report this
60
39: the thing is, there are ways to say essentially the same thing as TOAD's date while, you know, acknowledging that it's maybe a bit Out There. Like, say, "I'm into some kind of rough stuff" or the like.

Yes, she did ask the question, but... it's kind of like the difference between responding to "how are you doing?" with "I'm having some gastrointestinal issues" and responding with "I've got a massive case of the squirts." Both cases let someone (of getting-to-know-you levels) know that you might be running off to the john unexpectedly, but one is vague and polite, while the other is pretty TMI. Someone on an early date asking "what kind of porn do you like" is trying to gauge general interest and intensity, not asking for a guided tour of her date's psyche.
Posted by Melissa Trible on April 14, 2010 at 9:03 AM · Report this
Donut 61
Another good part about the TOAD letter: if the guy is not a creep and just inexperienced, maybe it will sink in that he was a bit too blunt, and he'll learn how to negotiate better. If he IS a creep, he'll just blame her in some misogynistic fashion, but her leaving/trusting her gut is the perfect reaction. He crossed the line.

As for the lesbian signal thing: many bi and some femme women I know complain about this, and I wonder sometimes if we men are just a little more used to reaction because of social "norms" and in generally being more aggressive, thus more willing to just flirt (or more) with someone.

I say to them to just get out there and try, and if necessary toughen up a little. If someone is not interested, then so be it and at least you won't go home wondering "what if". Don't take it too personally, and just have fun and be respectful and see what happens.
Posted by Donut on April 14, 2010 at 9:06 AM · Report this
62
Oh, also...

There is a *world* of difference in intent and nuance between the statements "I like porn where the women are treated like dirty whores" and "I like watching dirty whores get f***ed", even though they convey the same basic information.
Posted by Melissa Trible on April 14, 2010 at 9:29 AM · Report this
63
I'm androgynous/femme leaning to femme. Long hair, makeup, purse and all, I haven't had much trouble hitting on women or getting responses when I did.

Wear some rings (I thought I read in my Gay Agenda that thumb rings already signaled "queer"), smile at women, and don't wait for women to hit on you. I think that female socialization to wait for someone else to make the first move is the culprit, not that the "non-steretypical" women are too femme.

And if a woman says no thanks, she's straight, then smile and go on to the next cute woman.

Posted by CleverScreenName on April 14, 2010 at 9:33 AM · Report this
64
@39

So, you see nothing wrong with his language. Personally, I think he could have been a touch more suave, but that's actually not the point. The letter, and Dan's response, is less about what the guy should have done and more about TOAD's response. When a guy that you're attracted to starts talking about porn and fantasies that turn you on but still manages to creep you the fuck out to the degree that you only want to get the hell out of there, it's a problem. There was something about the conversation that set off an alarm, and it was probably more than just the words he used. That kind of feeling--the feeling of that you might be in a dangerous or at least deeply unpleasant sexual situation--is unique and once you've experienced it you don't ever mistake it for something else. Obviously TOAD felt her response was irrational, since they were talking about kinks she enjoys, so she wrote to Dan. And Dan confirmed what everyone should remember: when you get that feeling, when someone creeps you out even though the situation is relatively innocuous, you get the hell out. And no, I'm not suggesting that the dude was some kind of crazy rapist, just that those feelings exist for a reason, and continuing a sexual relationship with the guy would probably be less than successful.
Posted by Dan's right on this one on April 14, 2010 at 9:36 AM · Report this
65
@39, if a phrase such as "I like name calling" would be considered a "lie" to you... than in fact the guy is NOT into a consensual kink, but a misogynistic delusion that he is set up as an authority to wantonly label women as whores or not whores, regardless of their consent or interest in the scene.

If a guy is saying that it's a lie to consider his interest in porn with phrases such as "dirty whore" as name calling, degradation, or some other category phrase, than he's not a kinkster and not interested in consent, but just an outright misogynist.
Posted by jem201 on April 14, 2010 at 10:03 AM · Report this
HOT PUSSY 66
@25 - Wearing a labrys would also garner the attention of any Minoans in the room...sweet!
Posted by HOT PUSSY http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X4QKiYar9pI on April 14, 2010 at 10:07 AM · Report this
67
@41
Yeah, that was my point--that he didn't have the kind of intimacy with her that would allow for using that kind of language. That his language was creepy because they didn't know each other intimately enough for it to be acceptable. I was mostly responding to an earlier post that said his language ITSELF was the problem (implying that any man who says "dirty whore" must think women are all dirty whores), whereas I think it was his language IN THE WRONG CONTEXT that was the problem. In the right context (like my example) that kind of language would be no problem for a kinky girl--and not just in the bedroom-- in whatever situations that language has been condoned. What if, in priate, a kinky guy called his girlfriend "Slut" as an endearment, because she likes it?
"Hey, Slut?"
"Yes, Honey?"
"Did I remember to tell you that I used up the last of the toilet paper?"

That example has noting to do with the bedroom, but it has everything to do with both partners agreeing, and everything to do with a correct level of intimacy. The boy TOAD was interested in comes off as a giant creep (and Seldon is coming off as either incredibly obtuse or incredibly stubborn) because he is using charged language without the context that would give it the ok. It's like using the word "faggot" to a gay guy you just met, versus using it to a gay friend with whom you have already built up a wealth of past understanding, which might include the knowledge of "we're using faggot the way South Park used it" or might include the knowledge "He likes the word faggot because he considers it empowering to take it back" or any number of other things. It's not the word "faggot" that makes or breaks you; it's the context surrounding the word.

But we agree that the guy TOAD was talking about is totally creepy.
More...
Posted by Bon on April 14, 2010 at 10:18 AM · Report this
68
@51 and 57
I imagine that her refusal to believe he's really bisexual is how she has manage dot stay with him when his sexual attraciotn to men does bother her.

And while I agree that sharing stories of past sexual experiences int he presence of your current significant other is tactless at best (unless you know they'r ecool with it), the writer indicated that she has a porblem when he identifies a celebrity male as someone he finds attractive.

THere are two ways of interpreting this: If she ahs the same problem when he's taling about female celebrities, she's crazy-insecure and unreasonably jealous. If it's only for men, then she has serious issues with his bisexuality, which sucks, and does kind of make her an ass - few things bug me more than the people in my life who insist on pretending I'm straight.
Posted by Atumornamedmarla on April 14, 2010 at 10:23 AM · Report this
69
I can totally relate to Show Me. Very very rarely do people, men or women, assume that I'm gay. In my current part-time gig as a bartender, it means I can work both sides of the ropes and make double cash buy flirting with whoever wanders up to my bar. But at the end of the day, I go home to my so-gay-she-has-a-rainbow-aura girlfriend and we curl up in our non-cat home.

Back in the single days, I was pretty lucky that a smile and some intentional eye contact payed off for me. And generally speaking, I didn't run into a lot of women who were offended by the attention. Don't be creepy, smile genuinely, and hold the eye contact for just a second longer than necessary. You'll do just fine.
Posted by Krislee98 on April 14, 2010 at 10:29 AM · Report this
70
I can totally relate to Show Me. Very very rarely do people, men or women, assume that I'm gay. In my current part-time gig as a bartender, it means I can work both sides of the ropes and make double cash buy flirting with whoever wanders up to my bar. But at the end of the day, I go home to my so-gay-she-has-a-rainbow-aura girlfriend and we curl up in our non-cat home.

Back in the single days, I was pretty lucky that a smile and some intentional eye contact payed off for me. And generally speaking, I didn't run into a lot of women who were offended by the attention. Don't be creepy, smile genuinely, and hold the eye contact for just a second longer than necessary. You'll do just fine.
Posted by Krislee98 on April 14, 2010 at 10:32 AM · Report this
71
I am a woman who enjoys some very female-degrading varieties of porn (think German piss gangbang with very little seeming regard for the women involved) and I would have hoped that if I had found myself in the same situation as the LW I would have probed a bit deeper. It's very possible that the combination of alcohol and excitement at having a girl want to hear about what really gets him off led him to phrase it in a way that sounds creepy or off-putting out of context. Some incredibly GGG people find degradation and charged, sexist language too much of a minefield and would rather not engage in it, which is fine. Better she should know now than later what this guy is into, and better that he find out sooner rather than later that this otherwise kink-friendly girl blanches at the use of the term "dirty whore."

He could certainly be a creep with sexism issues, but I would have continued the conversation by asking him how he came to acknowledge this about himself, if he considers this a big aspect of his sexuality, and/or something that he really wants to explore in real life. Not everyone aspires to actually do what they jerk off to, and that would be a whole new conversation.
Posted by discodolly on April 14, 2010 at 10:36 AM · Report this
72
I am a woman who enjoys some very female-degrading varieties of porn (think German piss gangbang with very little seeming regard for the women involved) and I would have hoped that if I had found myself in the same situation as the LW I would have probed a bit deeper. It's very possible that the combination of alcohol and excitement at having a girl want to hear about what really gets him off led him to phrase it in a way that sounds creepy or off-putting out of context. Some incredibly GGG people find degradation and charged, sexist language too much of a minefield and would rather not engage in it, which is fine. Better she should know now than later what this guy is into, and better that he find out sooner rather than later that this otherwise kink-friendly girl blanches at the use of the term "dirty whore."

He could certainly be a creep with sexism issues, but I would have continued the conversation by asking him how he came to acknowledge this about himself, if he considers this a big aspect of his sexuality, and/or something that he really wants to explore in real life. Not everyone aspires to actually do what they jerk off to, but that might be the beginning of a whole new conversation.
Posted by discodolly on April 14, 2010 at 10:56 AM · Report this
73
It has been mostly guys that I've seen deal with the aftermath of failing to heed their gut and eagerly followed their dicks into what became hospital, change of work status, bail and/or lawyer scenes. Without diminishing the dangers to women, men should remember they have more than one instinct worth heeding.

That said, I just really wanted to point out that TOAD's apprehension isn't something she did to that guy. Unless if he actually is a bad guy, in which case the proper sending and receiving of "vibes" happened, this was just an incompatibility issue, and it is just as well things didn't progress. No ones fault. No big deal.
Posted by try dating specific people, not generalizations on April 14, 2010 at 10:57 AM · Report this
74
@51, 57 & 68 - I agree with your confusion as to why Dan played into the stereotype that gay sex = butt sex. I've been married to a bi guy for six years, and knew he was bi from the day we met. He's totally not into butt sex at all, but loves to play with cocks, and suck them. I don't feel threatened because he also loves my pussy. A dude can't compete with that - nor can I compete with a nice cock - even with a strap-on.
Posted by Barbara on April 14, 2010 at 11:01 AM · Report this
75
TOAD:

I think the lesson here is... don't ask a drunk man what type of porn he likes to watch. Drunk or sober, I will tell you that I like to watch a lot of lesbian porn. As a straight male, I highly doubt this makes me a closeted lesbian, I just like to watch 2 or more women enjoying each other. Now, some overzealous woman might assume that I only want to watch 2 women having intercourse, or only have sex with 2 or more women at once and never want to talk with me again. While I would enjoy being with 2 or more women at once, that is not the only sexual experiences I am interested in. As a matter of fact, that is far from the normal sexual activity I pursue. However, she did not ask what he likes for sex, she asked him what porn he likes, and judging from his porn tastes, he probably likes to be in a position of power, that is all. He may not have ever tried any of those things before, but she has pre-judged him now, and it is probably too late to salvage the relationship. However, that being said, I have to agree with Dan, and you should always trust your gut.

So, the lesson is....don't share your porn and sex tastes with women you don't know really well, and when you do, try to make it sound a little more tasteful.
Posted by Barely Kinky on April 14, 2010 at 11:10 AM · Report this
76
Seldon2639 - you are right to suggest that in a rational society, where everyone recognizes the absolute sovereignty of the individual, language should be honest and straightforward. Because there is, in fact, a big difference between "naughty sluts" and "dirty whores", and one should be able to specify one's preferences without fear of reprisal, simply because you used the wrong buzzword.
Here we have a very young woman, who admits that she is into power play and BDSM and name calling, but is uncomfortable with someone else being so frank about his own fetish for same. To me, this indicates that, although she knows what she likes, she is not entirely comfortable with it yet herself. And her gut told her - something about this guy is wrong, I'm outta here.
Very well, perhaps she should be as honest with him as he was with her, and tell him that his language put her off.
It's important to remember that even though semantics *should* be a non-issue, the fact is that many people have psychological bugs about certain words. I know one girl who loves being called a slut but wants to shrivel up and die when someone calls her a whore. TOAD shouldn't be reviled simply because she has a bad feeling or isn't quite comfortable with that level of openness yet. Yes, she shouldn't have asked about his porn if she wasn't sure she'd like the answer. But she's very young. Cut her some slack.
Posted by Heinlein's Daughter on April 14, 2010 at 11:28 AM · Report this
77
agree entirely with answer to LMBLW and would like to add this: imagine a 100% straight husband regaling his straight pals with stories of all his experiences with other women. how do you think his wife would react to that? could be less about the bisexuality and more about the fact that that is obnoxious as hell.
Posted by Shannon Murphy on April 14, 2010 at 11:33 AM · Report this
78
Seldon2639,

Come on, now. You're being obtuse on purpose. I think you see the difference very well but now you're just stubbornly hanging on to your original opinion. If not, let's break it down, shall we?

You said:
"his natural assumption was probably "well, she may not be into kinky stuff". If that's what he was thinking, I can see how a considerate kinkster would come back and (essentially) lay it all out there."

You have now heard from several kinky gals. Gals who date kinky men. They have all said they would not stick around in this situation. So you may assume that "considerate kinksters", or at least successful ones, don't "lay it all out there" using BDSM scene language in a non-BDSM context. "Considerate kinksters" know that talking about "dirty whores" to a girl you don't know well is creepy. You can either admit that charged language is acceptable in some contexts and not in others, or you can stay stuck in your totally made up catch-22 of "if I tell she'll run away, if I don't she'll be mad later." It's your choice.

You said "The neutrality of the language only exists because we deem it to have."

...I assume you mean "we deem that it exists."
Yes, that's true...and?

You said: "(and saying "I sometimes watch double penetration" when really I like "seeing whores get their asses pounded like the sluts they are" is a lie)"

No, it's not. It's exactly the same porn, just with acceptable, grown up language attached to it, although what you are describing could be called "anal sex" or "anal play", since you don't specifically mention double penetration. It's this sentence more than any other that makes me think you're deliberately choosing to pretend you don't see the difference.

When talking to your grandmother (or boss, or police officer) you might say "that woman is manipulative and controlling and I believe she might be bi-polar", instead of "that bitch is bat-shit crazy!" This is because we all know, and you know it too, that different language is acceptable in different situations and contexts. You don't use potty-mouth dirty-talk to a girl you just met. (Not if you don't want to be an asshole, anyway.) It's not hard. You understand it. You're just pretending not to.

You said "if my GIRLFRIEND asked... what kind of things I like in porn and sex,...I wouldn't prevaricate or evade, or omit."
and
"The fact that TOAD is blanching at...[an] honest answer that most people would jump at FROM A PARTNER speaks volumes about her, not him."

(The emphasis in both cases is mine.) Yes, dear, if your girlfriend, or your partner, blanched at these things, perhaps you would have a problem. TOAD, on the other hand, has only known this man a little while, and has never had sex with him. She's not his girlfriend. You see? Context. Intimacy. Words that are appropriate in one context are not appropriate in another. The fact that you are deliberately trying to obscure this speaks volumes about you, not TOAD.

You said "There's also a vast difference between "unequal power dynamics/power play/submission" and the type of degradation/humiliation/she's-a-nasty-slut play that he enjoys. You're asking him to lie about his interests."

No, there's really not, and I'm not. The terms "Power play" and "Domination/submission" are pretty broad categories of kink, and encompass lots and lots of very specific kinks. Furthermore, they both usually encompasses verbal humiliation as part of the package. I mean, if you were into submission without verbal humiliation you'd need to make a special request, 'cause generally that comes standard. And even if verbal humiliation was less universal, you would still not need to disclose every little specific thing you like to a girl you just met. "I like Domination/submission" is fine. Either she'll be interested and will ask more, at which time you can disclose further (still not using a potty mouth!), or she won't be, she'll leave, and you'll have done your "considerate kinkster" duty to "lay it all out there"...without being a creep, I might add.

I just wanna look at this phrase you used just a teeny-weeny bit more:
"...the type of degradation/humiliation... play that he enjoys."

and this one
"... The fantasy...[is about] the degradation..."

and this one!
"she only ever said 'I like to be called names'"

See? You're using acceptable language to refer to exactly the kind of kink that our original creepy guy had. It's not that hard. If he had said to TOAD,
"Well, I'm into submission."
and TOAD had pressed for details, he could have said any or all of these phrases YOU gave me. "I like it when the girls in porn are called names." "I like verbal humiliation." He tells her exactly what he likes without ever saying "dirty whores," or any other inappropriate language that would make kinky girls (or even ggg girls) head for the hills. And frankly, verbal humiliation is a pretty tame kink. I'll bet you, again, dollars to doughnuts, that if he'd said "I'm into verbal humiliation/like to call girls names" she would still be around.

"before someone comes back with "clearly you're inexperienced, you don't know what it is to really be in a D/S relationship", I'll admit you're right..."

You shock me.


More...
Posted by Bon on April 14, 2010 at 11:37 AM · Report this
79
Can girls wear different shades of green to indicate their level of woman-lovin'? Like if she's bi-curious, her button is a light pastel green while lady womanizers might pin on something in forest green?

This one isn't exactly tasteful either, but I once saw a t-shirt (online) that said "Girls: Satisfy your bi-curiosity here!" If I saw a cute girl wearing it, I'd tell her to sign me up. And lesbians can read between the lines -- "here is a girl that likes girls who don't look 'stereotypically' lesbian."
Posted by rebs on April 14, 2010 at 11:42 AM · Report this
80
@LMBLW, just have a mmf already. That should clear the air. Maybe the wife will believe in her husbands bisexuality a bit more if she was present while he was on his knees with another guys schlong buried in his throat.
Worked for me, at least.
Posted by yep_he_is on April 14, 2010 at 11:51 AM · Report this
lewlew 81
About the bi guy, sounded to me like he was flirting with former flings in front of the wife. IF that's the case, very bad behavior... I would expect the wife to be offended.

About the green button, we've had the pink triangle for a long time. As a non-stereotypical gay man, I've worn one quite a lot to make myself as immediately known as the brave flamers are. Beyond certain types of lesbians being able to find each other, it's good to be out if you can. God bless the stereotypical who pave the way for the rest of us.
Posted by lewlew on April 14, 2010 at 12:22 PM · Report this
Roadflare 82
@39, you are clearly a man. Women have to watch out for warning signals like that. He said it so blatently, it seems without reserve. I personally believe he was gaging her reaction, to see what he can get away with. It's called finesse and everyone, man or woman, should know how to use it on date with someone they don't really know. I'm not saying this guy is violent, but with the use of the words "dirty whores" it rveals a lot more than you think. There are way too many stories about women getting date raped or hurt because they brush off their initial reaction. It's the 21st century and woman like to know they will be treated with respect outside the bedroom. Using those words does not relay that to TOAD.
Posted by Roadflare on April 14, 2010 at 12:26 PM · Report this
83
re: the green button

I have a femme friend who used to wear a little silver vulva pendant around her neck. She was very popular and got a lot of play.

Perhaps not for everyone, but it does have the advantage of being subtle if you're not looking closely but REALLY REALLY obvious if you are.
Posted by Bon on April 14, 2010 at 12:28 PM · Report this
84
Doesn't this kind of go against dan's date-and-disclose, date-and-disclose advice for people who are into that stuff?I thought the recommended protocol was you have to be upfront early, weird out all the people you're gonna weird out, and eventually find someone who's into that shit too.

TOAD if you don't like him anymore you don't like him. Who really cares why, you're turned off probably by his whole vibe and personality. Game over.
Posted by Karey on April 14, 2010 at 12:36 PM · Report this
85
Still haven't figured out, or found anyone to explain to me, why behavior that is immoral and cruel and unconscionable in any other context completely loses those very appropriate designations if it's part of sex play. Honestly trying to understand, but have to admit I don't.
Posted by Belleweather on April 14, 2010 at 12:49 PM · Report this
86
@Belleweather, it has to do with consent. With consent, things are good, without consent, things are bad. It is not a distinction of certain TYPES of sex play, perfectly vanilla missionary sex is TOTALLY BAD if one party is not consenting, and really crazy mind trips are fine if both people planned and agreed and consented to the mind trip!

I think a lot of people get it in their minds that it is the *action* that is good or bad, but in fact, it is the presence or absence of CONSENT that is the real question, not any particular list of good or bad *things.*
Posted by jem102 on April 14, 2010 at 1:09 PM · Report this
O my Captain 87
I have always found that my gut is right. When it doesn't feel right for some reason, IT'S NOT RIGHT. Trust your gut. It's reacting to SOMETHING, although you may not know what it is at the moment... it's better to say "no thanks" and sort it out later than over-ride your gut and be constantly uncomfortable.

My gut is ALWAYS right. That's why it is reacting!
Posted by O my Captain on April 14, 2010 at 1:38 PM · Report this
88
Used to be a dyke could just get a nautical star tattoo (small, tasteful, fits under the face of a watch) on her wrist and call it a day, but no, now every wannabe rocker and half of Hollywood's young starlets have got them, so there goes that...
Posted by Old School Dyke on April 14, 2010 at 2:32 PM · Report this
Violet_DaGrinder 89
"Considering what shits straight men can be—judging from my mail—surely more women would choose homosexuality if they could."

Yeah, you've obviously never been in a LTR with a woman! lol

Women are craaaayzeee. Drama factories. A total pain in the ass. Complexity frosting on paradox cake. A full-time job with minimal benefits.

I'm bi and hardly ever date women anymore because men, while they can certainly be assholes, are so much easier to deal with.

Just sayin'. ;)
Posted by Violet_DaGrinder http://www.imeem.com/jukeboxmusic51/music/y1malqpG/prince-the-new-power-generation-featuring-eric-leeds-on-f/ on April 14, 2010 at 2:38 PM · Report this
90
I swear, Dan, that the vast majority of the lesbians I know (and that's quite a few) have very large dogs.In fact, the smaller the lesbian, in my experience, the larger the dog.
Posted by GoDeep on April 14, 2010 at 2:50 PM · Report this
91
Truth to @85. I can't wrap my head around the ethically contradictions either. Since the lack of consent in ANY sexual situation is rape -- a socially sanctioned crime, I'd think that'd be a real low perch to argue the ethics of BDSM from.

@86 Beyond BDSM acts being legal (consensual) what's ethical about it? Which is what I think @85 was asking.
Posted by MarieV on April 14, 2010 at 2:53 PM · Report this
92
Re: TOAD and the commenters who are defending her date's conversational approach:

Yes, compatible sexual interests ARE important in a relationship, and I'd advise kinksters never to hold that stuff back from a suitor and then "spring it on them" later on. Which is why, when I used to have an online personal ad, I mentioned in passing that I'm dominant and into pegging and gender fluidity.

I did NOT say "I'm gonna pull down your panties and pound your ass like the little whore you are" because that's BEDROOM talk. That's what I'd say to a trusted partner I was already intimate with. Since I draw a strict line between playtime and real life (i.e. I don't ACTUALLY believe that men are sluts who deserve to be hurt or punished), and since my ad was addressed toward a general audience and not a group of crossdressing subs, I framed my kinks in a more discreet way.

Nobody's recommending lies; just TACT. There's a goddamn difference.

(p.s. thanks to that ad, I'm now in a fantastic, healthy, loving relationship with the most beautiful little crossdressing slutboy I've ever seen. My approach worked.)
Posted by perversecowgirl on April 14, 2010 at 3:59 PM · Report this
93
p.p.s. If I were single and talking to a SUB, the same thing applies. A guy who says "I'm into haughty bitches who'll kick my wormy little ass" I wouldn't feel like I was in physical danger or anything but I WOULD wonder whether he's blurring the lines between life and sex.

There are subs out there who truly believe that they're stupid and bad and deserve bad treatment; there are doms who truly believe they're superior and should be allowed to treat another human being however they want. Those people are scary and emotionally unstable and I want no part of that. Good for TOAD for running away from someone who seemed to blur that line.

And, BTW, even if the guy had phrased things in a more socially acceptable manner, the bottom line is that TOAD got a weird vibe from him. She trusted her gut, which is ALWAYS better than making lists of pros and cons about someone and trying to decide logically. Remember how many famous serial killers were attractive and personable?
Posted by perversecowgirl on April 14, 2010 at 4:14 PM · Report this
94
@45

I guess that's simply a different standard than I've applied to my relationships.

But, even ignoring the whole "honesty is good" aspect that I hold to, even as a cynical bastard, your objection to my projection of her crying about him later bringing it up is specious at best. We've seen plenty of girls who write in to Dan doing so from the perspective of "he never told me about this kinky thing, ect. Now he really wants it, and I'm not sure I do, how can I get him to stop". And we've seen plenty of letters from guys who've been broken up with because of a kink they disclose too late in a relationship.

I think my point is: why are we all assuming that he would have known she was GGG? Everyone is referring to how TOAD is kinky, or how (as a kinky girl) they wouldn't go out with him again either, but that's skipping over part. Specifically, you're ignoring the part of "how the hell would he know that?" Even some GGG men and women would balk at a rape fantasy (I've dated some of them). And if that fantasy were important to me, it makes perfect sense to raise it at the first possible opportunity, to make sure that the the relationship I'm considering devoting time, money, and energy to is actually going to work.

If I could only contemplate dating girls who are atheists, would anyone blanch at me saying on a first date "yeah, I think religion is complete crap and that anyone who believes it is a brainwashed sheep"?

Didn't think so.

@54

I agree with you wholeheartedly

Just wanted to let you know.

@54

Wow... Just... Wow.

I'm not really sure where to start. Your practice of applying a motive without any basis except your own assumptions is both laughable and dangerous.

The attitude that in order to enjoy what can be easily described as misogynistic pornography is to have either a hidden or unexplored hatred for women is, to put it plainly, crap. And, to be honest with you, if your reaction to that type of pornography is an immediate "what the hell is wrong with you?" You're far from being one of the kinkiest straight women I'll ever meet. Don't overestimate your own level of kink as being "the 'reasonable' maximum" and declare everyone past that to have issues.

Do I agree that actually engaging in kinky play is always about a give-and-take, and making sure both partners are safe and having fun? Of course.

Do I think that having a kink which you personally enjoy in pornography is negotiable? No. Do I believe that one has to hate women to enjoy watching porn of a woman being gang-banged while called a disgusting whore? No. Do I believe that someone has to actually want to harm a child to read manga about underage children? No.

Why the hell do you?

Maybe it's a difference in how I've been raised, but I would find it more proof of his contempt if he has obfuscated, or lied, about what he enjoyed. His honest answer showed her a level of respect that she clearly didn't deserve.

@58

Perhaps it's the lawyer-in-training in me, but your fact pattern is way different from TOAD's. I don't think many decent men (much less honorable kinksters) would demand to know your fetishes before dinner. But, the difference is that you never asked.

TOAD pressed the conversation too early, and got "burned" by unexpected honesty. If you don't want to know if your partner is a cheater, don't ask if he's a cheater. If you can't handle if your partner is an atheist, don't try to take him to church.

If those are dealbreakers, ask, but it isn't his fault for being honest.

@60

Yeah, but she didn't ask 'how's your sex life', or even just 'do you watch porn'. She asked "what kind of porn do you like?" That's a world of difference.

If there was a failure to communicate here, that's fine. She just wanted to know if he was comfortable with her, and what kink of acceptably deviant things he was into. He thought she wanted an honest answer. There's no guilt to be had on either side.

Of course, I also think she should be honest and tell him "that stuff kind of freaked me out", and he can at least know that the only reason she stopped seeing him was that she couldn't handle him being honest.

@62

Semantics. Pure semantics.

That's like saying there's a difference between me saying "I'm an atheist", and me saying "I think religion is completely incorrect, and that god can't possibly exist"

True, one leaves a bit more to the imagination, but it's the same damned thing. If this woman honestly couldn't understand that "I like dirty whores being gang-banged" is actually a short-hand for saying "I like actresses who pretend to be dirty whores having sex with a large number of men in a fantasy setting", clearly she should never go to any kind of anime or comic-book convention... Or discuss any book with anyone.

Trust me, when I say that I love Karrin Murphy (in the context of discussing books), I really don't mean that I think she's real.

@64

I agree completely. Shocker, I know. I agree that there's no reason to stay in an uncomfortable situation, or force yourself to date someone you aren't liking (for whatever reason).

But, that doesn't make it the date's fault for "making" her feel that way. It's simple incompatibility, there's no guilt anywhere. What I'm reacting to are the multitudes of comments which are (fundamentally) people saying "that was really dumb of him, he freaked her out".

No, she was freaked out. He did nothing but honestly answer her inquiry. Simple incompatibility. Kind of like how if a girl doesn't find me physically attractive, it doesn't make me inherently ugly.

@65

Um... when did I say I thought "I like name-calling" would be a lie? I thought that saying "I like double-penetration" would be a lie when what you actually enjoy is verbal abuse, but that's different.

I also think that passing it off as a joke would be at the very least a sin of omission, but that's not the same thing.

Don't mistake me saying that the various suggestions of what he should have said are lies as categorically stating that anything aside from the most extreme truth is a lie.

He should have said he enjoys degradation, verbal abuse, humiliation, ect. But, to assume that because he didn't call them the appropriate phrases, he must be a misogynist who can't distinguish fantasy from reality I think is a step too far.

@67.

I guess stubborn, because I'm unwilling to accept that honestly answering a question should be considered creepy.

If you don't find his actual fetishes creepy, the fact that he explained them bluntly shouldn't be creepy. It's a pretty simple syllogism.

Do I think there's a more polite way to explain his kinks? Sure. Do I think that your assumptions regarding his personality are true? No.

We know very little of the reality of the situation, so all I'm trying to do is encourage you not to leap to conclusions. Would everything have been better if they'd not talked about this on the first date? Yes

Whose fault is it that they did? Hers.

@71

Thank you.

A rare beacon of hope in a series of posts which are persuading me that I really should stop thinking of kinksters as being at all more open or honest.

@73

Exactly. They can be incompatible even without her being an overly-sensitive bitch or him being a creepy bastard.

There doesn't have to be fault here

@76

I'm more than happy to cut her slack. But what I don't accept is the unwillingness to cut him slack for being honest.

It's not just that "he told her the truth". He must be inexperienced, he must be socially unaware, he must be an actual misogynist.

I'll lay off her, when the women here, Bon in particular, lay off him

Otherwise, I do completely agree with you. There's no fault for this. He was more open than she was prepared for. She asked a question she shouldn't have asked. He should have been more politic in his response.

No one's to blame.

@78

"Come on, now. You're being obtuse on purpose. I think you see the difference very well but now you're just stubbornly hanging on to your original opinion. If not, let's break it down, shall we?"

You really do like assuming motivations for other people's statements, and purporting them to be true, don't you? Rather than actually taking the time to have an honest conversation, you just want to apply your own suppositions for my beliefs and feelings, and call it good.

That does put your previous posts in a different light.

"You can either admit that charged language is acceptable in some contexts and not in others, or you can stay stuck in your totally made up catch-22 of "if I tell she'll run away, if I don't she'll be mad later." It's your choice."

And it can't possibly be TOAD's fault for asking a question she didn't want the answer to? You keep forgetting (or ignoring purposefully, I'll leave it up to you to decide which) that he didn't bring it up out of the blue. She asked him. So, I accept that 'charged language' is only acceptable in certain contexts. Answering a direct question is one of them.

Lying is bad, remember?

"...I assume you mean "we deem that it exists."
Yes, that's true...and?"

There's no objective truth to the acceptability of the more clinical way to describe it. You're more comfortable with one explanation and series of words over another. That doesn't make it right, just the way you feel. It's a subjective question, not objective.

"No, it's not. It's exactly the same porn, just with acceptable, grown up language attached to it, although what you are describing could be called "anal sex" or "anal play", since you don't specifically mention double penetration. It's this sentence more than any other that makes me think you're deliberately choosing to pretend you don't see the difference."

It's the same porn, but a different aspect I find attractive. If I simply call that anal, I'm not actually sharing the part of it I truly find enjoyable. So, assuming my girlfriend is GGG (which I doubt TOAD is), she'll approach me with the part of the fantasy she knows about, and is still completely unaware of the part of the fantasy that's truly important to me.

If the point of his answer was to give her an honest view into what he likes (even though the point of her question obviously was not to acquire an honest view into what he likes), then calling it anal wouldn't actually be giving her an honest response.

True, it'd be technically true (the porn does contain anal), but not really honest.

"Words that are appropriate in one context are not appropriate in another. The fact that you are deliberately trying to obscure this speaks volumes about you, not TOAD."

She asked. She asked. She asked.

I'm going to keep repeating this until eventually you comprehend that she asked a question, and he answered honestly (as any decent person would). And, not for nothing, but if a girl (even on a first date) asked me a personal question, I'm going to answer it. Why would I (or anyone else) want to date someone who can't accept who I am? Much less one who asks a question without wanting an honest response.

If I ask my date whether she's ever cheated, I don't want a response of "well, what really counts as cheating". I want a direct, honest, complete, answer. The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

Maybe I just like being honest. Call me crazy.

"Either she'll be interested and will ask more, at which time you can disclose further (still not using a potty mouth!), or she won't be, she'll leave, and you'll have done your "considerate kinkster" duty to "lay it all out there"...without being a creep, I might add."

So...

The end result is the same, and it just takes more time to get there? That seems like a bad deal for me. She still leaves, and all I've done is waste more time on a girl who can't accept honesty, and is clearly (despite calling herself GGG), quite unable to distinguish between the level of fantasy one has, and the level of fantasy one wants to engage in.

"And frankly, verbal humiliation is a pretty tame kink. I'll bet you, again, dollars to doughnuts, that if he'd said "I'm into verbal humiliation/like to call girls names" she would still be around."

I completely agree. But the fact that he didn't doesn't make him creepy. It just makes him more blunt. She asked him a question, and the first thing that came to his mind was the direct and blunt answer of "I like seeing dirty whores", rather than the much more political answer of "well, I enjoy verbal abuse, with some degradation". I bet if she had asked him in a different setting, less alcohol, and given him time to think about a more polite answer, he wouldn't have said what he said.

"You shock me"

Yeah, unless D/S relationships are inherently less healthy than normal relationships, the difference in this case is meaningless. If a prospective girlfriend asked me a question, I would answer it honestly.

Why do I want to be with someone who would as a question without wanting an honest answer, or (worse) can't accept the answer I give.

On the other side: why would my date want to be with someone who doesn't give an honest answer

@82

I am indeed male. But, I'd like you to remember that TOAD pushed the issue. She asked. He answered. He showed her the respect of being honest, rather than trying to manipulate her, and censor his actions in order to appeal to her.

@84

That's what I've been trying to say. Dan is pretty clear about advocating that we disclose upfront our kinkiness, lest we spring it on people. His advice to TOAD's date through TOAD is to be disingenuous about it.

@92

But, the line between acceptable explanation of kink, and bedroom talk is a pretty fine one. He didn't say "I like to see women call themselves dirty whores while gagging themselves on dicks", he simply said he liked dirty whores, gang-bangs, ect.

I'd say his response is pretty close to your statement that you like pegging.

That's what the disagreement is. And, bear in mind (as I'll repeat until people accept it):

she asked him what he liked.
More...
Posted by Seldon2639 on April 14, 2010 at 4:43 PM · Report this
95
seldon2639 -- last week's Savage Love column provides no evidence of what you decry as a "complicated game, and more just that we just can't win for losing. If I shy away from that revelation early on, and I obfuscate (which, let's face it, is lying), I'm a bastard. Brass tacks, when it comes down to it, the only way to get out of saying "I like rape, dirty whores, and gang-bangs" if I like those things is to be misleading. I can always say "well, I like a lot of different things, and "oh, I like oral sex, I guess", but that's just as much a lie as if I'd said "I don't watch porn". Then, later, if I mention it once we're really close, I've been hiding it, and if she does think it's sick and wrong, she's going to backlash against it (remember, please, the guy from last week whose girlfriend did just that)."

This was *not* the scenario presented to Dan last week by Feminist Rape Fantasist. FRF told Dan that he just recently had been "coming to terms with the fact that I am turned on by rape fantasies." When he broached the topic with his girlfriend by suggesting that act out his fantasy of feeling up a woman on the subway, his girlfriend didn't accuse him of hiding anything from her; rather, she offered to "help [him] figure out and work through the psychological gender-power issues behind it" in the hope that he would be "cured."

In any event, it's of no consequence to me if a man were to later deem me dishonest because I hadn't been been blunt or graphic about my kinks in the preliminary stages of our relationship. If he can't understand why I want to feel a certain measure of trust before revealing something I consider to be personal, then he's too immature for me anyway. And because I value discretion and what I consider to be sound judgment, what TOAD describes would be a deal breaker in my book.

Are you and that man "wrong" in any ethical sense? Nope, but you're wrong for me -- and I get to decide that for myself. Just as it's your prerogative to reject a woman who doesn't share your view that "oral sex is a basic right in a relationship."



More...
Posted by MollyMalone on April 14, 2010 at 5:35 PM · Report this
96
@95

I completely agree. And if any of us could have had this conversation from the beginning without devolving into blame, epithets, and attempts to paint the person we're most sympathetic towards as being completely right in this, no real heated argument could have happened.

But, the fact that the girlfriend last week's reaction wasn't simply "how dare you hide this", doesn't make her reaction any less bad, or any less preventable by being open and honest from the get-go. True, in last week's case it would have lead to a break-up early on, but that's still preferable.

Only two things can happen if I'm honest upfront. She either accepts it, or we never see each other again. If I keep it hidden, she can either accept it, break up, or try the 'we'll fix you' crap. If it's either of the second two cases, we have to break up anyway. So, if you can't accept my kinks presented forthrightly, I'd much rather break up before I've put any real emotional energy into the relationship.

The specific reaction is different, but the fact pattern fits.

As I said, though, I completely agree that they're simply incompatible (as you and I would be). The issue I took was in attempting to blame the man for having been honest, and paint him as a creepy bastard, rather than simply accepting that due to no ones fault, they were not compatible.
Posted by Seldon2639 on April 14, 2010 at 5:48 PM · Report this
nocutename 97
Seldon 2639:
I'm honestly curious:
Do you have anything else to do today?
At all?

Posted by nocutename on April 14, 2010 at 6:29 PM · Report this
98
Okay, Jem, that helps me along to the next question, and again I am not trying to make trouble, I'm absolutely 1000% in favor of benign sexual variations of all kinds. But I'm just wrestling with this on a theoretical level. Consent is indeed a very big thing but we don't say that abuse is okay between a couple just because the abused partner says it's okay. So why does it become okay during sex play? Where's the line drawn? If someone finds it sexually stimulating to be hit to the point of bruising, and finds the bruises sexually stimulating, is that okay? When is consent *not* enough, I guess is my question. And is it possible that even with consent and safeguards, it is still unhealthy for someone to be, say, reliving abuse through re-enactment? Thanks, not many people seem to want to go here and again, I am trying very hard to understand a loved one who's into kink w/o being judgmental.
Posted by Belleweather on April 14, 2010 at 6:31 PM · Report this
99
As a woman with a LOT of experience under my belt, I have found as a rule of thumb, that men who are heavily into porn are BAD NEWS WITH A BULLET. By heavily into; I mean that they actually HAVE a collection of it, and those into the "kinky stuff' are even WORSE. Porn is degradation of women, period, full stop. Men who habitually indulge in porn, particularly the degraded-woman stuff ENJOY seeing women degraded. Ask yourself: is this the sort of person you want as a boyfriend? true, men like to look at porn, and the man who NEVER indulges is a rare bird, but there IS a difference between someone who OCCASIONALLY indulges, and someoen who HABITUALLY indulges."When you touch pitch you become dirty"; a man who ENJOYS the idea of degraded women and who INDULGES it regularly is NOT someone who likes or respects women. Caveat emptor!
Posted by Mamaluchie on April 14, 2010 at 6:34 PM · Report this
100
@94

I think you're right on this one. From the information given in the letter, it's likely that the problem is just simple incompatibility. TOAD asked the question, and perhaps she only realized when he started talking that she wasn't quite ready for that yet. And probably when she bolted, the dude sat there wondering "what the fuck? she WANTED to talk about porn!" She's not wrong for being creeped out, that just happens sometimes. But if you try to see it from the guy's perspective, he was probably pretty goddamned confused when she freaked and ran. Poor bugger probably WAS just being honest, and perhaps very excited at a potentially kinky new partner. No crime in that, is there?
Posted by Dan's right on this one on April 14, 2010 at 6:34 PM · Report this
101
@99

Whoa, are you serious? I'm a woman whose boyfriend habitually looks at porn....and I also habitually look at porn. Porn is wonderful, ESPECIALLY the kinky stuff (someone up there mentioned kink.com, those magnificent bastards). Those kinds of generalizations really just show that your knowledge of men is both limited and very, very sad.
Posted by Dan's right on this one on April 14, 2010 at 6:44 PM · Report this
102
@91 - What's ethical about BDSM? I'm sorry, but what the hell kind of question is that?

Consensual power play can be a HUGE turn on for some people. It's negotiated before. Limits are set. If some limits are to be pushed, it's discussed beforehand and the submissive always has a safe word to use for when things are pressing their buttons too hard.

It's something that both parties want to do, is a turn on for both parties and in some cases is a deeper emotional / psychological need than just sexual / turn on.

There's nothing unethical about it.
Posted by Dave_MB on April 14, 2010 at 6:46 PM · Report this
103
A bit of revisionist history here, sheldon; take a look at your first post (#20). You were quick to assign "blame" to TOAD when no blame need exist. Only a person who believes that her refusing to proceed forward with the man is "unfair" [as you've made clear you do] will perceive the negative comments about his response to TOAD's question as "attempting to blame the man for having been honest" & drawing a line between "right" and "wrong."

I had hoped my preceding post might prompt you to reconsider the whole notion of "fairness" that you seem so invested in. It obviously didn't -- but unlike you, I won't "repeat [myself] until people accept it" [insert eyeball roll here].



Posted by MollyMalone on April 14, 2010 at 6:46 PM · Report this
nseattlite 104
I haven't read all the comments, so apologies if this is a repeat. Umm, isn't there already a sign people can use if they are typically considered gay/lesbian? Isn't it a rainbow and/or upside down triangle?

Just sayin', it's more subtle than the t-shirt idea and ubiquitous enough to also keep the heteros at bay.
Posted by nseattlite on April 14, 2010 at 6:48 PM · Report this
105
Some gay men don't take it in the ass. Also, some bisexual men don't take it in the ass. That's the dumbest criterion I've ever heard. "You don't take it in the ass? You're not a bisexual." Women aren't expected to take it in the ass just because they can; neither should bisexual men be. As a gay man who loves shoving all kinds of things up my ass, I proudly defend this married bisexual man's right to be "exit only" if he damn well chooses and still proudly carry the bisexual flag.
Posted by pinchefresco on April 14, 2010 at 6:54 PM · Report this
106
See, for me, if a 'non-stereotypical' lesbian were to waltz into a bar, I would be overjoyed.

It's really hard to find girls that are my type. I hope the green button catches on. Only problem is if it catches on too well it opens us up for discrimination.
Posted by aripop on April 14, 2010 at 7:05 PM · Report this
107
Post didn't make it, will try again - thank you Jem, I see about the consent issue, but that raises another ? for me: we (healthy rational society) do not consider consent to be a get-outta-immorality-free card in cases of abuse ("She loves it when I punch her teeth out" "Yeah, I really do, you can go, officer"). I'm struggling to figure out why it makes so much otherwise-unconscionable behavior okay in sex play. Is it, as some posters here suggest, okay if you're pretending to abuse/be abused, but not really invested in it as real, actual abuse? And how do you know whether a person is really giving consent and pretending versus, say, re-enacting abuse in an unhealthy way? And how far does consent go? If he likes getting beaten hard enough to leave bruises, is that okay? I see what everyone's saying about being very very careful, but is everyone really that careful? I am trying to understand a loved one who's into kink, and I am very respectful while I'm trying to learn about this, but I also don't want to be dishonest about my sincere questions. And no, I can't ask the person these questions, even very respectfully.
Posted by Belleweather on April 14, 2010 at 7:06 PM · Report this
108
whups, sorry for the essentially-double posting -
Posted by Belleweather on April 14, 2010 at 7:08 PM · Report this
109
@107, as a kinkster, my own personal ethos is that consent goes as far as *both* parties are comfortable with it going, and as long as both parties have the capacity to understand the risks involved.

I realize that sounds opaque, so I'll break it down a little -

Let's say Alice and Bob both like flogging. Flogging, then, is on the table. Alice likes humiliation, but Bob doesn't. Humiliation is off the table, unless Bob changes his mind of his own accord (including agreeing with stipulations in the name of being GGG, which he may do, but he has a right to make it as conditional as he so chooses). Neither of them like bondage, so bondage is off the table.

Notice anything? I didn't tell you who's topping and who's bottoming, or whether it's a dominant/submissive dynamic. That's because in this context, it doesn't matter. Both Alice and Bob have equal "right of refusal", and a refusal by one party takes an activity off the table for the other.

Now let's say Bob wants to be flogged, but Alice doesn't feel right about doing it at this particular moment. Something feels off about Bob's mood/behavior/headspace, or her own. She doesn't like flogging any less, but she has a right to say, "Not tonight, something doesn't feel right." The same applies if Alice were the floggee.

There are countless complications to this basic idea - if two people have an existing D/s relationship, they may (or may not) have an understanding that the submissive cannot in fact refuse a given activity... but the submissive still doesn't waive the right to say "wait, I need a time out, stop the dynamics, I need to talk to you about this as an equal."

This is, of course, just how I personally handle things. I don't like bloodplay, so I don't do it. I'm a rope top, so I don't play with people who can't handle bondage. If someone's never been in bondage before, I don't start out with a hogtie (that falls under "they don't know what they're in for.") Etc, etc. BDSM has an element of "live and let live" to it, and if you try to negotiate your way through every hypothetical "what about," you'll never wrap your head around the actualities... because most people aren't going to *want* to be caged for 24 hours, or ask you to consume their liver.
More...
Posted by seanchai on April 14, 2010 at 7:36 PM · Report this
110
Okay, 109, that is helpful. Do you just keep your intuition on to help you decide whether it's *not* just a game with a potential partner, as in the letter today? In the lifestyle, would it be considered unethical to play with someone if you had reason to think they were not really coming from a healthy place about it, even if they *said* they were? I try to read about this online but so many people, especially those into D/s, emphatically don't write about it as if it were a game, and I find myself wondering how one reliably knows where playing ends and real serious psychological trouble and/or abuse begins.
Posted by Belleweather on April 14, 2010 at 7:52 PM · Report this
111
@107, what 109 said.

Yes, people really are that careful. Going to swinger's parties, alcohol is a much welcomed lubricant. Go to a bdsm club and alcohol is very much off limits. If you are going to be flogging, or beating someone hard, you really, really have to be cognizant of what you are doing and how it is affecting the person.

Likewise, when you play and there's been the power exchange it's very important to not only know what's going on in the scene, but also how it affects the person down the road and whether it's working on them.

There's a tremendous amount of give and take in a good D/s relationship. Seeing what works, what doesn't work...

Yes consent goes to the very core of everything. You don't start off hard-core. You work your way up to it, feeling along the way. There are a number of bdsm websites out there. Read up on it. There are a lot of good books out there. Like 'Screw the Roses, Give me the Thorns'.
Posted by Dave_MB on April 14, 2010 at 7:56 PM · Report this
Canuck 112
If you're looking for an "identifier," as a piece of jewelery, or later as a commitment ring, etc., this London jeweler makes absolutely beautiful things...
http://www.stepheneinhorn.co.uk/gay_and_…
Posted by Canuck on April 14, 2010 at 7:57 PM · Report this
113
Belleweather, there's a pretty good introductory page on BDSM at xeromag, here http://www.xeromag.com/fvbdsm.html

I was going to try to discuss the difference between BDSM and abuse (it's huge, I practice consensual BDSM with my partner and have never been abused) here, but this guy does it better.
Posted by Mysti on April 14, 2010 at 8:04 PM · Report this
114
@Belleweather,

The watchword of ethical BDSM is "safe, sane and consensual." I talked about the consensual first, but then there is also the safe and sane parts. You don't take unnecessary risks, you don't do something to appeal to a particular psychological kink that has the potential to go disastrously wrong and cause permanent physical damage. Some requests, such as, say, cannibalism or snuff scenes, are not at all possible to fit into "safe" or "sane" in any way, EVEN IF the "consent" is there.

The difference between BDSM and abuse where the abused partner won't leave is when the "excuse" or "consent" is given, in BDSM, it is negotiated before hand, and BOTH parties express by their actions, that consent is important and they are unwilling to proceed without obtaining it. Abuse doesn't do that. Abuse has one partner do whatever the heck they want, and then the other partner might 'excuse' it for whatever reason. But that's NOT actually 'consent.' Abuse also doesn't have the "safe" or "sane" watchwords applied carefully.

But it seems you are personally more invested in the psychological part, rather than physical damage. That one is much tougher, because psychological damage is much harder to see, and you can never tell externally and objectively if someone is working to fix an existing psychological damage, or causing more. You don't know that, BUT, in a close relationship with good communication, people are more likely to be able to read a partner's momentary psychological state, and care to pull the plug on a scene if they believe it is going badly. BDSM as a community works harder to promote healthy communication than pretty much any other relationship community I know of, and everybody is thus primed to care very much whether or not their partner is in the right "headspace" and willing to stop the action if they suspect something is off.

There are assholes in every group, but other groups generally "assume" a lot instead of actually communicating, actually working out issues, and figuring out the intricacies of the particular person you are with at that moment. In that sense, less assuming and more actual communication, seems to me that it would lead to *safer* situations psychologically than otherwise.
More...
Posted by jem102 on April 14, 2010 at 8:06 PM · Report this
Bluejean Baby 115
@ #58... i totally agree with your post! As an adult female who chats online, i can attest to the fact that there seems to be a trend of too much information being imparted way too soon. I have no clue if i'm going to meet the person i'm chatting with, but to start a conversation off with how he wants to ass-fuck me and hear me scream till i'm hoarse, well, that just scares the bejeezus out of me and i sometimes don't even say goodbye to idiots like this, i just move on.

Then i wonder ...there must be women out there who LIKE this kind of overt sexuality in the first conversation! I don't know, just guessing.

If a man is really interested in learning more about the woman he's talking to, he'd be better to temper his words and be patient. Facial and tonal cues make a difference too, when it's a face-to-face conversation, and perhaps TOAD picked up on these non-verbal cues, which could have also given her that creepy feeling. Who is to judge? If you are creeped-out, it's your call, and i'm all for trusting your gut.
Posted by Bluejean Baby on April 14, 2010 at 8:21 PM · Report this
116
@ 110, oh, absolutely. Intuition is a *huge* part of BDSM, second only to consent in my mind. Intuition is what *keeps* things "safe" and "sane", because safe isn't just about "is this physically safe," but "does it *feel* safe, for me and my partner, at this particular moment," and sane isn't just about "are we both sober and stable," but "Am I feeling stressed out today? Is my partner? Can we play stressed, or would things take a bad turn? If they do, will I be able to notice/listen/watch? Will *they* be able to give me some kind of signal?" and so on. Intuition is honed via experience, which is why it's to the benefit of both people to start slowly, whether first entering kink or just doing it with a new partner - everyone has different signals, and it's a lot easier to abort a hand spanking scene or untie someone's wrists than to try to undo a full body harness or pack up a bunch of impact gear.

An example of how intuition plays into safe and sane even in the case of two experienced people: I'm physically disabled, as was/is one of my first subs. I was in the middle of some pretty intricate bondage, and he was standing up. About halfway through, something just felt *wrong*. I looked him over... he looked fine. I asked if he was okay, he said he was, and sounded like he meant it. I did a circulation check - all okay. I asked him again: "Are you sure you're okay? Do I need to get you on the bed? Anything hurting/tingling?" He assured me again that he was fine... giving me a funny look at this point. I thought about it for a half second, then started undoing the knots that were restricting his movement. "Sorry babe, I think you need to come out of this." He got a little upset... for about thirty seconds, before he suddenly trailed off and passed out. At that point I was anticipating something along those lines, so I was able to catch him, push him onto the bed, and get a pulseox probe on his finger... turned out, his oxygen saturation had taken a sudden drop. He hadn't been breathing shallowly, his breathing wasn't restricted, he wasn't uncomfortable, he wasn't unwell, he hadn't gone pale/blue, wasn't sweating... there were absolutely no concrete outward signs. But he did have a chronic lung disease, of which I was aware, so when *something* seemed off, I knew to stop (and how to deal with it). Which also illustrates the importance of disclosing any medical conditions to anyone you play with.

You ask, "In the lifestyle, would it be considered unethical to play with someone if you had reason to think they were not really coming from a healthy place about it, even if they *said* they were?"

I would say most kinksters in the lifestyle would find that unethical, yes. I certainly would and do... if someone says something that pings my "this person is not in a healthy place" radar, I will tell them so (gently), explain what about what they said sounds unhealthy to me, and, while I will *talk* to them about kinky things all they would like, in an academic/identity sort of way - because to me, kink is an identity issue, and I have had periods in my life where I knew I was not healthy enough for play/power dynamics, but needed to talk about *why* I needed what I needed - I won't allow conversations like that to stray toward fueling of fantasies (that just causes frustration), or lead to actual play.
More...
Posted by seanchai on April 14, 2010 at 8:38 PM · Report this
117
The letter from TOAD and the responses to it remind me of this recent post over at Shapely Prose - "Schroedinger's Rapist." (And no, I'm in no way saying TOAD's date is a rapist - see here for an explanation: http://kateharding.net/2009/10/08/guest-…). The basic gist of the article is that when you first meet someone, there is a possibility that person is a wonderful human being, but there's also a possibility they really aren't. If that person says or does something that creeps you out, their "right" to receive the benefit of the doubt (that they misspoke, that they were awkward, that you misheard) is trumped by your own right to protect your personal safety and comfort in the way that seems best.

Of course it's possible that this guy is a nice, harmless kinkster who simply was drunk and blurted something out accidentally, that he misread the situation and thought they were ready to share on that level. It's possible. It's also possible that he's NOT a nice, harmless kinkster, and that his misreading of (or disregard for) what was appropriate in that situation might signal a creepy disregard for a partner's comfort later on. That's also possible.

The point is, TOAD doesn't know. If she makes a mistake in dumping the guy (because he's actually a really sweet and considerate kinkster), the worst that happens is that she misses out on a potentially satisfying relationship. If she makes a mistake in keeping the guy around (because he's actually a creep), the worst that happens is a lot worse.
Posted by Berkolate on April 14, 2010 at 9:16 PM · Report this
118
Thanks, Sean, Jem, Mysti, Dave - all good information and I feel I have a better understanding and clearer picture of how it works now.
Posted by Belleweather on April 14, 2010 at 9:48 PM · Report this
119
@117 - very true, and thanks for linking to that post, it's very applicable to this situation.
Posted by argyle on April 14, 2010 at 11:24 PM · Report this
120
As a straight man who has hit on his fair share of very fun n' cute lesbians, and who has also been hit on by a bunch of real nice fella's-- I think that we should all just lighten up!
Posted by Welly on April 14, 2010 at 11:36 PM · Report this
121
@97

Not a god-damned thing, obviously.

@103

Um... You seem to have missed the post I was replying to. #15 very directly placed the blame on TOAD's date, rather than simply being neutral and saying "yep, they weren't compatible".

The revisionist history seems to be on your side, dear.

I have no qualms with her having decided not to see him again. What I take issue with is the idea that she has a justifiable reason for it, or that the man did something to deserve her reaction. She does not, and he did not.

Don't mistake a belief that her reaction is illogical and unreasonable with a belief that she has some duty to continue seeing him
Posted by Seldon2639 on April 15, 2010 at 12:02 AM · Report this
122
@smys: forget the buttons. go to different places and parties, there are so many different (stereo)types of lesbians out there, some places are so crowded with girliegirls you`ll be missing your all-dyke/butch bar in no time.
ps:most of them propably stare at you because youre hot or because they'd stare at anyone "new" coming to "their" bar ...try to make some friends there, best way of meeting someone to date or so is beeing introduced to them
Posted by alraune on April 15, 2010 at 12:49 AM · Report this
123
BRAVO to you, once again, Dan, for your excellent advice to TOAD, and to TOAD: BRAVO to you, too, for trusting your gut and bolting when you felt unsafe with the "out there" kinks of a guy you barely knew.

I agree: he could be inexperienced; he could be a totally abusive asshole, or nice and decent enough but just not subtle enough yet to keep from creeping out prospective GFs about his sexual preferences.

Good call to trust your gut!
Posted by wileEcoyote on April 15, 2010 at 12:51 AM · Report this
124
wow.......... if you are TOAD and are drunk and your date is drunk, and you ask them what kind of porn they like and get a straight answer (alcohol diminishes your inhibitions) ... well, you might not like the answer, ok, but I def don't agree that the date should have 'lied' or 'covered up' his taste in porn. maybe deflect the topic like #28 suggests, all good and playful answers, if he did not want to say because he knows his taste is a bit extreme... but again, if you are a bit drunk.........you have no judgement to do so!!

If she has a bad feeling, then just don't see him again, but really, you don't go around asking about what porn people like and expect to hear that they love romantic sex porn movies or something. people don't watch porn for that, people watch porn to see things they usually don't get to experience, like we watch star wars or friday 13th movies... because, do not forget it, porn are just movies -fake- tales .
Posted by bitch boy on April 15, 2010 at 2:07 AM · Report this
125
I'm not into BDSM at all, but in the past Dan has mentioned meetings called munches for such folks; would it be appropriate for Belleweather to go to one to get her questions answered?

And yes, TOAD did the right thing. Creepy is so subjective that it really isn't possible to say one way or another that this was a bad guy, but even if he wasn't, he creeped her out, so she left. She doesn't owe him any benefit of the doubt. Even if there is only a small chance he was a bad guy, it's entirely her call as to whether it is worth the risk of ignoring her antennae.
Posted by SpookyCats on April 15, 2010 at 6:07 AM · Report this
126
Somehow, somewhere, and I don't remember how or when or where, I got the idea that "softball" was the code word for lesbians. Well, what do I know? I'm a straight guy, 61 years old.
Posted by francoinsfnm on April 15, 2010 at 7:05 AM · Report this
DaddyTW 127
whenever I meet someone new and begin that conversation about sexual activity, especially if the other person brings it up first, my response is ALWAYS something that includes my role as a Dominant Top and the mantra 'safe, sane, and consensual'. Those 'in the know' immediately understand and let me know by their response (Yes, Sir!). It allows for the conversation to include HIV status, what each one considers 'safe' and opens the door for sharing experiences, preferences, and interests. When their response is more along the lines of 'that's an interesting phrase, what does it mean?' I get to have talk about all 3 of those dimensions. If someone's gut tells them to run as fast as possible from me because I'm a freak, that's as real as it gets for them and I respect it. he is simply not the right guy for me. Otherwise I'm lying about that mantra.
Posted by DaddyTW on April 15, 2010 at 8:09 AM · Report this
128
Seldon:

Semantics. Pure semantics.

That's like saying there's a difference between me saying "I'm an atheist", and me saying "I think religion is completely incorrect, and that god can't possibly exist"


There *is* a difference. Just like there's a difference between saying "I am a fundamentalist Christian" and "I believe everyone who isn't a Christian is going to hell". Or a difference between saying "Many young women are employed as prostitutes" and "A lot of girls are whores." Or, for that matter, calling someone "black" vs calling them "a nigger", or "Hispanic" vs "spic". One of these statements is an assertion of a fact (at least, when true), and the other is confrontational and rude.

Semantics should not be dismissed as some sort of obscure academic discipline, nuance can carry a lot of meaning.

I guess stubborn, because I'm unwilling to accept that honestly answering a question should be considered creepy.

If you don't find his actual fetishes creepy, the fact that he explained them bluntly shouldn't be creepy. It's a pretty simple syllogism.


It's not necessarily that they're inherently creepy, it is that they're... risky. You need a lot of trust to let someone do something like that to you; and if you're not stupid, crazy, or emotionally damaged, that trust needs a sturdy foundation that he hadn't built yet. It's a little bit like the difference between a stranger groping you on the bus, and your significant other groping you on the bus. One of those is kind of hot, the other is just plain creepy--I'll let you work out which is which.

It's not just that "he told her the truth". He must be inexperienced, he must be socially unaware, he must be an actual misogynist.

Thing is, if TOAD was reporting his responses at all accurately, he pretty much has to be either clueless in some way, or pretty f'ed up. Because I believe every female who is commenting about this--and this is the Savage Love readership, not Sunday bible school--is saying "Yeah, that'd creep me out too." Which means that either he's not aware that he's being creepy (due to inexperience or lack of cluon receptors), or he doesn't *care* that he's being creepy. And... someone being intentionally creepy is generally a creep.

And it can't possibly be TOAD's fault for asking a question she didn't want the answer to? You keep forgetting (or ignoring purposefully, I'll leave it up to you to decide which) that he didn't bring it up out of the blue. She asked him. So, I accept that 'charged language' is only acceptable in certain contexts. Answering a direct question is one of them.

You're assuming that she didn't want an honest answer. You're assuming she's some kind of wilting flower (or something) who shouldn't have brought the topic up if his answer was going to bother her. But, thing is, if I ask a guy about his sexual interests/tastes (which is essentially what asking "what kind of porn do you like" is) on a get-to-know-you date, that just means I want to know what *kind* of thing he's interested in (vanilla vs bdsm, top vs bottom, light vs heavy, insert potentially problematic fetish here), I'm not asking for a guided tour of his psyche.

Now, it'd be somewhat different if his answer had been "My favorite titles are 'Dirty Whores 11', 'Rapeapalooza', and 'The Gang Bang Gang'". Again, stating facts, not judgments. Difference in nuance between "I like this film that has offensive language in the title", and using the offensive language as a descriptor.

Let me rephrase TOAD's date's interests in a way that I think we can agree is honest, *and* probably wouldn't have creeped her out.

Her: "What kind of porn do you like?"
him: "Well, some kind of heavy stuff. How much do you want to know?"
her: "Just hit the high points."
him: "Well--I like stuff where the women are being humiliated, I like rape scenarios, and I'm particularly fond of rape scenarios with multiple men."

And someone who's not socially deficient like me could probably say it even better. No lies necessary, just a little tact and courtesy.

The end result is the same, and it just takes more time to get there? That seems like a bad deal for me. She still leaves, and all I've done is waste more time on a girl who can't accept honesty, and is clearly (despite calling herself GGG), quite unable to distinguish between the level of fantasy one has, and the level of fantasy one wants to engage in.

And the 15 extra seconds to say it in a way that doesn't creep out even *women who are into that kind of thing* isn't worth it to you? There are creepy and non-creepy ways to convey *exactly the same information*.

Yeah, unless D/S relationships are inherently less healthy than normal relationships, the difference in this case is meaningless. If a prospective girlfriend asked me a question, I would answer it honestly.

Like I implied above... not inherently less healthy, but very much inherently more risky. The main differences between a d/s relationship and an abusive one are consent, trust, and boundaries. He didn't really have the first yet, hadn't built the second, and seems to have a fuzzy idea of the third.
More...
Posted by Melissa Trible on April 15, 2010 at 8:37 AM · Report this
129
The world would be a much better place with more dudes like #120!
Posted by wayne on April 15, 2010 at 8:47 AM · Report this
130
TOAD: This generally open minded young woman was squicked by the TONE of the fellow's response to the porn question, not so much the substance of the answer- I, too, being generally open minded and almost twice her age, would have been quite put off by that choice of wording so early in a relationship.... There's a huge gulf between "dirty whores, rape scenarios, and gang bangs." and "Well, I get off on some sort of extreme stuff, rape scenes and gang bangs, stuff like that. Isn't it funny the way people can be so turned on by scenarios they'd NEVER really take part in in real life? I mean, rape is just plain wrong but the *idea* of just taking control is kind of sexy."
The key factors are, to me, acknowleging up front that the preferences are not mainstream and that there is a BIG difference between fantasy and the real world....and to baldly and crudely state those preferences when an acquaintence is too new to have developed a comfortable trust, is a big red flag that a person is either oblivious about boundaries or likes to push them- neither is an appealing trait. also, in my experience, the phrase "dirty whores" seldom refers to prostitutes but to women who are sexually experienced and "easy" (Never quite understood the virtue of being difficult).... One should never fuck anyone who will look down on you for enjoying sex and a guy who uses the phrase "dirty whores" is more likely to hold such views than a fellow who does not..... and no one, male or female, should ever fuck anyone that sqicks them out, whatever the reason they feel squicked.
Posted by Where to begin on April 15, 2010 at 9:00 AM · Report this
131
@128: Nice job, Melissa.

I've conversed with people who don't get similar differences between telling a woman (who isn't their wife/girlfriend or a *really* good friend) "that's a cute skirt" and "that skirt makes me hot."

Uh. Creepy? But thanks for being really "honest" with me.
Posted by Gloria on April 15, 2010 at 9:17 AM · Report this
132
@94: "If I ask my date whether she's ever cheated, I don't want a response of 'well, what really counts as cheating'. I want a direct, honest, complete, answer. The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth."

The problem is with cheating, everybody does have their own definition (see: how we define virginity). Your definition of "truth" then might not match hers. Assuming that everyone is talking to you in your vocabulary is actually a bit dangerous, because misinterpretation and miscommunication could be rampant.

Defining the terms is not a bad thing. It ensures both parties are on the same page. I see that the way you mean it, it certainly can be and is used as an evasive tactic, but sometimes people just want to make sure that they're being understood.

I ask that question all the time -- "What do you mean by [xxx]?" -- not because I don't want to answer your question, but I want to make sure I'm answering it as truthfully and accurately as I can.

And really, if somebody responds "what *really* counts as cheating" -- as I read it, as if they don't really think *any* form of cheating exists -- that tells you just as much as a "straight-up" answer. A conversation and learning about someone goes far beyond just a sterile Q&A.
Posted by Gloria on April 15, 2010 at 9:29 AM · Report this
133
Melissa,

First, how did you include italics? That would make my life so much easier, and I'm not sure how to do it on this site.

But, moving on:

"
There *is* a difference. Just like there's a difference between saying "I am a fundamentalist Christian" and "I believe everyone who isn't a Christian is going to hell". Or a difference between saying "Many young women are employed as prostitutes" and "A lot of girls are whores." Or, for that matter, calling someone "black" vs calling them "a nigger", or "Hispanic" vs "spic". One of these statements is an assertion of a fact (at least, when true), and the other is confrontational and rude.

Semantics should not be dismissed as some sort of obscure academic discipline, nuance can carry a lot of meaning."

The difference between a pejorative and not is significant. The difference between saying a word, and saying its meaning, is not significant.

If I am an atheist, it means I believe that all religion is false (by definition). If I say I'm Jewish, I'm saying I'm not Christian. A fundamentalist Christian does believe everyone else is going to hell. The word itself carries with it the definition (both denotative and connotative). But, calling someone black is a description, calling someone a nigger is a pejorative. That's the difference.

Saying I like degradation, verbal abuse, and humiliation is substantively only marginally different from saying "I like calling women dirty whores, and watching them act like it", which (in turn) is only slightly different from saying that my pornography tends toward watching "dirty whores".

To anyone with an understanding of the words involved, me saying that I like degradation, verbal abuse, and humiliation is saying "I enjoy, in sex, those things". Saying I like those things in pornography isn't all that different.

"
It's not necessarily that they're inherently creepy, it is that they're... risky. You need a lot of trust to let someone do something like that to you; and if you're not stupid, crazy, or emotionally damaged, that trust needs a sturdy foundation that he hadn't built yet. It's a little bit like the difference between a stranger groping you on the bus, and your significant other groping you on the bus. One of those is kind of hot, the other is just plain creepy--I'll let you work out which is which."

Except he didn't actually do anything to her. We're assuming he has poor impulse control, or can't distinguish between fantasy and reality, but that's without factual foundation. Unless you consider simply hearing the word "whore" to be abusive (in which case, damn but I have been abusive here), his statement is nothing akin to molesting anyone.

Nor does it prove him untrustworthy. She can dump him if she chooses, but he didn't actually give her a reason to.

"Thing is, if TOAD was reporting his responses at all accurately, he pretty much has to be either clueless in some way, or pretty f'ed up. Because I believe every female who is commenting about this--and this is the Savage Love readership, not Sunday bible school--is saying "Yeah, that'd creep me out too." Which means that either he's not aware that he's being creepy (due to inexperience or lack of cluon receptors), or he doesn't *care* that he's being creepy. And... someone being intentionally creepy is generally a creep."

Perhaps. Though, my argument would still come down to "your assessment of his actions is incorrect". You're begging the question, using the fact that you and *some* of the women posting here find him creepy as confirmation that you are correct to find him creepy.

You have every right to find his actions objectionable, but that doesn't make that assessment anything other than a subjective belief.

"You're assuming that she didn't want an honest answer. You're assuming she's some kind of wilting flower (or something) who shouldn't have brought the topic up if his answer was going to bother her. But, thing is, if I ask a guy about his sexual interests/tastes (which is essentially what asking "what kind of porn do you like" is) on a get-to-know-you date, that just means I want to know what *kind* of thing he's interested in (vanilla vs bdsm, top vs bottom, light vs heavy, insert potentially problematic fetish here), I'm not asking for a guided tour of his psyche."

Then she's not really asking what kind of porn he likes. She's asking what kind of porn he likes *and which wouldn't freak her out*. If you ask me what my favorite porn is, explaining it requires a tour of my psyche (all porn is a reflection of our desires, after all). If you want to talk about the importance of semantics, talk about the importance of semantics.

She failed to accurately inform him of the response she desired. There's a world of nuance between "what porn do you like" and "generally speaking, what are you into"

"Now, it'd be somewhat different if his answer had been "My favorite titles are 'Dirty Whores 11', 'Rapeapalooza', and 'The Gang Bang Gang'". Again, stating facts, not judgments. Difference in nuance between "I like this film that has offensive language in the title", and using the offensive language as a descriptor."

Only a mild difference, and even then only if you're really looking for it. A prima-facie analysis of "Rapeapalooza" would yield a conclusion that the person whose favorite porn it is indeed likes rape fantasies. How is saying "I like a porn in which a dirty whore gets raped" sufficiently different from "I like seeing a dirty whore get raped [in porn]"? Is the fact that he didn't say "my favorite pornography includes elements of..." before reciting his kinks really what we're arguing about?

"him: "Well--I like stuff where the women are being humiliated, I like rape scenarios, and I'm particularly fond of rape scenarios with multiple men.""

Aside from the use of the word "scenario" (which, again, might be our entire argument), your phrasing isn't all that different. If the argument really is in whether he was vocal about the fact that he knows (and I believe he does) that it's a scene, rather than reality, then we're going to have to agree to disagree (however vehemently)

"And the 15 extra seconds to say it in a way that doesn't creep out even *women who are into that kind of thing* isn't worth it to you? There are creepy and non-creepy ways to convey *exactly the same information*."

If she asked me a direct question, I'm not going to sugar-coat my reaction. If she asks me whether I go to church, the difference between saying "I'm an atheist" and "I think religion is wrong" is very minimal. The more "polite" way to convey that I don't go to church is to say "I'm not very religious", but that'd be misleading.

He respected her enough to give her a directly honest answer. That's tact, or at least it should be.

"Like I implied above... not inherently less healthy, but very much inherently more risky. The main differences between a d/s relationship and an abusive one are consent, trust, and boundaries. He didn't really have the first yet, hadn't built the second, and seems to have a fuzzy idea of the third."

This is where I may be confused, but:

Consent for what? To use the word 'whore' in her presence? To answer her question to the most honest of his ability? She asked him a question, didn't she consent to hear the goddamned answer?

True, he didn't have her trust, but did he require her 'trust' for what he did? Namely answering her question?

The only thing he could be guilty of was overstepping his bounds, but boy is that a fuzzy line when someone asks me a question. Unless you're prepared to give out little cue-cards of where the line is when you ask a question, the boundaries thing is something you discuss before doing something at all dangerous.

Words are not dangerous. Never have been, never will be.
More...
Posted by Seldon2639 on April 15, 2010 at 9:29 AM · Report this
134
@132

True, and that wasn't the best example (I've since refined my analogy to be about atheism, rather than cheating).

Still, if I did ask "have you ever cheated", I'd rather my date say "I was in a bad relationship, and slept with the guy who would become my next boyfriend before we'd broken up", rather than "no".

My point was that giving a more specific (and hence, more honest) answer is always preferable when we're talking about trying to forge a relationship with someone.
Posted by Seldon2639 on April 15, 2010 at 9:32 AM · Report this
135
@121 "I have no qualms with her having decided not to see him again. What I take issue with is the idea that she has a justifiable reason for it, or that the man did something to deserve her reaction. She does not, and he did not."

Her "reason" is her gut feeling. And that's perfectly justifiable. It doesn't matter what she asked, or how he answered, really. Her stomach twisted, her brain said "ick", and that was enough.
Posted by Now Get OVER It Already on April 15, 2010 at 10:02 AM · Report this
136
Seldon @121 -- ditch the "dear"; it's phony affection, which undermines your self-portrayal here as someone who is always honest. And here's a tip for a "lawyer-in-training" [just noticed that]: that comes across as patronizing, never a winning tactic.

Posted by MollyMalone on April 15, 2010 at 10:03 AM · Report this
137
@136

I respond to what I'm given. Courtrooms have rules (especially evidentiary ones), and you're generally not permitted to "insert eyeroll" anywhere in a pleading.

If you're impolite and condescending to me, I'm impolite and condescending to you. Fair, eh?
Posted by Seldon2639 on April 15, 2010 at 11:26 AM · Report this
138
Seldon

It does not surprise me that you have "lawyer training." A lawyer can win by refusing to see the point of his opponent and arguing around and around and around an issue.

Pretend you're at a speech and debate tournament instead. Slog has some good debaters. You are currently not one of them.

I am going to employ some honesty that you like so much. In my opinion, either you are a smart but competitive guy who is refusing to back down when shown that an opinion formed on too little thought is untenable, or you are really, really thick. Really thick. I think the former, because you don't talk like someone who is really, really thick.

(See, now, I could have omitted saying that, but that would be a lie! A lie of omission.)

Once more:

Would you tell a police officer that a girl was batshit crazy, or would you use grown-up words so as not to give the nice officer the wrong impression?

Would you tell a nice homosexual man who came up and asked if you were gay "no, sorry!" or would you say "no, way, I like pussy! I like hot wet pussy right in my face!" ("Just saying "no" is a lie of omission! I might be asexual!")

Would you say, at a job interview, when asked about what you dislike at a job "Oh, man, I hate it when nosy micromanaging fucktards are up in my business" or would you phrase it in a more appropriate way? ("So you say the same thing, but you take more time to get there? No, thanks. I don't want to work at a place with annoying fucktard managers, and it's better if we just get it out in the open right away! Besides, she asked. She asked. She asked!")

Are you, in short, going to admit that different words are appropriate in different contexts? This is the crux of it. Answer yes or no, and then we can proceed.
More...
Posted by Bon on April 15, 2010 at 11:38 AM · Report this
139
This is not a courtroom. And "Dear" won't get you any further there than in real life or on an 'net forum

[insert eyeball roll] -- in response to a vow to keep beating a dead horse -- is "impolite and condescending"? I can live with that.

Posted by MollyMalone on April 15, 2010 at 12:09 PM · Report this
140
someone took a vow to beat a dead horse? or is that next weeks column? :)
Posted by stormcrow on April 15, 2010 at 12:39 PM · Report this
141
SMYS should move to Ithaca, NY. There seem to be quite a LOT of lesbians in this town (not that there's anything wrong with that).
Posted by eee on April 15, 2010 at 12:43 PM · Report this
142
@138

Nice debating trick. First, let's cut out the ad hominem attacks. If the best you can pull off is to insult both my chosen profession, as well as me personally, we might ought to simply cease conversing.

See, polite.

But, the fact that you can't distinguish between "answering a question fully and honestly" and "giving a negative opinion unbidden" makes me think that either you're simply incapable of the very distinction between appropriate and inappropriate statements that you're saying is a categorical imperative, or you're really, really, bad at analogies.

If I'd asked you what you thought of me, your response (no matter what it was) would be appropriate. I would have solicited your honest opinion. Save for that, you have gone out of your way to make a pejorative judgment of me. That's the difference.

And, by the way, if you don't see a one-time interaction with a gay man hitting on me, or the police, or even a boss, as being no different from a conversation with a prospective SO, I don't think we'll ever find common ground.

Would I tell a police officer the most explicit truth I can, of course not (I would also only answer direct questions as tersely as possible under questioning, and giving testimony). I'd be fine answering politely and simply to a homosexual man I have no intention of seeing again, or a boss I don't really need to have respect or a relationship with.

But not to a prospective girlfriend. I have more respect for the girls I date than that. Do you not respect your boyfriends (or prospective boyfriends) enough to give them the benefit of a complete and honest answer to their questions?

That's the disagreement here. So, yes, I accept the contextuality of the appropriateness of any statement, just not the implication that what TOAD's date said was inappropriate given the context.

@139

I completely agree. The fact that there are no rules for decorum does make it more difficult to maintain a civil (much less accurate and reasonable) discussion.

But, I assure you, that rolling your eyes at someone doesn't really prove you to be the more mature or competent debater.
More...
Posted by Seldon2639 on April 15, 2010 at 12:45 PM · Report this
143
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!!

"I'd be fine answering politely and simply to a homosexual man...but not to a prospective girlfriend. I have more respect for the girls I date."

he he he. That says it all, right there. You have too much "respect" for a prospective girlfriend to answer her politely. You think I took you out of context by taking out part of one sentence? Look again. I really didn't.

And really, that's the point. You wouldn't be polite to a prospective girlfriend. Just like the original guy didn't know enough/didn't care enough to be polite to a potential girlfriend.

But to be fair, you did answer my question. You admit that different words are acceptable in different contexts. Fantastic. You just think that it was peachy-keen for the guy TOAD wrote in about to use the words he used in that context, yes?

But why? You have made a few points about this. If I mis-summarize them, please let me know, briefly.

1. Telling her using non-charged language is the same thing as lying.

2. Giving a complete and honest answer to questions is not possible without the use of charged language. (subset of point one)

3. If you tell someone about your kinks in non-charged language, they will freak out later because you didn't tell the truth (also a subset of point one)

4. It's faster (and therefore better; after all, your time is valuable) to say it using the most charged language possible, thereby saving yourself from having to engage in conversation with someone you (presumably) like enough to go out for drinks with.

5. "Nigger" and "spic" are pejorative, but "dirty whores" isn't.

If you disagree with my summary, of if you think I've missed something, let me know. Briefly.
More...
Posted by Bon on April 15, 2010 at 1:21 PM · Report this
144
Whoops! I missed one:

6. People I have only briefly known who I am not interested in dating should be treated in a different way than people I have only briefly known who I AM interested in dating, because...
(now I'm inferring, so let me know if I go wrong)
...because the relationship I might have with a potential girlfriend is much more important and intimate than a relationship with a potential boss or friend or what-have-you.
Posted by Bon on April 15, 2010 at 1:27 PM · Report this
145
Seldon (@134, etc.),

Consider another "how much is too much to disclose" situation that often arises when you start dating someone: relationship history. Just because you start swapping stories about exes and breakups, that doesn't mean you should vent all your anger about what an asshole your ex was and everything that happened. Sure, it'd be honest. And maybe it's important for you to be able to tell your prospective partner something about it, but there are better ways to convey the same information ("Things ended pretty badly, and it still upsets me to talk about it," for example). That's not dishonest.

Wanting to be in a relationship with someone and being able to share some of your deepest, darkest, most intimate feelings & desires with them is fine. But sharing those feelings and desires *before* you have that kind of relationship isn't always the best way to *get* said relationship. It's not about tricking someone into a relationship with you on false pretenses, it's about considering another person's desires and comfort as well as your own.
Posted by Berkolate on April 15, 2010 at 1:46 PM · Report this
146
'"I'd be fine answering politely and simply to a homosexual man...but not to a prospective girlfriend. I have more respect for the girls I date."

he he he. That says it all, right there. You have too much "respect" for a prospective girlfriend to answer her politely.'

Ok, Bon, I don't really care who wins this fight, but I think you're willfully misunderstanding Seldon on this point. Politeness with strangers is one thing, candor on an important subject with your SO is another. Surely you see that.
Posted by feelin' bitchy on April 15, 2010 at 2:03 PM · Report this
147
#94:

"But, the line between acceptable explanation of kink, and bedroom talk is a pretty fine one. He didn't say "I like to see women call themselves dirty whores while gagging themselves on dicks", he simply said he liked dirty whores, gang-bangs, ect."

Right - and the first thing you said there is marginally MORE ACCEPTABLE than the second because it implies he likes it when women call themselves whores, not that women (or at least women who enjoy sex, or women he would have sex with) are whores.

If you can't see the difference between "I like dirty whores and gang bangs" and "I like to call women dirty whores while I play-rape them" then there's no point in continuing this discussion. You're not going to get it; you're never going to get it. Perhaps you're a high-functioning autistic dude who doesn't understand the subtleties of human interaction. Whatever.

"I'd say his response is pretty close to your statement that you like pegging."

No, seriously, there's no hope for you. Really. Go have a nice cup of cocoa and forget this whole thread ever happened.
Posted by perversecowgirl on April 15, 2010 at 2:16 PM · Report this
148
What about a shirt that says "I Like Boobs"?
Posted by ilikeboobs on April 15, 2010 at 2:32 PM · Report this
149
@143

"You have too much "respect" for a prospective girlfriend to answer her politely. You think I took you out of context by taking out part of one sentence? Look again. I really didn't."

You took it in context, but you're using slanted language to describe the disagreement we're having. By characterizing the tempered, measured, and (I would argue) misleading response as being "polite" inherently skews what you're saying. You're using inherent charged language, which is somewhat ironic given your earlier admonitions of such behavior.

So, here's the debate:

TOAD's date said something. You consider it impolite, and that a more polite response would have been more appropriate. I consider his language direct, and honest, and hence appropriate. So, for the purposes of this discussion, let us dispense with the language that begs the question (if you say the language is impolite to begin with, it's easy to "prove" it was impolite).

So, to answer your question: no, it's not that I respect my date too much to be polite. I respect my date too much to use language with in any way misrepresents my interests. The question of whether his statement is 'impolite' or 'honest' is what we're trying to answer. Assuming from the outset one or the other precludes the discussion (which, I'll admit, I was guilty of as well).

And, please, before you jump down my throat about "you said you wouldn't be polite", please accept my retraction of that statement. I misstatted my position. What I should have said is that I would be fine answering simply and "white-lying" to someone with whom I cannot anticipate having a relationship, but I have more respect for a girl I would hope to forge a relationship with.

But, let me address your summary:

1. For a given definition of "charged-language", I'll accept your summary. I don't believe that "dirty slut" is inherently charged when discussing kinks (any more than "facial" should be), but I'll accept your statement arguendo.
2. Admit
3. Admit
4. Deny. If we assume my purpose is conversation and drinks, my argument is invalid. My point is true if and only if we're discussing someone I'm attempting to have a relationship with. If it's someone I wouldn't want to have a LTR with, then it makes perfect sense to prevaricate, obfuscate, and misrepresent my actual desires in order to maintain friendly relations.
5. Interesting point. Would I feel the same way if he had said "I like seeing ugly niggers raped"? I probably would feel differently. But, given that one can have a fantasy of "dirty whores" without being misogynistic, while I've yet to meet someone with a "nigger fantasy" who wasn't a racist, in this context, I will affirm that I'm distinguishing between "nigger" and "spic" and "dirty whore"

@144

"...because the relationship I might have with a potential girlfriend is much more important and intimate than a relationship with a potential boss or friend or what-have-you."

Exclude "potential friend", and you're absolutely right. Given that I don't anticipate forging a relationship with a guy I just shot down, nor with my boss, I agree with that completely.

@145

But, if we're talking about something that would reflect (or could reflect) poorly on the person saying it, would you rather know the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, or have a partial answer?

I think it's more respectful to say 'my ex girlfriend cheated on me, so I'm kind of paranoid about infidelity, and have trust issues' than to say 'she cheated on me, so I broke up with her'. True, both are accurate representations of reality, but the more complete one gives the girl some indication of what she'd be getting herself into.

If I ask 'are you still close to your ex?'. I don't want to hear 'oh, we talk from time to time' if the reality is 'when we do talk, I'm still crazy about him, and we only broke up because he moved away'.
More...
Posted by Seldon2639 on April 15, 2010 at 2:39 PM · Report this
150
@147

Seriously, the personal attacks really have to stop. It doesn't add to the discussion, and only serves to inflame tempers. Especially if you have to resort to accusations of mental illness, that's only a step or two above reductio ad hitlerum in a debate.

If you honestly think that a guy saying "I like porn which shows dirty whores getting gangbanged" actually by definition thinks women (writ large) are whores, to the point where he would need to disclaim his enjoyment of that by making it clear that he doesn't think all women are whores, that's really very paranoid.

If you wrote to me that you enjoyed watching porn with sissy boysluts, I wouldn't assume you thought all men were sissy boysluts. Why doesn't TOAD's date rate the same presumption of innocence?

See, most normal people can distinguish the fact that if someone says (in reference to a fantasy) "I like dirty whores and gangbangs", that they enjoy the fantasy of a woman pretending to be a dirty whore, and the fantasy of a gang-bang/rape scene.

Kind of like how I can talk about a character in a movie in the third-person, and people don't assume I think it's real. When I talk about books I like, I say

"I love Karrin Murphy, she's so badass". I don't say "I love the character Karrin Murphy, from the fictional, fantasy, series The Dresden Files, written by Jim Butcher, in which she pretends to be a badass".

Or if I say "god, Mal Reynolds is so awesome". I don't honestly confuse Nathan Fillion for being a smuggler in space.

The fact that you can't seem to make the same leap that everyone else does in assuming that our fellow men (and women) can distinguish from fantasy and reality says more about you than about me, no?
More...
Posted by Seldon2639 on April 15, 2010 at 2:50 PM · Report this
151
Seldon@149: I absolutely would want to know the truth about a potential partner, just as I would want a potential partner to know the truth about me - obviously.

The thing is, when I *tell* this person something about myself that I think they should know (because I want to be fair to them, because if we don't see eye to eye on this point then we won't be compatible, etc.), I recognize that the *way* I communicate with them tells them something about me too, sometimes more than the substance of whatever I'm saying. Using what others here have called "charged language" may communicate directness to you, but to me it might suggest aggression or insensitivity. Of course I'm not saying people should be untruthful - rather, that people who are genuinely good, well-intentioned, considerate, etc. have the best chance of being seen as such if they reveal truths about themselves in considerate, appropriate ways.
Posted by Berkolate on April 15, 2010 at 3:47 PM · Report this
152
Seldon:

You are an embarrassment to the legal community (that is, if you really are in fact an attorney-in-training). More likely, you are a 1L gunner who doesn't know when to stop talking. Please stop making all of the real attorneys out there look bad with your vomit-inducing legalese and overuse of obscure adjectives. It is a pathetic attempt at looking brilliant that, if your argument was truly that brilliant, is truly unnecessary.
Posted by Gunnerssuck on April 15, 2010 at 3:58 PM · Report this
153
Seldon, I'm not trying to win a debate with you. I've simply been seeking to present viewpoints, different than your own, for your consideration... to expand your own horizons.

I think it's unfortunate -- for you, you're not a part of my real life so it's of no consequence to me -- that you perceive disagreement with your opinions and reality checks re: how you come across (e.g., Bon's observations, my gentle "eyeball roll") as "ad hominem" attacks and rude insults.

I don't know how happy you've been in your real life interpersonal relationships (or how long others have been happily in relationship with you), but your posts in this thread alone would be Exhibit A for those who would caution people to avoid getting involved with a lawyer. And I can tell you that your MO won't serve you well as an attorney. A huge part of effective advocacy is knowing when to hold them, when to fold them, when to walk away, and one of the worst things that can be said about a lawyer is that s/he has poor judgment. Lawyers do not win verdicts or appeals
** by yammering at the same things over and over (ignoring jurors' and judges' glazed eyeballs or outright impatience);
** when they are unable to pick up on how they, their clients, their opponents and other witnesses -- and the law -- might be seen through prisms other than the attorney's own. Or sense that but are unable or unable/too stubborn to move off their own schtick;
** when they are not able to see the forest for the trees... think some "gotcha" moments are a predictor of ultimate success or emblematic of their professional prowess.

But guess what? Even the best lawyers lose some cases and some lousy attorneys win some. I hope you'll get past assessing your (and anyone else's) worth by keeping meticulous track of such notches on the belt. And hope you'll develop a thicker skin: if an adversary in oral argument describes your argument as "specious" [more damning than "insert eyeball roll"] because of X,Y,Z, are you going to lead off with a sarcastic "Well, my dear" and protest that you're the victim of ad hominem attacks? The judge for whom I clerked would box your ears for that kind of thing and other traits you've exhibited here & no one else in the courtroom would be impressed.

So the totality of your posts have me wincing at the thought of you sallying into a courtroom. I'm not saying this because I delight in being mean, but rather in the spirit of professional mentoring. Better that you first hear it from me than from a professor, attorney or judge whose assessment could prove to be a real stumbling block for your career.
More...
Posted by MollyMalone on April 15, 2010 at 4:02 PM · Report this
154
@152

Interesting that you confuse advocacy of a position, even dogged advocacy, with an inability to stop talking. Yeah, I'll admit, the singular use of legalease (arguendo being the one example I can name), was in poor form. So, for that, my bad.

On the other hand, it doesn't take a lawyer to use adjectives, even uncommon ones, but nothing I've said can be taken as obscure. If you have a legitimate argument against my points, make it. If you don't, please don't presume to know anything about me, my work, or any portion of my life outside of messages on this board.

@153

I have a long response to your points, which I'll put after the simpler, shorter version:

If you have a point to make about the actual discussion, I urge you to make it. If you have a response to the valid arguments I've made in response to your arguments, I'd love to read it, contemplate it, and respond to it.

If all we have left is petty playground tiffs, I'd just as soon leave things be.

Longer version:

I'm... A bit confused, truth be told.

If the discussion is of whether the statements made by TOAD's date were in bad form, the question of how I come across, or whether any of my statements deserve an eyeroll is irrelevant. If the discussion is of whether I personally am arguing my points effectively, I've obviously failed to address any of your criticisms on that ground. Since, they're kind of irrelevant to the main question.

Having latched on to a statement made in passing (to which I've not referenced again), about my chosen profession, you're trying to change the subject. That seems... Dishonest. Which, I suppose, is a bit of a recurring theme.

And, no, the worst thing an attorney can do is fail to effectively advocate for his cause. That's... Kind of the job. And, if you've worked in a legal profession, a good lawyer rarely looks at the facts of the case, says "well, we're screwed" and accepts it. Opposing counsel has to prove every element of their claims, defendant's counsel's job is to force them to do that. You don't roll over, or accept defeat. You fight every inch, tooth and nail. And those are words from the managing partners at my firm.

Your asterisks are correct, and I agree with them. That said, "being unable to pick up on how things might be seen through prisms other than the attorney's own" is not the same thing as not lending credence to those viewpoints as the basis for their argument. The job of an attorney is to advocate, not mediate. Again, that's the managing partners of my firm's words.

Incidentally, no lawyer worth his salt would be willing to show any level of personal disrespect, even while disagreeing vehemently. You've been unable to distinguish your personal feelings and beliefs about me as an individual from your ability to argue the points. I promise you, if you had rolled your eyes in a courtroom, or laughed at the position I had posited in court, much less purported me to have a mental illness, or to simply be "thick" every judge I've ever met (clerked for or no) would have you in contempt before you could say 'he started it'. Or do you honestly think that rolling ones eyes is somehow less condescending and disrespectful?

Your opinion of my debating tactics would carry weight with me had I been the first one to devolve to petty name-calling and off-topic criticism. Given that I wasn't, and (indeed) have attempted to wrangle this discussion back to the debate at hand, I'm simply smiling.
More...
Posted by Seldon2639 on April 15, 2010 at 4:39 PM · Report this
155
Seldon:

I DO have a point to make, and it is not about the points you are arguing but rather HOW you are arguing them. I only made an assessment of you based on something you said in an earlier post (i.e. "attorney-in-training" or something to that effect), which implies that you are a law student. Furthermore, law students are famous for abusing legalese in an attempt to strengthen an argument.

If you were taught real advocacy skills, then you would realize that speaking and/or writing in that manner only detracts from your real point which might, in fact, be a very good point. The reason I felt compelled to address you was twofold: first, you stated you had some type of legal training and second, your overuse of legalese and "fluffy" (as my legal writing professor would say) adjectives is so distracting that I was unable to focus on what otherwise may have been a stellar argument on your part. Just saying...
Posted by Gunnerssuck on April 15, 2010 at 5:03 PM · Report this
156
@35: argyle, you nailed it!
Spot on!

Great advice as always, Dan!
Posted by wileEcoyote on April 15, 2010 at 5:33 PM · Report this
157
The whole button thing is a good idea, except that you already can buy a small, tasteful rainbow flag pin. I wore one to work for many years, as a show of support for the gay community. You wouldn't believe how many people asked me if I'm a lesbian (I'm not). Or they might ask me why I was wearing it, if they were more tactful. Get a small rainbow flag lapel pin, and wear it around. It's not blatant, but any lesbian checking out a woman would know that they could safely approach that woman and at least ask.
Posted by Atharaenea on April 15, 2010 at 5:46 PM · Report this
158
Well, I was hoping to be pleasantly surprised, Seldon, but nope... so be it.

Posted by MollyMalone on April 15, 2010 at 6:05 PM · Report this
159
Let's take one thing at a time...

I wasn't going to mention it, because it's irrelevant, really, but then you got into it with Molly Malone...

An ad hominem attack is not synonymous with an insult. And a law student should know that.

What I said was meant to be insulting and snarky, I admit it. I was a little fed up with you. Nothing I said, however, was an ad hominem attack.

The ad hominem fallacy is
"You are stupid/black/a woman/a nazi/an idiot, AND THEREFORE you are wrong."

which is different than
"You are an idiot. You are also wrong, and here is why."

Not a single one of my arguments against your position is based on you being a law student or a guy who can't back down when he's proven wrong-- and that's all I've said about you personally. Those things are incidental to my arguments, which I have made, and made clearly, and which we will be getting back to once this gets cleared up: I am not engaging in ad hominem attacks. I'm just not.

You can say what I said are insults, and I won't pick a fight. You could say they are incidental to the topic at hand, and I'll agree, although I don't think they are irrelevant. I'll even agree to try to cut it out because it derails the actual debate.

But I haven't engaged in an ad hominem fallacy.

For the record, the reason I mentioned my hypothesis that you really do see the point nearly everyone has been making, but are just refusing to accept it (because it's just not palatable to you that some non-lawyer people on the internet are winning a debate with you) is because I really dislike it when people who are honestly, truly trying to understand a position that's different than one they hold (like the girl earlier who asked about BDSM and ethics) get mocked by people on the internets. It shuts down the chance for honest dialogue. You, however, are clearly not in that camp, so as far as I'm concerned you don't get the same kid gloves. I don't think (I might be wrong!) that you want an honest debate or dialogue. I think you just want to win a rhetorical punching match because your ego demands it. I was making that clear in case anyone was reading who might think I was being mean to someone who just "really wanted to know."

Of course, I could be wrong. I don't think, so, though (obviously), based on your style of rhetorical combat.

Anyway, once you admit that nothing I've said actually qualifies as an ad hominem attack, we can get back to the real debate, and I promise to try to keep the snark to a minimum.
More...
Posted by Bon on April 15, 2010 at 6:55 PM · Report this
160
feelin' bitchy at 146:

You make me feel, veeery slightly, ashamed.

I do admit that I never thought Seldon meant to say that he isn't polite to his girlfriends. I know he misspoke.

However, I think the mistake is telling. I would never have brought it up, otherwise. And it really did make me laugh aloud, it seemed so appropriate.

But it's a cheap shot, at best, and I hereby revoke it.
Posted by Bon on April 15, 2010 at 6:59 PM · Report this
161
Seldon said: "If you're impolite and condescending to me, I'm impolite and condescending to you. Fair, eh?"

Perfectly good M.O. If you're three.
Posted by Belleweather on April 15, 2010 at 7:05 PM · Report this
162
Can't resist adding that I cannot believe that Seldon felt the need to address all of the previous posters on posting 97. This is precisely why law students are, for the most part, insufferable. They believe that not only must EVERYONE be aware of their opinion on the issue at hand (whether or not it can be supported by the law), but everyone must also be subjected to their long-winded and overly-wordy retorts. Furthermore, Seldon also felt the need to advise everyone of the fact that he was an "attorney-in-training." I would like to communicate two valuable things to him. First, if you are truly have a highly-regarded profession/education/title, you do not need to disclose it without cause because you KNOW you're amazing; you don't need to fish for recognition. Second, I actually thought some of Seldon's arguments regarding the original issue were valid, but were unfortunately so bogged down with extraneous nonsense that they lost their impact. That was my point. Finally, Seldon's remark that I should not presume to know about him is ridiculous. I didn't. I merely commented on his assertion that he had some type of legal background.
Posted by Gunnerssuck on April 15, 2010 at 7:25 PM · Report this
163
Green button? what ever happened to the nod? the upwards nod (just lift your chin ladies). if nod you, and you nod back, we know were both dykes. its not even flirting, just acknowledgment. if i nod, and you give a confused smile like, do i know you?, then i give up becasue your straight. its worked for a very long time.
Posted by jjzazzy on April 15, 2010 at 7:52 PM · Report this
164
You just can't control who makes you wary, and in a lot of cases there's a very good reason why the hairs raise on the back of your head when you discuss sex with one person, and why it doesn't when you discuss it with another.
Posted by Amyranth on April 15, 2010 at 8:03 PM · Report this
165
Where I live (Brisbane, Australia) which is by no means a small town, the gay community started to wear rainbow armbands so we could find each other when out and about.

This worked great for a few months until it started to catch on and the straight community thought it was a fashion trend. Now almost everyone between say 16~25 wears them. Sometimes when you're trying to stand out everyone else thinks you're just be cooling and new and original.

Personally I think the best approach is to just chat to people like you normally would. Friends before romance. There seems to be a stigma (within the gay male community anyway) that if you meet someone new your first reaction should be to get in their pants.
Posted by Kgay100 on April 15, 2010 at 8:14 PM · Report this
166
Another reason that an unfortunate number of law students (and lawyers) are too often exasperating, if not downright insufferable: they insist on framing every conversation/discussion as a "debate"; demand that another person's feelings and emotions be supported by logic; and insist that principles of law, like the presumption of innocence, hold sway outside the courtroom.

Bon, you might enjoy this article on the misuse of ad hominem
http://plover.net/~bonds/adhominem.html

Posted by MollyMalone on April 15, 2010 at 8:33 PM · Report this
167
Re: TOAD... if she hadn't known him that long, why did she feel the time was right to ask about tastes in porn?
Posted by wonder on April 15, 2010 at 8:49 PM · Report this
168
Goddammit, stop responding to Seldon! His writing skills are poor, his definitions of words are "unique," and his refusal to see the other side of things is a sign of complete idiocy or douchebaggery. Who cares which?
And yes, that's ad hominem, but I'm being honest! Honesty above ALL!
Posted by ED87 on April 15, 2010 at 10:52 PM · Report this
169
Oh, I suppose I should have stated this explicitly: I AM using these personal attacks to attempt to undermine Seldon's arguments, and thus committing the ad hominem fallacy.
I enjoyed your link @ 166.
Posted by ED87 on April 15, 2010 at 10:56 PM · Report this
170
Molly Malone:

The article made me laugh, but I must confess to being the type of person that likes to turn discussions into debates. In my defense, though, I admit both when I'm wrong and when I've been out-debated. (Sometimes two different things!)

...and I do try to be civil. Sometimes I fail, but I do try.
Posted by Bon on April 15, 2010 at 11:04 PM · Report this
171
jjzazzy@163:

Heh. I'm bi and would never catch your "upnod" signal. I've got "one of those faces;" people think I'm someone else all the time. I would just assume you were one of them, and when you gave up I'd assume you realized I wasn't who you thought I was.

I hope I never missed out on someone hot because of that...
Posted by Bon on April 16, 2010 at 12:02 AM · Report this
172
@25: That might offend a lot of people. I don't know who told you that a double-headed axe was a symbol of the Amazons, but they don't know very much about Greek symbols. The double-headed axe is a ritual symbol of the Minoan (Bronze Age Crete) civilizations, and later of the Greek Fascist Party. Yes, Fascists like that.

For an idea of the kinds of designs associated with Amazon women, see:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/co…

The starburst pattern elsewhere appears to be some sort of animal fur, possibly snow leopards. Leopard print is way too over done, but the stripey pattern on her leggings and sleeves could be turned into something. There was an episode of Secrets of the Dead on PBS that discussed the amazons in greater detail, including arguments that they are still around in Central Asia.

(As a side note,"labrys" itself is a retronym, the Greeks would have known it by the name "pelekus".
Posted by The Classicist on April 16, 2010 at 12:16 AM · Report this
173
@149:

Would I feel the same way if he had said "I like seeing ugly niggers raped"? I probably would feel differently. But, given that one can have a fantasy of "dirty whores" without being misogynistic, while I've yet to meet someone with a "nigger fantasy" who wasn't a racist, in this context, I will affirm that I'm distinguishing between "nigger" and "spic" and "dirty whore"

This is the heart of the disagreement, I think. Someone who isn't a misogynist will be as careful with the term "dirty whore" as you would be with "nigger". Not being careful with the term "dirty whore", especially since they didn't know each other like Bon pointed out, is a huge red flag for many people. It suggests the speaker is a disrespectful asshole. If you weren't aware of this, now you are.

For what it's worth, there are in fact non-racists who enjoy consensual race play and racial slurs during sex.

BTW: HTML tags work for italics.
Posted by K765 on April 16, 2010 at 3:30 AM · Report this
174
Oops. Well, they worked in the preview. I meant to italicize the first paragraph of post 173.
Posted by K765 on April 16, 2010 at 3:39 AM · Report this
175
Sheldon:
don't have time for a full reply, late for work, but...
I did italics [i]like this[/i], only with pointy brackets instead of square.

And, one of the points I was trying to make is that... things like "appropriate" and "acceptable" language are kind of determined by general social consensus (there is, for example, a wide stretch of history where "nigger" would have just been a descriptor, not a pejorative). And the general social consensus is that "dirty whore" is very charged, out-there language, which you should pretty much only use if you either know that the person you're talking to is OK with it, or genuinely don't give a flying f*** about offending them. (and there is a very real, if perhaps small, difference between calling someone a dirty slut, and calling them a dirty whore...)

Also, there is a difference between the statements "I don't believe in God" and "I don't believe in God, and you shouldn't either". Saying "I'm an atheist" is saying the first, saying "I believe all religion is false" is saying the second.

Also... I'm not saying "TOAD's date was a horrible person who should be burnt at the stake", I'm saying "TOAD's date made a mistake that is a sign of either social clumsiness, or a tendency towards misogyny or disrespect"--can you agree with the latter statement, or at least see where a reasonable person would draw that conclusion from the evidence presented?
Posted by Melissa Trible on April 16, 2010 at 10:42 AM · Report this
176
I forget which "gay stuff/rainbow pride" website I saw it on. But, they had a necklace featuring your choice of 2 pink triangles, 2 black triangles or 1 pink & 1 black triangle.

The only problem with it is while alot of people know what a pink triangle means, fewer people know what a black triangle means.
Posted by roadtripboy on April 16, 2010 at 11:24 AM · Report this
177
Dear LMBLW,

I wish my fiancé would talk more about his ex-boyfriends! I think it is hot and I also trust him not to cheat on me. Sorry that your wife is so bothered by it, because not all of us women are.
Posted by Tabby on April 16, 2010 at 1:01 PM · Report this
178
re "Turned off and Displeased."
If I were a woman, any man who used the words "dirty whore" would turn me off. The words are unpleasant, and so, most likely, is the man speaking them.
Posted by opusv5 on April 16, 2010 at 1:48 PM · Report this
179
I'm kind of amazed by the comments re TOAD. I mean, where's the "why do you ask such a question?" Sure, it's a question that can go horribly wrong. But how the f*** could that question ever go right in the context TOAD's letter proposes? I mean, isn't this a lesson not to ask about porn preferences early in dating?
Posted by wylbur on April 16, 2010 at 2:01 PM · Report this
180
@179
a lot of people in the comments posted answers to the porn-question that are cool for early dating (honest and open to more interested questions while still respectful and not "too much information"/too intimate).
So, no, I think asking about porn preferences early in dating is a good idea, actually. You get to hear about some of the things that turn your date on (and make note of it!), you get to share some of your fantasies and by HOW they tell you, you get a lot of useful information, too (ie: comfortable/playful with their kinks?, respectful towards you/your boundaries?, making you want to know more versus too much information?, paying mind to your level of intimacy?).
Why do you think it can only go horribly to ask for porn preferences in TOAD's situation?
Posted by AnotherAlice on April 16, 2010 at 4:43 PM · Report this
181
A green button? Could be a take-off on Oscar Wilde's carnation, or the green light at the end of the pier in F. Scott Fitzgerald's "Great Gatsby". I'm thinking it's the latter. Very literate of you, Dan! :)
Posted by Keppler on April 16, 2010 at 7:54 PM · Report this
182
Well - I can't see why someone would possibly be into dirty whores. I mean seriously - an unshowered woman who accepts money for sex? Ewww. Gross.

Green buttons - is that what happens to a G-spot after getting the sensitivation injection?

Pretty Lesbians getting scorned by bull dykes? Egads - that never happens in the male community - I always see widespread cases of muscle boy a - listers chasing small drag queens. Every day - really - even at the supermarket. You can't buy a cucumber without being accosted - maybe I should stop wearing heels?
Posted by Lickerman on April 16, 2010 at 10:45 PM · Report this
183
Dear Seldon :

You can't sway people with logic if they have an emotional investment in something. I can easily predict none of the people who disagree with you on TOAD are ever going to agree with you.

People believe what they want to believe. You'll suffer a lot less stress if you just state your opinion, and then let everyone else live with their own consequences.

Unless of course arguing makes you happy, in which case, have fun I guess?
Posted by El Brucio on April 17, 2010 at 12:27 AM · Report this
184
Pink Triangle - Based on Weezer's song from Pinkerton, and not living near anywhere with a gay neighborhood I thought this was already the symbol?
Posted by anonymous and unregistered on April 17, 2010 at 7:15 AM · Report this
Aurora Erratic 185
While I totally agree with Dan's response to TOAD ("trust your gut,") the question itself seems inappropriate for their level of intimacy. Asking what kind of porn someone likes is sort of verbal foreplay. Ask a dirty question, get a dirty answer. It's not a bad thing -- it's just a thing.
Posted by Aurora Erratic http://www.finemesspottery.com on April 17, 2010 at 7:50 AM · Report this
186
@167 and others who ask "Why did she even ask what porn he watched?"- Excellent question. I've been wondering that myself. Why *did* she ask a guy that she hasn't had any serious sexual activity with, and hasn't known for very long, what kind of porn he watches? In my mind, the porn you watch is as personal as the fantasies that you keep in your head, i.e. nobody's business. Asking someone about their porn preferences is a very intimate question. Not a question I would ask someone I hadn't known for long (well, not a question I would generally ask at all. I don't care what you watch, or what movies you play in your head when you're getting off). Asking that question implies that you have a right to know the answer, which I don't think she does. I'm sure many will disagree. But, having asked such a personal question, it's my opinion that she should not blanch at the answer she got.
It's like asking someone how they masturbate. It's kinda personal.
I'm wondering now if perhaps TOAD's date answered the way he did because he could not think of any way to respond to such an invasive question without being rude himself, so he just laid it all out. He might have sensed a trap - some women are seriously anti-porn.
Speaking only for myself, I enjoy watching porn (or mentally fantasizing) of things that I would never do in real life, and wouldn't even want to act out in play. I wouldn't even answer the question if some *potential* SO asked me that before we'd gotten very far. Not because I want to be dishonest, but because it's none of their damned business. Being asked about it before I'd even been to bed with them once might just piss me off enough to give a deliberately shocking response.
He could still be a blockhead. But since we have only TOADs point of view to go on, I'd say she erred by asking in the first place.
More...
Posted by Heinlein's Daughter on April 17, 2010 at 10:06 AM · Report this
187
@174 - HTML tags are automatically stripped out of comments that are posted anonymously.
Posted by Heinlein's Daughter on April 17, 2010 at 10:11 AM · Report this
188
@178 - the appropriate use of "dirty whore" is dependent upon the context. For the record, I am a woman. If a man I am talking to refers disparagingly to some ex-gf as a "dirty whore" I'd be offended on her behalf, even if she really was a five-timing bag of tricks. If a man I was in relationship with got angry at me for talking to another guy at a party, and called me a "dirty whore" in the course of the argument, I'd be pissed off. But... when my lover has me face down on the floor and is really giving it to me good, and says "turn over and open your mouth, you dirty whore," well... umm... I kind of like that.
Everyone has different buzzwords that turn them on or off, depending on how they are used. It's not a good idea to generalize based solely on gender.
Posted by Heinlein's Daughter on April 17, 2010 at 10:23 AM · Report this
189
@186:

I'm curious... do you also feel that way about the question "How many people have you had sex with?" I've noticed a lot of people find it strange that people share that information with each other as they get to know each other. Whereas I find it strange that they wouldn't. Why would you not want to know about your date's sexuality and desires? If appropriately and carefully expressed, it seems like a great thing to know and can help set the mood as you get to know someone.

I don't think TOAD erred in asking that question. Of course it's private, but if he felt that way he could have said so politely, which would have been fine. The whole point of getting to know and have sex with someone is that you share private things with each other. Would you really not talk about sex and fantasies with a partner before you have sex?

She asked because she wanted an answer. And she found out (a) that he's into some kinky stuff, which was fine with her, but (b) he has some negative attitudes about women outside the bedroom, which wasn't fine with her. And because she found out, she can determine that they're not compatible. So I think asking was exactly the right thing in this situation.
Posted by K765 on April 17, 2010 at 11:04 AM · Report this
190
I have a problem with people who say "a fantasy is just a fantasy." Maybe I've taken too many psych classes, but fantasy says a lot about who you are and what you value. Now, I don't think everyone with a rape fantasy what's to be _truly_ raped or _truly_ rape someone. But if a guy told me his fantasy involved killing women, I'd think he was fucked up.
Posted by hai on April 17, 2010 at 11:49 AM · Report this
191
I think sex is best without degradation, pain, and humiliation. Why anyone would like that, or want to treat another person that way, is beyond me. Sure, I can see a thrill in domination or submission, but even then it should be done respectfully. Sex is best when it's an expression of love. There are ways to make orgasm last longer without inflicting pain - it's called foreplay. The ultimate goal of sex is to give pleasure through arousal. There are many different and interesting ways to build that (kink, toys, role playing, fetish worship, et cetera...) and make it last without involving pain and humiliation.
Posted by not on April 17, 2010 at 12:18 PM · Report this
192
TOAD made the right move. When I'm asked what I'm into I think it's a necessity to make it extremely clear that everything must be safe, sane, and consensual, and I try to drop that phrase in with the same sentence as bondage, forced sex, or anything else.

Kinky people have a responsibility to let others know that any execution of these kinks will be done responsibly and consensually.

@191: Any girl can tell me she wants me, but if she can go outside her comfort zone and say something horribly mean to me - or allow me to say something horribly mean to her - it sends a message that I can't do without - "I accept you, you accept me, enough so that we can go to the extremes of our emotions and express our worst facets safely and pleasurably." It's a funny way of expressing love, sure - but degradation during play is, for me, my way of saying "I respect you. I couldn't in good conscience say these things to you if I really believed them."
Posted by carbondating on April 17, 2010 at 1:26 PM · Report this
193
To "not" at 191, most people who are fond of BDSM are ALSO fond of foreplay. Just because we like pain (as a sensation during sexual play, not "Oh god I broke my leg ow ow") and enjoy role-playing scenarios of degradation or humiliation doesn't mean we're disrespectful to our partners or ourselves.

Some of the most loving sex I've ever had involved spanking, hair-pulling, and name-calling. If you love someone, don't you want to please them? Those things give me pleasure. Why is the action more important than the context?
Posted by Inky on April 17, 2010 at 2:08 PM · Report this
194
Maybe this is only in the UK, but the NSPCC has the rule of little green buttons.
Posted by Avitty on April 18, 2010 at 10:41 AM · Report this
195
Seldon2639 nailed it in #39, LadyJay said much the same thing more concisely in #54, both far more eloquently than I could. And then most of you ignored that eloquence and kept on with your own rants.

If she asks "What kind of porn do you like?" and THINKS she asked "How do you treat women?" that says something about her, not him. "I like dirty whores" means one thing in answer to a question about porn scenes, and something different in answer to a question about what you demand of your dates. Those of you who don't get that are truly scary.

That doesn't mean she should go out with him again--if you get a bad vibe, pay attention to it. Maybe he is a creep, but we don't have enough information to make that choice for her. If she chooses based on subtle body language not to go out with him again, then she won't have to feel creeped out and he won't have to waste time trying to learn to communicate with someone who doesn't get language.

A girl chose another guy over me because he told her that he believes in monogamy. Actually, that seems to happen a lot, and given how few people of either sex are naturally monogamous, I can only conclude that women like men who are either ignorant of their own nature or are good liars. Maybe she was right to be creeped out by an honest and self-knowledgeable man.
Posted by the ghost in the machine on April 18, 2010 at 10:51 AM · Report this
196
Found this today, thought you'd all enjoy as much as I did!

A News of the Weird Classic (July 1998)
Religious broadcaster Pat Robertson told his "700 Club" TV audience in June (1998) that the city of Orlando, Fla., was taking a big risk to sponsor the recent "Gay Days" festival. "I would warn Orlando that you're right in the way of some serious hurricanes," he said, "and I don't think I'd be waving those (Gay Days logo) flags in God's face if I were you." Homosexuality, he said, "will bring about terrorist bombs, it'll bring earthquakes, tornadoes and possibly a meteor." (In fact, 1998's first hurricane, Bonnie, made landfall two months later in North Carolina, near the Virginia Beach, Va., headquarters of Robertson's Christian Broadcasting Network.) [AP wirecopy, 6-10-98]
Posted by norajulia on April 18, 2010 at 4:02 PM · Report this
turingcub 197
Obvious answer to Show Me Your Status's problem: a Tshirt whose message other lesbians would recognize, but which would be unrecognizeable to nonlesbians.

"Shane is my Home Girl" comes to mind... except, if you're tasteful, you might want to go with Alice instead. Fans of The L Word knew that reference, but others did not. Follow?
Posted by turingcub http://transuranic.blogspot.com on April 18, 2010 at 4:04 PM · Report this
198
"As a "not-stereotypical-looking" lesbian attracted to other "not-stereotypical-looking" lesbians..."

Dan, spare us. This is TOTALLY about the closet. If SMYS was out she would be dating. What the hell is this cloak and dagger bullshit about if not about being closeted? I refuse to fuck any woman who does even if she's hot as hell! Come out and get laid SMYS.
Posted by Come Out Closet Case on April 18, 2010 at 7:28 PM · Report this
199
@195 Way to take a logical argument with a slightly annoying tone and turn it into utterly useless crap with your last paragraph. If you can't figure out what's wrong with that then you are truly scary.
Posted by chibiyui on April 18, 2010 at 8:26 PM · Report this
Kai 200
To the Bi husband me amd i husband agree that his wife should walk in on him and her dildo and shee if she believes it then... AT least there is no cheating that way...
Posted by Kai http://kharriplays.livejournal.com/ on April 18, 2010 at 10:19 PM · Report this
201
That might work, but the color wouldn't work at my campus. We have green buttons that the on-campus group against rape gives out (Green means go, get consent first). Way too many people would be lesbians if green was the color.

On the other hand, recently at a drag show on campus, little rainbow ribbons were given out. They were cute, and at least you could tell that the people wearing them were supportive of gay rights. Maybe you could just edge them with gold or something if you identified as gay, lesbian, bi or transgendered?
Posted by phoenixtorte on April 19, 2010 at 12:13 AM · Report this
202
Dan - I'm a little upset with you here.

You're always giving people advice (especially on the podcast) to throw their fetishes out there early on. Not being sexually compatible is a deal breaker, but you give TOAD advice when this guy just laid it on the table to walk away.

Honestly, I think walking is the right option but not for the reason you give. He threw it on the table and it didn't sit right with her. That guy deserves to be with somebody who hears that stuff and gets turned on.
Posted by March5th2000 on April 19, 2010 at 4:53 AM · Report this
203
As a straight midwest girl new to seattle it was always a funny and flattering 'tourist moment' to be hit on by lesbian chicks. "Why is that girl smiling at me?" I would wonder. Polite midwest people smile back and say hi, it's deeply ingrained. I would then figure it out, laugh on the inside, and exit the situation politely. Don't be afraid to hit on chicks who seem nice. I'd much rather be hit on by a chick than a guy. Lesbians tend to be nicer and also it made me feel hip and cool instead of objectified.
Posted by seattle is neat on April 19, 2010 at 9:51 AM · Report this
204
As a woman who not-so-secretly likes nonconsensual (i.e. rape) fantasies, dirty 'whore/slut' action and all that in the bedroom...I would STILL have been weirded out and turned off if a guy who was so new (if I can count our dates/extended conversations on one hand) threw it on the table in the manner that was described by the letter above. I am, as I imagine many SL readers also are, not particularly shy or shocked by sex and porn. If we were talking casually about sex and porn, EVEN THOUGH I LIKE THE SAME THINGS, the manner in which "dirty whores, rape scenarios, and gang bangs" was just tossed out there would have probably been pretty off-putting for me.

"He respected her enough to give her a directly honest answer. That's tact, or at least it should be."

Any time people argue how some social norm "should" be, they're already ignoring how that norm IS.

In fact, what this sentence is describing is the exact opposite of tact; it is being BLUNT. Bluntness may be one person's belief of what polite or considerate behavior is (I should be totally up front so as to not waste my time or hers), but it is not by any interpretation of the word "tact." Tact by definition is the sense of what to do to avoid offending people and how to act appropriately in (delicate) social situations. Tact is a scalpel, bluntness is a meat mallet.
Posted by Scribbles on April 19, 2010 at 11:08 AM · Report this
205
@ 191- Some people get turned on by gentle caresses or being tickled with a feather. At the other end of the spectrum, some people get turned on by canings or piercing play. Most people probably enjoy a range and variety of sensations. Sometimes I'm in the mood for gentle, other times I want some pain. My partner loves and respects me, so he's GGG.
Posted by S&M affectionado on April 19, 2010 at 11:54 AM · Report this
206
Gee dude, maybe it's got nothing to do with your sexuality at all - maybe it's your incredible insensitivity at regaling the room with stories of your past sexual experiences in front of your wife that's putting her off. Ya think? Jesus, what a dickhead.
Posted by GG1000 on April 19, 2010 at 10:36 PM · Report this
bishtraining.wordpress.com 207
re TOAD

As my driving instructor said to me, "if it feels good, do it." I guess the opposite is also true.

Though bear in mind, I still can't drive.

Bish
Posted by bishtraining.wordpress.com http://bishUK.com on April 20, 2010 at 9:34 AM · Report this
208
Would you call these green buttons lesbipins? Check it out: http://www.etsy.com/listing/45178349/gre…
Posted by busy beaver button co. http://www.busybeaver.net on April 20, 2010 at 9:52 AM · Report this
209
Re: the "Lesbian Button" suggestion brought back memories of my own experience 30 years ago, as young, feminine, attractive, heterosexual, nerdy chemistry major in a small town upstate New York college. I was passing a button table set up in a hallway outside a Women's Studies conference. There among the feminist slogans was a lovely subtle button -- the Chinese symbol for person. "Cool" I thought "This feminist button is tasteful and even a little obscure, signifying a common humanity- neither 'man' nor 'woman' but 'person'" I bought the button and displayed it prominently on the shoulder strap of my purse. Over the next few months I received numerous smiles from women (only women), and at least a half dozen times a woman (and only women)specifically looked at me meaningfully and said "I really like your button!" Her expression would shift as I'd happily respond with "Yes! Isn't it cool -- the Chinese symbol for person!" I was amazed really at how many other people were familiar with this Chinese symbol.
Until one day I was hanging out with a friend and her friend who had come up from "The City" (as in New York City) to visit. "Why are you wearing a Lambda button?" she asked. I went into my full pedantic explanation of "This is the Chinese symbol for person... and that's why it's a great feminist symbol... blah blah" She just looked at me and said "It's a Lambda. A gay symbol" "Why would anyone make a button of a Greek letter?" I asked "And what does that have to do with Gay..." And even as the words were coming out of my mouth debating the origin and meaning of this symbol... a light began to dawn ...the women smiling...the meaningful looks with the "I really like your button" comments.
I took the Lambda off my purse after that. But I like to think of this funny experience as a foreshadowing, as I left my heterosexual marriage 15 years later and happily entered a lesbian relationship. See what comes of wearing Lesbian buttons!
More...
Posted by justdiane on April 20, 2010 at 10:01 AM · Report this
210
Don't ask a question unless you're prepared for the answer. If you don't want to hear that a guy you're into likes whore porn, then don't ask what kind of porn he likes. Because most men are into whore porn.

That's not a good question at a bar, or on an early date. Christ, people.
Posted by Rachelelelelel on April 20, 2010 at 11:33 AM · Report this
Ness 211
I'm really grateful for this first letter. I was kinda-seeing-but-definitely-fucking this guy, and it was great, but he was into some really kinky things. I'm normally really open-minded when it comes to kink and "alternative" sexual interests. But I think it was all sprung on me really fast and I kinda freaked out. His request to take me to a tranny strip club was just not at my comfort level yet. I didn't understand why I got so freaked out.. but the whole needing to be dominated by someone logical and trustworthy thing seems to make sense. Thanks Dan!!
Posted by Ness http://www.collegecandy.com/author/nessfraser on April 20, 2010 at 2:28 PM · Report this
212
My coworker and I would like to know where Dan gets his information to form the following statement:

"There are nearly twice as many gay-identified men out there as there are lesbian-identified women."

We seem a bit skeptical based on our local area...
Posted by Middle-of-nowhere-WI on April 20, 2010 at 2:49 PM · Report this
213
@28: " Guy: Well my favourite title is 'Lesbian Spank Inferno'"

Coupling FTW! Nicely played sir!
Posted by BringTheNoise on April 21, 2010 at 8:06 AM · Report this
214
Would you like to make friends with people from other country or place?
Log on Mixed—Mingle .c-o-m
Then you can get help and suggestions from all over the world.
While you may find your true love or friendship there.
Posted by CindyR88 on April 21, 2010 at 7:49 PM · Report this
215
Great advice to LMBLW. Luv the green button idea.
Posted by Juss Sayin on April 23, 2010 at 8:38 AM · Report this
216
Oh #7 how I envy you and gay men everywhere! Y'all never have to deal with women for sexual gratifacation. Women pull the lamest shenanigans(yes I know it's engraned in every cell by the church, media, the 100,000 which burnings... I don't blame them, it's just frustrated) I had one grab my dick, put it in, just the tip, and when I started pushing she dramatically said 'wait, stop, it's too soon'. This was a women who was VERY experienced in the BDSM arena, 3somes, group sex... and who invited me over for our 3rd date while drinking margaritas. Go fucking figgure! At least dykes are on = footing as they're women too.
Two men who make long eye contact will fight or fuck. So what you did on the subway is, like, nothing. I'd like to see you try that with a Japaneese woman on a subyaw in Hong Kong yuk yuk. A little ympathy eh?
PS. Dan, I like the green button idea!
Posted by spunky on April 26, 2010 at 1:35 PM · Report this
lizdini 217
Late post, I know. Green buttons used to be worn (or at least an attempt was made for them to be) by Wiccans to identify themselves to others while still maintaining a low profile. So it might cause some confusion. Or at least some interesting conversations!
Posted by lizdini on May 6, 2010 at 7:53 PM · Report this
218
As a woman who's in some sort of a relationship with a bisexual man (we're being young and stupid), I can say that part of the bisexual man's wife's fear may be that he wants to have anal sex. As in, he is bisexual, and since he hasn't had that sexual experience yet and she can't provide it for him, he will seek it elsewhere.

Or else the Tiger Woods analogy works swimmingly.
Posted by SFort on July 19, 2010 at 3:30 PM · Report this
219
There needs to be an app for that. Fabulis is making in roads, but it seems to be primarily focussed on gay men right now. However, the idea is brilliant. Make a wildly popular app and market the hell out of it to gays and lesbians. As a social media marketer and hobbyist, I in general hate the slew of location based services. But this is the most useful idea for it I have heard yet. Imagine, you walk into a bar, shake you iphone, and see profiles for all the other gays and lesbians in the bar. It takes the human error factor out of gaydar.
Posted by ShannonK on July 25, 2010 at 3:05 PM · Report this
220
There needs to be an app for that. Fabulis is making in roads, but it seems to be primarily focussed on gay men right now. However, the idea is brilliant. Make a wildly popular app and market the hell out of it to gays and lesbians. As a social media marketer and hobbyist, I in general hate the slew of location based services. But this is the most useful idea for it I have heard yet. Imagine, you walk into a bar, shake you iphone, and see profiles for all the other gays and lesbians in the bar. It takes the human error factor out of gaydar.
Posted by ShannonK on July 25, 2010 at 3:17 PM · Report this
221
Ooops, sorry. Was registering and double posted. Would delete if I could.
Posted by ShannonK on July 25, 2010 at 3:18 PM · Report this
222
I LOVE IT! green button it is! :D
Posted by Mui on July 25, 2010 at 7:17 PM · Report this
223
"Furthermore, she gets embarrassed when we are with our gay friends and tales of my man-on-man experiences come up. She wants me not to talk about it at all."

I wonder if LMBLW thinks his wife would enjoy hearing him talk about his heterosexual experiences with his friends in front of her.

Posted by Cicero on December 26, 2010 at 2:18 PM · Report this
224
@ 20 - You missed the point about the blow jobs. The reference to "expecting it" is the attitude that alot of "guys" have where they go into a situation thinking, "this bitch is going to suck my cock" with no regard whatsoever of the human being with whom they're having sex AND the "giving nature" of sex at all. It is a prevalent attitude that is a BIG turn-off when just starting up a sexual relationship. I've been with many men who made no effort to do ANYTHING to please me in bed but (a) pushed my head in that direction, (b) licked my twat for a milisecond and then pushed my head in that direction, (c) came right out and said, "suck my dick" and many, many more of the same types of behaviour.
The thing is, when folks go into a sexual relationship with someone "with a script" they often forget there are TWO (maybe more) people in the room with them.
Blow jobs, sure. If I want to do that. A man DEMANDING that I "suck his dick?" Nope, not ever.
It is the attitude of so many "guys" (not men) of treating women as if they are nothing more than "a hole" or, well, "dirty whores" that causes many a rift in sexual relationships.
What is ok in the bedroom is often ridiculous in "real life."
Also, ANY guy who listed those things to me, I would immediately KNOW we weren't sexually compatible. I find the whole "dirty whore" thing tedious and the notion almost always comes from "rebelling" against a religious - or repressed - background or that whole "Oooooh, aren't I SO naughty" thing. I'm a bit more grown up and accepting of myself and my body and what it can do to have to engage in tedious "you're a dirty whore" crap just to get some kid off.
I have yet to meet a MAN who is into that, by the way. It is always guys who have sex-guilt issues. I have been with well over 200 men so I do have a basis for comparison of them.
Sex is meant to be enjoyed AND it is meant to create other human beings. There isn't ANYTHING "sinful" or "dirty" about it. It just is. If more people learned to love themselves and understand "who" they are as people then there'd be less of the tediousness of sexual relationships.
Back to the blow jobs. If I feel like it AND the guy turns me on, then, sure, why not? The same way, I don't EXPECT for a guy to eat my pussy EVERY single time.
It isn't "the act." It is the script. Humans rarely live up to someone else's script.
More...
Posted by Frederica Bimble on February 10, 2011 at 7:29 AM · Report this
225
@ 39 - He didn't write into the column, she did so we do not "need" to know what the guy is thinking.
She trusted her instincts, the guy creeped her out and she can either take the advice of giving the guy a wide berth or cause herself irritation by seeing the guy (who creeps her out) again.

You wrote: "Why should he have to invest emotional energy in a relationship without first ascertaining whether it would be sexually appealing?"
Why should she? She asked him. She got her answer. She owes him nothing. It is up to him to word things in such a manner that attracts a suitable sexual partner for him. It isn't HER problem.
The main reason for the letter was her attempt to justify having to "be rude" to someone else. You may not realise it but little girls are taught to "be nice" more often than you may consider and in that teaching, there are plenty of grown women who are not used to exerting the "fuck you" which is so useful in some situations.
She just has to learn how to trust how she feels and that guy just needs to learn about boundaries with others.
Also, no one picked up on the "rape scenarios?!" I know this is an "open-minded" forum but a guy liking both "dirty whores" and "rape scenarios" is a pretty clear indication of where his head may be. It almost sounds like a wind-up but alas there are plenty of men who just hate women.
I write that because if her instincts told her he was "creepy" then it was the "hating women" part that she was feeling and not the whole, "aren't-we-so-open-minded-and-respectful-of-each-other-that-I-can-just-tell-you-I-like-watching-women-being-raped-because-I-don't-really-believe-that."
It is easy to forget, in a forum such as this one, that there are millions of unhappy people in the world who use sex to act out their struggles with their own inadequacy. This guy sounds like one of them.

More...
Posted by Frederica Bimble on February 10, 2011 at 7:54 AM · Report this
226
My husband is a lawyer and I have told him if he keeps cross examining me in arguments I'll start throwing shit at him to remind him this is not a courtroom. Seldon STFU with the deposition tactics. Stop trying to ask around and around the question trying to trip people up. Instead listen to where they're coming from, accept it, and adjust your behaviour accordingly if you so choose. Save the argumentative attempt to win Savage Love Moot Court for your internship. However, I'd like to thank you for disclosing your lawyer training because about halfway through your replies I found my blood pressure going through the roof and wondering wtf my problem was. Then I realized you argue exactly like my husband does when he's in lawyer mode. That's even more annoying than blurting out you like dirty fuckin' whores on a first date. You will not get much pussy for long term if you keep that shit up.
Posted by wendykh on March 5, 2011 at 7:47 PM · Report this
227
The labyris used to work as perfect lesbian code. When I wore mine, I got lots of girl attention, but non-lesbians hardly ever noticed it. Let's bring it back into fashion!
Posted by rmb on June 8, 2011 at 11:14 AM · Report this
228
I wish the green button thing had caught on.
Posted by Biev on March 25, 2013 at 9:34 AM · Report this

Add a comment