If I'm bi, can I call my butt a "bonus hole"? Because I really, really love the phrase "bonus hole."

Bonus hole. Heh.

Is it bad that "Guys with pies" makes me giggle a little? I will gladly sleep with a hot FTM if that would make up for it.

Glad you like it. You can have it.

And it's just that simple!

Anybody who says they have trouble following all that is being deliberately dense because they have nothing better to do than to think of ways to offend the FTM community.

"There's nothing remotely bisexual about one gay man sleeping with another gay man even if one or both of the gay men in question is a gay-identified FTM."

Sure, there's nothing "remotely bisexual" about a gay man having sex with a (man who has a) female body. Sure. Not even remotely. WTF? I know we all believe that a M-M or F-F marriage is as good as a M-F one, but it's insanity to think that there's nothing "remotely" bi about a man sleeping with a woman who feels like a man. Have we lost our common sense? If we trust the Kinsey scale, for one, most of us are "remotely bi" even if we never act on it. Strictly gay men are not going to start looking at pornographic nudes of female bodies, whether or not the captions say those people wish they'd been born with manjunk. C'mon.

I'm glad LAGWAP isn't confused, because gays guys who love pussy sure makes me confused.

Can't we talk about something rational? Like maybe pit bulls?

@5: I don't know what you mean to imply.

It makes me happy to learn there's at least a few gay guys out there who have come to understand the awesomeness of pussy.

It is kinda shallow to blow off someone you're otherwise attracted to just because you're not quite pleased with what they have between their legs. If a gay guy is not bisexual when he dates another gay guy with a micropenis, then he's not bisexual when he dates a gay guy with a vagina.

Thank you elenchos. And the next two idiots to comment immediately prove your point.

Seriously, what in the hell do we have to gain by policing who is enough of a man to really be considered a man, and how manly your boyfriend has to be before you can be considered gay. STFU

Essentially, I believe, that the poster believes gender isn't simply a mental construction, but is at some inextricable level bound to the biology one was born with to some degree, regardless of how small. To the degree that I believe in gender as a black-and-white proposition at all as opposed to a spectrum (which is a very small degree indeed), I actually concur with 5.

IF we are to consider male and female as genuine states rather than points on a spectrum, then the proposition of moving from one to the other completely, even with the aid of SRS, is silly. It's like putting on a walrus mask and saying you're now a walrus. Some may genuinely believe that you are, but those are few and far between, lost in a crowd of millions who know you're not a walrus, but are too polite to tell you so and see no reason to disturb your happiness fo the sake of 'being right' in an argument where being 'right' at best makes you look a bigot.

Good times.

Guy-with-pie is too much like chick-with-dick. I know my transsexual guybuds would get hella pissed off to have "guy-with-pie" directed their way. Can we say brawl? Oh, you bet.

@11: All the world is a late August kiddie pool full of urine and bleach.

Bonus hole. Hahaha.

Is it possible to run a poll asking the gays out there if they've slept with a FTM, if they'd be willing, if they'd never, or if they're attracted to FTMs?

Hmmm. About that not-bi thing...

I'm a very easy going guy. I could very easily befriend a FTM guy. Could even love him as a friend. But no matter how much I liked him, I could not and would not go down on his pussy (or bonus hole or pie), because I'M GAY AND I LIKE COCK.

I think a gay guy would have to be at least a little bi-flexible in order to get any enjoyment out of a pussy, even if said pussy was found on an otherwise male-looking body.

@17: There's always something, innit?

@17 There are straight guys who have no attraction to men but love "chicks with dicks" (if that phrase offends you, please fuck off). Unlike bisexuals, these guys don't like men. Seems to me they are straight guys who can appreciate a certain kind of lady.

Likewise, I think a gay guy who has no attraction to ladies but can appreciate "guys with pies" (if that delightful phrase offends you, I pity you and your sad life) has more in common with gays then bisexuals.

@5: Have you seen a picture of Buck Angel? He is not a woman who wishes she were a man. He doesn't even look remotely female, unless the picture was a close up of his vulva alone. If any guy looked at a naked picture of Buck's beefy arms and rockhard abs and masculine facial features and got aroused, I would say they were either bi or gay. Definitely into men. Because he is a man. LAGWAP isn't bi; he wouldn't be attracted to a vulva attached to curvy hips, smooth skin, tits and feminine facial features. There is nothing remotely bi about a guy fucking another guy, no matter which hole (bonus or not) gets fucked.

@19: Honestly, I would consider a guy who loved "chicks with dicks" to be a little bi-flexible as well. I'm not talking about a guy who met a cute girl, came to love her, learned what she was packing between her legs, and decided to stay with her. I'm talking about the guy who is enthusiastic about blowing MTFs in general, not a guy who's enthusiastic about blowing his wife/girlfriend who happens to be an MTF.

@14
Are you talking about a brawl between chicks-with-dicks and guys-with-pies? Because I would pay a lot to see that.

Who the fuck cares about making sure everyone has their proper label? Why is this even an issue? For fucks sakes. This is an adorably enthusiastic letter, and I'm glad he's happy.

"Remotely bisexual"? Actually, I think that's a very good way to put it. One gay man having sex with another gay man who happens to have female genitals is bisexual, remotely.

At this point I feel like there's some kind of strange recursivity happening in defining gender and sexual orientation.

#23:

You said exactly what I was thinking. Thank you, I think you're right on!

17 FTMFW

I concur that it is bizarre to try and get people into well-defined categories when we have already received a more nuanced view of them. Summarizing with labels is helpful to get a quick read on a person- but why work so hard on the summary when you know the whole story already?

@23 - FTW.

I'm with Patti @23. The sooner we stop trying to stuff everyone into boxes, the sooner we can all stuff eachother's boxes, without worries about orientation. Label-free for me, please.

@23- you pretty much nailed it. If the guy is happy, there's no need to analyze every nuance of his sexuality/relationship/identity. Good for both of them.

I love "guys with pies."

The day I first went to town on a guy's hot and juicy bonus hole...

That's funny to think of a pussy being a "bonus hole." For us straight guys it's, of course, the other one that's the bonus (a bonus that only a lucky few get to experience.)

I am now craving pie.

@29 & @31:
There ain't nothing wrong with seeking an understanding of human sexuality and it's various manifestations. If it's not a topic that interests you, feel free to stay out of the discussion.

Love the letter writer's enthusiasm! I'd love to meet this guy, just to thank him for his generosity and willingness to explore, and his understanding that it's not what between our legs that defines us a man or a woman. (I'm not, however, down on anyone who is sturdily attracted to one particular arrangement or another. Folks like what they like.)

As a gay transman, I call the "bonus hole" my "cockpit." :)

It seems to me that gay police think this guy likes his boyfriend's "bonus hole" BECAUSE it's a female sex organ, which would, effectively, render him bisexual. But what if gay men had no clue what female sex organs looked like? If they knew that women had something called vagina, but wouldn't know one if they saw it. So then a gay guy goes down on his boyfriend and thinks "holy fuck, he has 2 holes, i just hit the jackpot!" That wouldn't be because he's bisexual, right? He wouldn't know that's what women look like down there, he would just think his boyfriend is a little different. He would like it because there is more to play with, not because he harbors a secret attraction to all things female. So why can't you just give this guy the benefit of the doubt and consider the possibility that he doesn't love his boyfriend's vagina because it's a female sex organ, but because fucking it feels good, goddamnit?

Argg the label wars, the common and most irritating denominator of all subcultures. WHO CARES WHAT HE CALLS HIMSELF?! He's a guy who thinks going down on the pussies of transmen is awesome. He previously identified as gay and now has chosen the more all-encompassing queer but doesn't really think he's bi. Maybe you, in his situation, would consider yourself bi-leaning. But the real point is that its none of anyone's business! Labels are useful only insofar as they inform prospective partners what your approximate range of sexuality is. For intermediate cases, more explanation is needed. I fail to see why this is a problem.

Oh and I loved the letter. Unlike most grim defensive letters, he writes with an unbridled joy that is infectious.

hahaha, you know you have a group of uptight readers when you have to spend half a page on damage control before people get to comment on a very upbeat letter.
so sad.
I think we should all stop being so angry at others for loving us[/people like us] the way we are and get back to fucking them senseless.
c:

hahaha, you know you have a group of uptight readers when you have to spend half a page on damage control before people get to comment on a very upbeat letter.
so sad.
I think we should all stop being so angry at others for loving us[/people like us] the way we are and get back to fucking them senseless.
c:

hahaha, you know you have a group of uptight readers when you have to spend half a page on damage control before people get to comment on a very upbeat letter.
so sad.
I think we should all stop being so angry at others for loving us[/people like us] the way we are and get back to fucking them senseless.
c:

First off, the original letter was very nicely written, and it's too bad that more people can't just accept the positivity of it and let the guy identify however he likes.

Second, to any of the people thinking a gay man has to be "remotely bi" to appreciate a "guy with a pie" - sleep with an FTM sometime, and you will see that even if the FTM has not had bottom surgery, assuming they have been taking testosterone for long enough to "male out," their genitals DO NOT look like your average pussy. The clit tends to become so big that a straight guy would probably start worrying that HE was gay if he thought about doing anything to it, even if he couldn't see the rest of the body that came with it. There's a hole, and essentially what constitutes a micropenis with some extra skin. Not to get all graphic, but unless you've seen/played with one, don't be so sure that this guy is attracted to something feminine. And I've talked to at least a few gay men who say they wish they had an extra hole to fuck or be fucked in, without wanting to be women or be with women at all.

I'm actually of the opinion that, like Kinsey suggested, most people ARE "remotely bi." But I don't think a bi identity is necessary to appreciate an FTM.

I think it's an okay discussion to have, Seandr, but I do think we have to appreciate the joy in that letter. Go him!

I think it's like the spectrum of colors- there is value in telling red from blue, but the truth is it's never that simple, it's always a big mix of things. I was about to try to type a sentence and realized that I was going to prove your point, I can't even think of all the right nouns and descriptors for the situation I was once in, so we do need to talk this stuff through so folks like me can come up with the right words for sexuality and gender, but it's probably done best if we bear in mind that nothing is ever that simple and our labels are a little artificial.

And Pie is a delightful word, just sayin'.

Two things:

"frustration coming from gay-identified FTMs over not feeling included, let alone being embraced, by gay men in the gay community."

How is this in any way surprising? For most gay men it's not the aura of masculinity they're after in a sex partner; it's the genitals. Buck Angel, for instance, is stereotypically very masculine (aside from the voice and the vagina), and I have no trouble calling him a man. But not only does he not have a penis, he has a vagina. That the average gay man wouldn't want to have sex with him isn't discriminatory or shallow or trying to stuff people into boxes. The average gay guy wouldn't have sex with a transsexual woman who still has a penis either, as Dan so often points out, and neither would the average straight guy, which is closer to this example.

As for the claim that "There's nothing remotely bisexual about one gay man sleeping with another gay man even if one or both of the gay men in question is a gay-identified FTM," that's clearly nonsense. There's obviously something remotely bisexual about it, just like there's something remotely bisexual about a straight guy sucking the penis of a woman or a straight woman performing cunnilingus on the vagina of a man. Does having sex with a man with a vagina make his partner any less gay? Probably. Is that a 'bad" thing? Obviously not. Why are some people so willing to accept that sexuality can be fluid, yet so quick to deny it when presented with such clear examples?

I find it interesting that there seems to be fairly widespread (pardon the pun) acceptance of gay FTMs in the gay male community....from everything I've heard (and I have no direct experience of this), MTFs who identify as lesbian are commonly shunned by the "real" lesbian community....

As a gay man who used to be married to a woman (and functioned in bed just fine, thank-you-very-much), but does not identify as bi in any way, I noted the following re: FTM Buck Angel.
I watched some of his porn, as I think he's hotly masculine, and assumed the 'man with a pie' would likely turn me on. (not that I'm turned on by women in the least.) WRONG! The more I watched, the less interested I became, as the sexual functions were just too much like straight sex, regardless of the masculinity of Buck Angel.
I have to agree completely with Dingo @44. For me, the masculinity only goes so far, then in the end, there's a 'pie' to contend with and no dick to be found.

I know this guy doesn't want to face it, but if he thinks that pounding a juicy pussy feels "natural," he's bi.

That being said, he sounds like a great guy and I'm glad he's happy.

Meanwhile, in Texas: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/2010/06/…

What do I mean to imply? Only that, like I said, like others have said, it's awesome this guy likes fucking a female pussy and I but it's clearly on the spectrum of bi. Biology matters. Some gay men like hypermasculine men, some like regular joes, some like large ones, some like feminine ones, but they all like male bodies. We learned in recent decades that it was a fallacy that we could treat boys and girls the same; they're equal, but different, and it matters. It's common sense. Straight men don't want to go and fuck a straight female identified person who happens to have a meaty, hairy body and a nine inch dick. Because that's a man's body.

i'm a gay boy who's going to try to fuck a FTM this pride! thanks for the encouraging article!

Huh?

In my eyes, it is never my place to tell another person who he or she is. I hate it when people try and speculate about another person's sexuality based on things like this. If this man feels he is not bisexual, then why do people feel the need to tell him that he is? Sex is far more complicated than that. Identity, whether it concerns gender or sexuality, contains a different set of parameters for each person. Ultimately, that which makes a man or a woman gay, bisexual, straight or anything else depends on what that man or woman believes. The people here who claim that this man must be bisexual are, in my opinion, too narrow-minded and self-centered to put themselves in this man's shoes. Terms like gay and straight derive their meanings from far more than the sex organs we are attracted to. They are connected to gender identity, self-image, platonic attraction, social status, and a plethora of other factors.

Thank you Cheerio. I could not have said it better. We need to allow the space for people to be self defined, and the person who wrote this letter clearly does not identify as bisexual. End of story. No debate about what it is to be bisexual is going to change that reality for him. It is also important to point out, that he feels he went from "gay" to "queer." He never claimed that having sex with a transman fit into a "gay" identity, but instead led him to a redefinition of his own sexual orientation- to that of "queer." There are thousands of texts that debate the meaning behind the queer label, and everyone seems to have a different interpretation, but it sounds like bisexuality to him represents an attraction to cisgendered women (female bodied, female identified). Because he is not attracted and does not foresee being attracted to cisgendered women, but is open to those who identify along the spectrum of male/masculine gender identity, "queer" might be a label that is more fitting. Just thoughts.

Humans, like most sexually-reproducing species, are sexual opportunists. Sexuality is fluid. That does not mean that sexual impulses are any less valid or any less malleable through any sort of brute force-nonsense. Anyone who develops a fetish for feet is, I would say, 99% likely to retain it. A foot fetish, like homosexuality, is harmless--as well. That said, it strikes me more like a dogma to believe that sexuality is inborn and unchangeable; it smacks of a response to Christian dogma using the paradigms of Christianity. You will find that support to "Don't Ask Don't Tell" has more to do with the sexual opportunism than innate homosexuality. Men will seek out other men, even if having had no sexual desire for them beforehand, if women or other "sexual objects" are not available. Male guinea pigs will attempt to copulate with each other if females are not present. Male rabbits will attempt to copulate with male guinea pigs if no other females are present. This does not suggest that homosexuality is profane, but rather that sexuality--in general--is fluid.

Of course, being an Atheist, I have no care what men or women may do with men or women within their own bedrooms, assuming no violence has been committed. But, intellectual honesty is a virtue, even if an unpopular one; while there may be a genetic basis for homosexuality, I am not a Christian and do no see that as a justification necessarily for the inherent "truth" of that lifestyle. I just don't care; people should be free to live as their whims take them.

Cheerio, I'm not saying this man has to identify as bi. He didn't have sex with a woman, but a transman. Queer seems perfect. My gripe is that we DON'T have to go to lengths to contort this to "not remotely bi." Gay penis in vagina IS remotely bi. As for labels, sure, let people define themselves. There are limits to this, however; if words mean something, vegetarians don't eat meat (some would disagree, although they are wrong).

As for the remotely bi part, let's flip it around. Say a man used to love it when his MTF girlfriend fucked him in the ass and came in his mouth. And now that person is set to marry your daughter and is "compeltely straight." As Dan asks often of exgays, would you let him marry your daughter? Maybe, but you'd certainly be thinking about whether all that sex was REALLY GAY.

Mother of gods, some people are really hung up on whether others are innies or outies. If you're attracted to the person, do the bits really matter all that much? Humans are infinitely imaginative in finding ways to get off, whatever equipment may be present or absent.

The whole discussion reminds me of a friend of mine, a slightly effeminate gay man, talking about being dumped by his FTM boyfriend. "I was dumped for not being masculine enough by a man with a vagina."

"If you're attracted to the person, do the bits really matter all that much?" To almost everyone, the bits seriously affect the attraction. I'm not saying it should be, just that it is. Don't ask the people here for a %, you get groupthink. Go ask em in Alabama.

Everybody now, chant with me! GUYS WITH PIES! GUYS WITH PIES! GUYS WITH PIES! GUYS WITH PIES! GUYS WITH PIES! GUYS WITH PIES! GUYS WITH PIES! GUYS WITH PIES! GUYS WITH PIES! GUYS WITH PIES! GUYS WITH PIES! GUYS WITH PIES! GUYS WITH PIES! GUYS WITH PIES! GUYS WITH PIES! GUYS WITH PIES! GUYS WITH PIES! GUYS WITH PIES! GUYS WITH PIES! GUYS WITH PIES! GUYS WITH PIES! GUYS WITH PIES! GUYS WITH PIES! GUYS WITH PIES!

@ 17 - DP, I like cock as much as you do (well, I don't know that for sure; maybe we could have a contest...), but, if it's attached to a guy, and if I'm properly aroused (another cock in the room besides my own would help alot),...

I'd hit that.

And not feel the least bit bi about it afterward. Because it's a GUY I'm fucking, not a woman. Sexual orientation isn't about simple hardware, it's about gender, a much more complex thing.

Besides, the terms "guys with pies" and "bonus hole" are funny. If a gay-identified FTM used these phrases to describe himself, I'd be more drawn to him because it shows he's got a sense of humor about the whole thing, an awareness of the absurdity of it all.

In honor of this most entertaining SLLOTD letter, I think "LAGWAP" should be the official term for performing cunnilingus on a FTM dude: "After I came in him, I lagwapped him to get him off; it was AWESOME!"