Give the sub a break. How do you know that he isn't a trainer for the guy. You ever see how they handle boxers in the gym and in the ring. They do just about everything for the guy. Some trainers just want the person to concentrate on their routine. Ever been to a gymnast gym? They get so burned out doing their routines they need a little help sometimes. I tie my wife's shoes all the time. I also open doors for her and much more in public. I do the same for friends and even my daughter. Does that make me a sub? Mind your own business unless you see the person licking the insides of the guys thighs whilst he ties the shoes. Some people really have over imaginative minds. Not sure if they are jealous or are into story making!!!!

@109: For those who like (that sort of thing)...

I asked the same thing earlier in the thread.

Mr Bondsman - Now you've given Slave a new idea. Whether that is good or bad is open to interpretation.

I should put together a glossary (sorry if I've left anything out):

FTWL... short for FTWLTSOTTITSOTTL: For those who like that sort of thing, that is the sort of thing they like.

LMB: Laissez-Moi Barf. (More disapproving than FTWL...)

PDY: Please Divorce Yesterday

SYNAM: Sorry, You're Not A Match (a kinder DTMFA)

Gertrude Award: for someone protesting too much

Sartre Award: for a trio ripe to enact No Exit

Bradshaw Award: for the consistent advocacy of a set specific agenda designed to convert others even if it drives people to suicide.

Actually, this letter has inspired me to devise something new. I shall bestow upon Slave and Master a Serena Award - for problematic conduct that will be overly harshly judged for bad reasons. I had been hoping to devise one related not to Ms Williams but to Pandora Spocks, but one can't have everything. There ought to be something workable in Dark Shadows.

@11 - Oh, you know, through massive over-use "amazing" has become a synonym for 'really nice'. Maybe even 'pretty nice'.

@100 but see, it's not just what they like to do in the bedroom. This is just how they interact all the time. In fact they might not have sex or any sex-like activity anymore at all for whatever reason and the guy would still be tying his partner's shoes.

@110 Because he just came on and said that he was a sub and not a trainer and that the original LW had been correct that they were performing D/s acts in public. (This assumes that neither letter is fake.)

@115: You are not the first to try and tell him that, my guess is he won't listen to you either.

@94, personally, I think of it as being "extremely charming" rather than "good-looking." These guys won me over by being chatty, clever, and confident, rather than with a body that a random observer would call "hot".

@117 Yes. It just frustrates me to no end. Somehow in \\\"normal\\\" relationships PDAs are used to demonstrate affection, coupledom or whatever, but in these disgusting outrageous d/s couples everything is about sex.

@delta35 I was being completely sarcastic, what I meant was, it seemed to me that tying ones shoe in public (no matter what manner of or intensity of Ds aspect was displayed) I would have a hard time calling that inappropriate public behavior.

Obviously they shoed and the submissive shoe tier were at least hoping to be asked about by the questioner. After feeling at least somewhat disappointed they were not approached, shoe tier went ahead and wrote in.

My suggestion was they are going to have to kick it up a notch if they are going to have someone be intrigued enough to what the deal is.

I would suggest after one shoe is tied, the Master then decides he isn't OK because now the left shoe is slightly more snug due to the fresh tie job. Personally when I have a lace come all undone I go ahead and retie both shoes. It's like having equal air pressure in all tires on a car or else the car pulls to one side.

I suppose extremely attentioned to detail slave could estimated the snugness of the tied shoe and shoot for equal pressure, thus avoiding the second shoe retie, but it would likely entail a scene like the guy at footlocker having to look up and ask "huh? that about right? to snug? just right?" and require some sort of answer along the lines of tighter, looser, or right there, just right, don't stop etc...

To compare PDAs, I'd much rather cross-examine the LW to Ms Prudie who wants to explain to the woman with whom his first date seemed to be going well until (he claims) she mistook his distaste for a PDA of which she hadn't witnessed the full extent for homophobia about whether he Really Truly Absolutely is Totally Not Homophobic. Or, even better, I'd like to cross-examine Ms Prudie herself (she does not merit a Herself the way I refer to Mr Savage Himself, but I actually began this style of address with a Herself years ago in case anyone is inclined to charge me with sexism), for the most distressing thing about the letter and response, even more distressing than her coddling the LW, is that she demonstrates a woefully complete lack of understanding of Pride and Prejudice.

The fun part about mixing that PDA with this is that I suspect that about a quarter to half of those commenting on this letter would change sides, causing a general readjustment to new allies.

@vennominon:
I also read that letter. I am not sure I agree that the LW had his reaction to the PDA coloured by homophobia.

Just a month ago, I went to a Tadjik tea room with two friends, and we were quite distracted by a heterosexual couple who got definitely too affectionate for a public place. It was very difficult not to stare at them. The couple sitting next to them looked quite distressed and only relaxed after they had left.

@ 121 totally agreed about pride and prejudice.

Also how naive is it to suggest that people into bdsm go to sex clubs to tie each others\\\' freaking shoes. God, some people.

@119: I think the worst part about it is that these people complaining about D/s PDAs really have no clue how much they sound like the people who think being gay is all about sex.

The difference between D/S PDAs and (vanilla) gay PDAs is the ambiguity.

When I was in high school I knew a girl who was in a truly abusive relationship. Her boyfriend used to point to the ground to get her to get on her knees in the middle of the hall - just to show that he could. It was a public display, but not of affection. Consent changes everything, but you can't expect strangers to know that it's consensual. There's plenty of people like to be hit by their partners, but if you backhand your girlfriend (or boyfriend) in public, you can't assume that everyone's gong to know you like it, and I think most people would agree that's not super appropriate.

I'm going to err on the side of "who cares, he's just dying a damn shoe - I kind of hate all PDAs anyway, so this isn't really special." but at the same time, I think it's absurd to compare not wanting to see D/s in public to thinking LGBT people can't have PDAs.

I totally agree that backhanding someone or getting someone on their knees just to show you can is definitely nothing like normal PDAs and thus not appropriate public behavior, but tying someone's shoes, or fetching them stuff or just generally pampering them a little, how is that different from normal vanilla PDAs?

@126 Even normal vanilla stuff would be abusive without consent. I can imagine a physically abusive husband forcing his wife into a kiss or a hug while out in public. Now, of course this wouldn't bother any of the onlookers which seems to be the only thing some people in this thread care about. Also, I can't really see how this girl from your story would have benefited from him being nice to her in public. I mean, her problem were not public displays of whatever but being in an abusive relationship, right?

Anyway, none of this has anything to do with the situation above which did not appear non-consensual even to the first LW who looked on.

@86 well said!

@99 Actually the point of my relationship is to show respect and regard for my partner and as a note he does the same. I don't make his coffee so you can see me make his coffee. Ummm sorry not the way I get my thrills. I don't do any of the things I do because I desire public attention. Fact is I don't. This is simply how we interact between each other. I also don't get a "thrill" from it. This is just how we interact. An no it isn't harming anyone. Its not invading your space.

@106 -- PDAs / public D/S gave some SLOGgers the vapors! Love it.

@108 -- totally.

@107 -- on PDAs -- you're right, not all venues are equal. But if you want total sexual propriety, go to Saudi Arabia, literally. Public spaces are shared -- you don't get to do everything you like, but at the same time, in most western countries, we don't have to comport to the most prudish / easily traumatized.

If a couple is heavy petting on the subway and it's crowded and I'm 3" from them, I'm probably uncomfortable as it's involving me.

If they're heavy petting and the same subway is nearly empty and I can comfortably look away and we're separated by 15 feet -- no problem, who cares? Vicarious joy. Just last week there was a straight couple making out for about 30min. on the street near the Eagle in NYC (gay leather bar). Walked around them to get in. Very surprised 30 min. later (eagle not my scene) to see them still at it -- happy for their stamina! :-)

Public D/S thing is not necessarily the same as a PDA, but to me it's even less potentially offensive as it's a contextualized D/S "meaning" of a generally neutral non-sexual behavior.

@63 -- exactly. My heart goes out to people with PTSD and survivors of intimate partner violence or emotional abuse -- and that's why there's treatment. We should work on reducing abuse, but we can't make a world with no triggers, and we're not talking about a couple deliberately traumatizing a third party.

@63 and the guy hitting on you in your gym. For me, I think he way crossed the line. While I'm very tolerant of couples doing whatever they like in public, I think your example of the guy hitting on you is a type of targeted interpersonal aggression. I'm OK with a couple snogging in public, not OK with a single guy masturbating in public or hitting on others aggressively -- in that case, he's doing stuff without consent to others. Yuck.

I'm flattered if an ugly dude smiles at me. Some staring at males is OK. If I were female-bodied, due to the higher rates of violence against women, I even object to that -- no public staring at women in gyms / subways / streets / etc.

But even as a male-bodied person who doesn't have to fear being raped (although I do have to fear being gay-bashed to death), being physically approached when I'm clearly not interested way crosses the line, and although pickups happen in gyms, a gym is not typically an environment where one is expecting to be hit on, so I think overt attempts at picking up someone in the locker room are inappropriate unless you've been chatting first and clearly there is mutual interest. Approaching physically when there's been no reciprocation of interest is creepy. Even in a gay sex club so crowded you're packed like commuters in rush hour, you wait for an indication of mutual interest -- so I'm told :-).

But to the SLOGgers who got the vapors about a couple engaging in public shoe lace tying... as George Takei says, ohh myyy.

@delta: I think your example of the guy hitting on you is a type of targeted interpersonal aggression

I think that's true of most incidents like this, especially when the target is female.

I think something slightly different was going on here, though. This gym is in Capitol Hill, probably has a 60%/40% gay to straight boy split (not sure about the girls), and according to one gay friend, it is not at all "cruisy" like some gay gyms are. (He says it's because it doesn't have a steam room.) So, I think this guy, whom I've never seen here before, might have had a misconception about where he was.

Also, his approach was super friendly and smiley in a way that was kind of lonely and pathetic and off, perhaps reflecting some sort of psychological disorder, or maybe a recent or only partial emergence from the closet. It definitely wasn't working for him. After the heeby-jeebies wore off, I kind of felt sorry for him.

@EricaP: charm

Yes, I was hit on just as aggressively on the dance floor at Q this weekend (not sure whence the sudden onslaught of gay attention, but I did get a hair cut last week), and while I really wanted his sweaty, harry chest off of me, even I could see the guy was a total hunk (my gay friends were impressed and amused), so my natural het repulsion was tempered by a sense of flattery.

seandr, not sure of your point, but it seems the opposite of mine. I'm saying that I lose my normal caution when charmed (but my charmers aren't conventionally attractive); you seem to be saying your initial disgust was tempered by the fact that he was a total hunk.

What if he'd kept his distance, but smiled at you and won you over with his conversation, instead of pushing his way into your space? Might he have had a better chance to get into your pants?

@133: Sorry, I thought our point was that we are more tolerant of aggressive or even assholish behavior from hot guys.

...Might he have had a better chance to get into your pants?

My life would be much more interesting if the answer to that question was "yes", but sadly, I'm just not interested in men, especially masculine ones. If I were, I think I'd be happy to let them make the first move, the more aggressive the better, assuming I found them attractive. And I'd be a switch leaning more towards top than bottom, so that might throw a monkey wrench into the works.

On the other hand, that same night I was joking around with a twink friend about needing help finding my lighter, and that exchange that ended with him suddenly no longer laughing and saying in a serious voice "I would suck your dick." Walking home, I could imagine scenarios where I might be willing to give it a go. Wouldn't be the same as with a woman, though, given that the visuals are a significant source of enjoyment for me.

I would totally do Jynkx Monsoon in drag.

So basically, there are two piles here, one believes they can do anything they want so long as the other isn't aware of it and the second pile thinks there should be better guidelines for identifying when they are most definitely aware of it, and that even though said person is screaming stop, if they can't prove it beyond all reasonable doubt, even though there is no mystery what so ever because the Judges can review the facts like a multiangle slow motion tv footage, and their are still many adamant the the the court process isn't just going through the motions

yeah, way too many gray areas here to sort it out into black and white

@134, we are reporting on different phenomena, I think. And your point doesn't apply to me. I like aggressive behavior, so that's not something I tolerate -- it's something I look for.

On the other hand, if I said no or moved away and a guy kept pushing, I wouldn't care that he was hot. He goes in the asshole bin and stays there.

My own point (and I'm surprised it's so hard for me to communicate it) was to admit that I ignored red-flags that someone was cheating if he was charming (where charming is about words and style and confidence, not about muscles, hair, or the right shape of chin.)

@134, oh, meant to add: thanks for the nice image. What's stopping you from giving it a go with your twink? Could be fun! And then report back!

@EricaP: What's stopping you

Well, in the immediate term, I might have been preoccupied by this amazingly beautiful young woman who'd been dancing all around me moments before I went outside for some cool air, wondering whether it was possible she'd been waiting for me to make a move. And then there was the extremely blitzed hottie who bummed a smoke from me and then dragged me by my facial hair to sit with her in a nook in front of the club. (I only smoke when I go out dancing - the smoking scene on the sidewalk is usually a hoot - hooray for the smoking ban!)

And of course, there's my wife, whom I can usually convince to "give it a go" when it's time for the going to be given.

I guess to sum it up, as long as there are women on my horizon, I find myself lacking any motivation to try a man. Maybe I'd be motivated if I was too drunk to fuck, but that's kind of a Catch 22.

Ms Migrationist - I did say I'd want to cross-examine him. I am willing to accept that, if he took a polygraph test and were asked the question, "Are you a homophobe?" the polygraph would deem his negative answer truthful. But many such people prefer to regard the issue as a coin flip instead of a scale, and are rather higher up on the scale than they realize. After all, we don't know whether he might have forgotten some other incident on the date that contributed to her judgment. Given how many people are casually and often unconsciously homophobic, I think that's quite plausible.

Ms Erica - If I were not Retired from Romance, I'd suggest that Dr Sean has reached the Put-Up-or-Shut-Up line, last seen when Mr Mehlman kept heaping fulsome praise upon Ms Gallagher. I have half an inkling to devise a Channing Award (Stockard, not Carol) for those who exemplify the point of There Are Worse Things I Could Do.

Seriously, though, it really doesn't seem entirely nice to go on about all the attentions one gathers from members of group X, some of them from people who would be considered catches, and then devalue those attentions, especially before others who might well be willing to give their eye teeth for half so much. (Not I; I made my exit on a winner and would never want to push my luck.) I imagine there are likely some unhappy same-sexer men here who haven't dated since the Bush administration and would sell their souls to Ann Coulter for some of Dr Sean's opportunities.

Lest that seem harsh, I'll append that I don't think Dr Sean is one of those Deliberate Teases who enjoys making subtle efforts to elicit the attentions of his gay friends and then scores up a point over them to himself or them or even their circle of friends, even though he has confessed to a taste for hierarchical relationships. After all, then, there *are* worse things he could do.

test

@ven: Oh dear. Perhaps you'd find my excited ramblings more forgivable if you thought of me as man who, his best years long long long behind him, finally managed to get his groove on. It's a story of hope, really.

It might also help to know that attracting attention is one thing, not freezing like a deer in the headlights or sputtering something completely inane in response to said attention is quite another. Well, at least for some of us.

Finally, the lighter exchange was about humor and going with the flow with friends who all know the score. Sexual attention from gay men, flattering and intriguing as it can be, isn't something I seek out.

@ 127/128

Yesterday when the bigger dude noticed his shoe was untied, he pointed to his shoe, and the skinnier dude knelt and tied his fucking shoe for him. What the hell?

Most Everyone At The Gym Is Freaked

From the original letter, what I believe to be relevant parts.

So a few things.

1. Regarding the friend example I gave: you don't think those public displays were abusive, or at the very least, an extension of abuse? You don't think that acting x way in public affects y result in private?

2. The problem wasn't him doing the things, the point was him being very demonstratively being ORDERED to do those things. Not "hey hon, my shoe's untied" "Oh, I'll get that!", the D was making a big show of it making evident to anyone looking who the boss was. Above and beyond being doted on or served (which I think are acceptable).

3. "Everyone in the gym is freaked" Maybe because they're all just uptight prudes, right?! Or maybe because they're legitimately conflicted about whether there's something they could or should do if they are in fact witnessing an abusive relationship.

Not everyone wants to be social psychology textbook anecdote one day.

The sentence "most everyone at the gym is freaked" does not necessarily report the actual situation, but could instead reflect the bias behind this person's impulse to police others' behaviour, the belief that s/he upholds a social standard transgressed by PDA with a D/s bent.

Even then, the LW didn't complain of being freaked out by abuse, but by D/s, as someone above has noted.

@mydriasis: community policing of abuse in a defined circle of support (school, neighbourhood, co-workers...) is useful and is rooted in our humane responses to fellow human beings, but I don't think the original situation points to a concern/freak out about abuse; it was the ick-factor when confronted with D/s.

Many responses has caricatured all D/s PDA as a) done for others to see; b) theatrically big; c) humiliating. Leaving aside a) and b), the actual practitioners of D/s who have written in here show that it is the opposite of c) that drives their PDA. (Some may, but not all, perhaps not even most.) This gives off a different vibe, and triggers some people's ick-radar instead of crime watch.

Thanks for posting the original letter, I hadn't read it so I was a little confused. The only shoe-tying I am aware of is when an IT or techie stalls transmittance of emails and what not for quick, minor yet powerful edits that add or change meaning to the file before it gets sent to the server.

They can result in anything from laughs, friends never speaking to you again, losing your job, or becoming mentally unstable sometimes depending on the severity.

It not something people with genuine D personalities engage in, however abusive personalities might go so far as to turn it into social event

@mydriasis: D was making a big show

Yet, in the bdsm porn I've watched, s is always the star of the show, not D.

This power exchange stuff is so confusing.

Dr Sean - What I left out because it didn't fit was a suspicion that, if Mrs Sean read the Ms Erica version of the Proper Care and Sexing of Husbands and became a model of GGG and Enthusiastic Pursuit, we might not be seeing any of these tales.

And, as someone who, ever since my broken ankle, simply cannot regain my 30 inch waistline (I'm not even any heavier; that's the most annoying thing), I can appreciate the affirmational effect of attention one doesn't even seek.

Not wanting to define for them what others may experience as oppression, I'll let any volunteer who hasn't dated since the Bush administration comment about whether the I-Thought-My-Life-Was-Over-Informercial aspect of your post inspires hope. [Didn't you like the image of Desperate Gay Men willing to sell their souls to Ann Coulter? I had thought it might amuse you enough to justify the risk of its amusing other people I shall not name for the wrong reasons.]

And I'll grant that at least some of your tales are appropriately on topic. Of your last three examples, Mr Pathetic White Socks was more or less entirely on point, and Mr Shirtless Hunk nearly the same, though with a little more of an air of nose-rubbing.

But I think you're a bit harsh on your friend. It's very difficult for any retelling of such an admission to avoid coming off as a display of all this Power you have over him. And then, even factoring in that you were convincing Ms Erica of your genuine lack of interest, the elaborate laundry list of those present who had attracted you did come across as indirectly indicative of being less respectful than someone in such a vulnerable position as your friend might be considered to deserve.

I do, though, have no problem whatsoever with your "natural het revulsion" and pay you the compliment of believing that you assign full equality to the concept of "natural homo revulsion" when it is incited, a quality I should not attribute to the entire company here assembled.

You are getting a little closer to the PU/SU line than I think you want to be. But you have given me an idea for another story, which perhaps could be stretched into an entire novel. If Ms Gallagher were truly as clever as Mr Mehlman slobberingly claimed her to be, not only would NOM long ere now have discredited Mr Savage by planting a dead teenager or two in his hotel room during the course of his travels, but you would serve as a partial model for the forces of evil; armies of upstanding heterosexual men and women even younger and hotter than you would be trained to the peak of perfection and then sent out to infiltrate all the same-sexer spaces with the express purpose of attracting as many same-sexers as possible and sending them all home alone and frustrated but unwilling to make do with anyone available. (Again, at least you don't try to attract men, although some other time a discussion of what constitutes being too attractive to people one doesn't intend to attract and how best to treat such a situation with respect to all pertinent parties might be profitable.)

I'd better post this and leave before I spend the whole day plotting out the new idea.

Ms Ravished - Actually, it's not essentially a PDA; it's a PDD that the performers both intend and interpret as a PDA.

@vennominon:

Since I think that everyone is racist, sexist and homophobic to some degree, I don't want to disagree with you. He just seemed sincere enough to me.

@ven: If my friend was foolish or young, I'd share your concerns about power, but he's roughly the same age as me, and he initiated the flirtation. Going along with it was the right thing for me to do. Acting like an overconscientious stick-in-the-mud (which could easily be mistaken for homophobia) was not. We are part of a larger mixed-orientation of sparkly people who are pretty adept at getting along. All the heart-break I've seen has involved intra-orientation crushes rather than intrinsically lost causes.

Still, as a result of this conversation I'll certainly be more conscious of this kind of stuff, for better or worse.

Love your story, even if it paints a rather polarized picture of gays/straights.

@migrationist: Since I think that everyone is racist, sexist and homophobic to some degree

Does this rule out the possibility of someone being homophilic? (Not sure that's a word, but I assume you get my meaning.)

As someone who's a libertine at heart, I've found a disproportionate number of kindred spirits among gay men (Dan being a notable one), even if we sometimes end up parting ways when the prefunc is winding down and it's time to go to the main event. This has become truer with time, with my straight friends (both male and female) tending to become thoroughly domesticated, and their interests limited to "grownup" activities like outings centered around the kids, dinners, bbqs, wine tasting parties, a Sounders game, school auctions, etc. (which to be clear is stuff I enjoy as well).

@seandr:
"homophobic" would rule out "homophilic", but I get your meaning, and in fact, I would have liked to include it.

My point was that everyone has prejudices based on sex, race, sexual orientation etc.

My gay friends have turned domestic way before my straight friends. However, the sample size is quite small, so it might be skewed.

@migrationist: By all outward appearances, the gay couple next door are as sweet and virtuous as Fred Rogers. When I step outside to blaze a joint, it's on the other side of the house.

@ven: Now you have me questioning my understanding of the way of things. Here's the interaction separated from any any potentially relevant context. You tell me if I'm doing it wrong.

Him: Do you have a light?

Me: I do! (fumbles in pockets failing to produce the lighter) I don't know why this is so difficult, I only have four pockets.

Him: (stepping closer and assuming a flirtatious affect) Here, let me help you with that.

Me: Ha ha ha, oh wait, maybe it's in my inner thigh pocket. Ha ha ha.

Him: Ha ha ha. (leans in) I would suck your dick.

Me: (holds up lighter) Ah, here it is!

I'll throw in my two cents on tying a shoe for another man in public.. One comment says it's wrong to perform even 'subtle acts of sub/dom' in public, well..

I'm 52 years old. 6'1" tall. 164 lbs. My SON is 23 years old, 5' 11". 145 lbs. and has beautiful blue eyes. And oh yeah he is mentally handicapped and can't tie his own shoes. He doesn't 'look' that way but he is..

So two weeks ago while we were standing in line to see the Rolling Stones in Anaheim, Chris'shoe was untied. As I've done a thousand times, I bent over without comment to my son and tied a sturdy double knot in it. Two gentlemen were a few people behind us and 'diva' said, "Oh look at that, he gets to buy the tickets, AND tie shoes, nothing like an old fool in love !"

I glared at him like I was Rick Santorum and he looked the other way. Like Freud said, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar and doesn't signify anything. Straight Dad in Phoenix

I'll throw in my two cents on tying a shoe for another man in public.. One comment says it's wrong to perform even 'subtle acts of sub/dom' in public, well..

I'm 52 years old. 6'1" tall. 164 lbs. My SON is 23 years old, 5' 11". 145 lbs. and has beautiful blue eyes. And oh yeah he is mentally handicapped and can't tie his own shoes. He doesn't 'look' that way but he is..

So two weeks ago while we were standing in line to see the Rolling Stones in Anaheim, Chris'shoe was untied. As I've done a thousand times, I bent over without comment to my son and tied a sturdy double knot in it. Two gentlemen were a few people behind us and 'diva' said, "Oh look at that, he gets to buy the tickets, AND tie shoes, nothing like an old fool in love !"

I glared at him like I was Rick Santorum and he looked the other way. Like Freud said, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar and doesn't signify anything. Straight Dad in Phoenix

PHM's letter is my fantasy too. Not to watch, but to be the friend. For me hottest letter ever!

So... the submissive guy wrote to say that Dan's assessment of the situation wasn't entirely accurate, not realizing that his letter confirmed that Dan's assessment was totally spot-on and accurate in every detail.

@152-154, how can you tell who's secretly attending BDSM or swinging parties unless you know them well enough to tell them about your antics? I'm sure our neighbors and many of our friends think we're quite boring...

Dr Sean - Unfortunately, I live a more sheltered life than Miss Austen; she went to balls. I gave up even that form of mixing after one such event connected to a celebration of Mr Twain. Your friend sounds like a straight-chaser at first guess, but it's a very thin impression, and, if alcohol were at all influential during the course of the evening, that could perhaps be the bulk of the problem (and again, I'm a lifelong non-drinker, thus no help there).

It does perhaps raise the Carrollian question of whether straight-chasers get what they deserve or deserve what they get. But's that's another issue.

I do, though, hold it from both sides that someone who makes a serious offer to a friend counter to orientation is in a particularly vulnerable position, even though the power in parallel situations will be differently vested. I'll decline to give an example of my own.

I am glad to see you guys are still discussing intelligently the case studies that Dan Savage proposes in his column (now that he appparently has completely transitioned to a defender of a system of ethics for relationships, which he can apply to specific cases so as to attempt to bring clarity to the minds of those who seek his help). I hope you will continue to do so, and that you will feel enlightened and more able to understand others and their dilemmas -- which probably is the (best) reason why people ever started reading advice columns.

I do not think I will be returning here, for obvious reasons, as you probably had already guessed. I made a couple of attempts, and it did not really work. The words never ceased to be just words. So I will make it official now, while also wishing you all the best.

Ankylosaur (actually, Sérgio) out.

It's funny how some people just don't understand the how and why certain mannerisms are literally "see through"

They can't wrap their head around the fact that any homophobe who won't drop the subject has secret fantasies of sucking dick.

They can't wrap their head around the fact that trying to pass laws that are essentially govt. sponsored bigotry does in fact = hating those that the proposed laws are bigoted against,

It's the same story told over and over, whether it's laws cloaked as "the defense of marriage" or when the same idiots write a piece about being pro-civil rights politically but their words just don't read that way, then they get pissed off claiming you are making assumptions and not reading the actual words. When words reek of the stench of hatred, it doesn't matter what they say on the surface.

What would the world be like if all people who were inherently gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgendered weren't shamed into believing who they are is bad or wrong?

I am not sure, but we are going to find out soon, because people are realizing there is no such thing as an innocent bystander when it comes to witnessing bigotry. The world will not tolerate hate and wrongful discrimination, they cloak so many other of the worlds problems, most having to do with honesty.

When everybody stands up to them, nobody is intimidated, and none of US have to live in fear

Mr Ank - I shall mention you, perhaps often. I hope you attain great fluency in Latvian; it's worth whatever the cost might be.

Oh, dear - another scientific theory about The Cause has emerged. This is not going to be a good thing or end well.

DMJ: One of my aunts was a sex worker, in the sixties, and she met an amazing guy, because he was one of her "Johns." The only thing that ever confused any of my family was that he was such a great guy, we didn't understand why he had to pay for sex. (I know, that's rude, but we didn't know any better).

They did get married. And they enjoyed one another's company. Eventually, the worst possible "if" happened, and they broke up. But after that, my aunt was still part of the family, and so was her ex-husband.

My point is that even if the very worst thing happens to a relationship - it ends, that doesn't mean it shouldn't have happened, or that everything's a mess.

If you get along, and you like one another, and you want to be together, do it!

And if someday, it's not working out, stop. Neither of you are bad or stupid for having enjoyed one another.

I hope that you'll make one another happy forever. And if you don't, I hope you'll both appreciate how happy you made one another for a while.

Your job where you met isn't "dirty" or "shameful" It's something you did, and possibly did well. And if you gave it up for love, that's not a sign of foolishness. It may be a sign of a job well done.

We shouldn't have to just live to work. We should be able to work to live.

If, in the end, it doesn't work out, that's no worse than any other couple (or threesome, or whatever-some) that don't work out.

I don't see why it would be any different if you married someone you brought food to, as a waiter or waitress, or gave health care to, as a doctor, orderly or nurse. So you were doing a job where people pay you for sex, and you hit it off on a _personal_ level with a "customer". It happens all the time.

You are both people. You both met through work. To my mind, sex is nice and all, but it's far less important than things like trust, shared interests, or above all - liking being around another person, and feeling good when you are together.

The best part is, if it turns out that you _don't_ want to stay together, that's okay too. Ya just leave.

Your job isn't "special" with special circumstances. It's the same as if you are a computer programmer, or sell gas, or jewelry, or work as a secretary, or a manager. You do what you're good at, in exchange for he money you use to pay rent, food and bills.

If you find love while on the job, bonus!

Is SLAVE dating Jesus? Because that's the only way to explain the capitalization of Boyfriend and every He/Him/His.

You don't get D/s culture. The Dom is always capitalized, the sub lower

Far from always, in my (admittedly limited) experience. But yeah, that is a thing people do.

@170 It is not something always done. In fact I know very few that do it. And I have about 17 years of doing this.

LOL

yes, yes, of course-of course, seandr doesn't have gay wet dreams, or ever take abuse past flirting with homosexuals until he gets a chance to reject their "out of nowhere" advances, no , no never, never, it is only coincidence I need to repeat that I have not one iota of closeted homosexuality in my entire body! I swear on the bible! You must be an idiot to think I am closeted when I vote! and I vote republican and I believe marriage should be between a man and a woman, that's the ways it's always been.

Yes, I know allowing other committed couples to have the same privileges as me, but when you are talking about something like decided whether a homo's spouse get's buried after death, when the surviving spouse and the whole family has always known he wanted to be cremated, if you take away my families right to get back at my brother and his boyfriend for being gay and let us decide to bury him, that is not OK. The Bible say that everywhere.

I am not gay! the reason I am so angry is because marriage is naturally ONLY for man and woman! I know it's hard to believe I could so hateful and spiteful for obviously bullshit reasons, but I swear it has nothing to do with the fact that I struggled my whole life with thinking I like boys, and it was hell, known of you know what it's like to hate yourself because who you are id wrong and bad. NONE OF YOU UNDERSTAND THAT PAIN

yet all you straight people are suddenly just going to let homosexuals be who they really are, and not have to live through the pain that I live every day, fuck no! fuck that! if I have to believe I am bad, so do they! It's a choice and I know it, I know it because I was once a bad person too, but I made the decision to be right instead wrong, sure maybe it has made me so jealous of people who have the courage to be who they are when I chickened out because I didn't want to get beat up. Now in 2013 not only do gay people not get beat up and harrassed, but they can be flaming gay and we aren't aloud to beat them up,

You don't understand, it's not me, who are you to tell me where this way out of proportion hatred towards humans comes from?

did I mention the anger can't be from jealousy, jealousy never leads to unrecognized anger or being blind to how my anger can never be justified, but I think you have to accept my busllhit story that I am sticking to because I know that you can't read my thoughts, so I can lie, and so long as nobody saw me suck dick that one time in jr. high. I only I know I am gay, it doesn't matter how obvious it is to you, I am not

I am telling you one last time, it's not that I am jealous, I actually have nothing against gay people. They just cannot have my rights, the Constitution clearly and explicitly says the rights and liberties are for those of US who conform to what the bible says, gay people don't do that.

I am not mad, I am not jealous, I am only doing what the Constitution says, I am Republican, I am know how to read, and it's a little known fact that the Constitution wasn't meant to clearly be a hard set of rules, it was written with intentional ambiguity, it needed secret ambiguity and not explicit clarity so that kings and churches could interpret it any way they wanted to in order to do the right thing, which is to discriminate against LGBT.

hey seandr,

go fuck yourself,

and the rest of us will just have to pray that subs who have audio/video recording, stashed GPS, hacked email accounts, and constantly fucking with people in ways that might have been intentional but hard to prove tacits that all of the REAL doms use because everyone knows that REAL doms are so dominant they can dominate anyone and it's ethical because of my superior intellect and perfect grammar, these people don't even know how to use a semi colon, and these assholes think that entitles them to privacy or have emails that I can't read?

BWAHAAHAHAHAHAHA

that alone proves how stupid they are and how superior I am

REAL doms are abusive, everyone knows that, and I am not gay! ask humted87 he tell you, he is dom he understands the three commandments of being a dom, the same as i do

1)grammar

2)Capitalizing correctly

3)always pretend nothing really angers you, if you must, be passive aggressive, but never angry, when you get home there are animals that you can beat the shit out of and are they are powerless, they can't do anything, just like gay people in the 50s when there was ten of us and only one them.

i am not gay, its just that all doms are abusive, you can't prove anything, because i was so subtle that a court of law wouldn't be able to convict me, but it would have to be the supreme courts, since we are only yahoo away from a majority of them not being able to interpret the every explicit written in English CONSTITUTION

hey seandr,

seriously

go fuck yourself, and when done pick up humter87 and you can both go fuck yourselves

and write another book about science articles that sound logical and are equally truthful because they mean republican laws get passed and I can use tax payers money to be rich without working, because I am smarter and more dominant

which is all great, and way too clever for anyone to catch on,

smooth, subtle, and undetectable and very very believable

just remember to go fuck yourself because your dominant, and always in control of anything and everything there is all sort of proof

a the bible says god hates fags, right below where it says do you speak french and then in french, go fuck yourself

I am pretty sure its in all the testiments and the mormon bible too

if people can decipher what I really meant with my words, does that mean I need to be more subtle?

well then I guess we will have to agree to disagree, clearly you don't have the same education as I have plus you around as smart, thus the elevated level of subtlety needed because you are more stupider than me

THE NED buh bi

that is all

subtle enough for me

well I say God doesn't like overprivileged punk asses, and so he would likely hate overprivileged punk asses who are abusive, so I don't think he really gives a fuck who loves who, or if where you put your mouth. Man made coded laws are in vain anyway, honorable people can be trusted with the honor system laws are written to protect others from assholes who lie about being abusive assholes.

I sure there are a lot of white rich men with impeccable grammar who can fool enough of the people enough of time to live off of The Peoples fat and hard work.

The Constitution was brilliantly written to make sure that even a language intentionally controlled by bullshit nonsense grammarians rule, the most abusive language ever devised, will eventually put an end to undeserved power and control

republicans remain in denial, none of us give a fuck how to say it properly with the perfect glass of wine

those people will soon become very adept at fucking themselves lest they repent, thusly, indeed, you bet

Amen

and Dan I do sincerely apologize for using your web page so selfishly, thank you for not blocking my IP

I will chillout now

There is a wonderful movie from Spain called Princesas (on Netflix) about a sex worker, Calle, who dreams of finding a boyfriend she won't charge, she'll just love him.