Philo, I agree. She was a breathe of fresh air. A rookie though, she came in with guns blazing and she got guns blazing back.
I find that whirlwind energy around my adult children. I have to keep my balance, or I get knocked over.
Not really knocked over, just the strength of youth.

Interesting CatB. Well Aussie men call each other C...s.
The British version does have a softer edge to it.
Oh, so you guys just keep it to throw at the women. Interesting. The boys here call us that to, in fact I heard it often at the end of my marriage, when I finally went for broke , standing up to my coparent/ etc, he had a lot of titles.. Husband. Horrible word to have coming at you, from a male. Violent. A word used in violence.

I ain't read none of the responses cuz I feel lazy today - so I can't dispense my usual indispensable wisdom bridging the gaps between you kids and any of your disagreements. I just wanted to say - I, too, have always wanted to throw a girls-only sex party. I would simply be the host and butler. You might even say I've dreamed of it. I'm starting to think it may not just happen on its own, though.

#107 Mors, at 109 I should have clarified 'teen and early-20's males.' As we get older becomes a more complex calculus.

112 Lava - Yeah, but how would you characterize what someone is being referred to as, when a man is called a 'cunt?' In Oz, is it used like the U.K. 'bastard,' often just a friendly term, "You silly bastard, did you forget your wallet?"
Never called my wife that, though if there was ever a woman whose actions deserved that particular recognition....
I think we should also pick up the U.K. version of 'sound,' as in 'Jesus was sound.'

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BuOI0YQH…

CatB, When that word is being used, on a man by a man, you know there is some real anger bubbling up.

My take on these words, puussy/ fanny/etc.... And Cunt, is that they are, in their correct use, referring to different aspects of a woman's sex.
Pussy, or fat pussy as one poster threw in, is the playful part of a woman's sex. No problemo.
Cunt, that is the full Monty. Dark, mysterious, slimy.. Produces blood and babies. Way powerful, and can change a man's life.
When used in a derogatory sence, it's inverting that power, turning it into a dark cave. Most of us are ambivalent about our mothers. It's a hard gig, almost impossible to get it right.
Our relationship with the cunt, goes way way back, to our seed self.

Cunt is very rarely used in the UK or New Zealand without some real anger, I agree with LavaGirl. No experience of Australian use. There may be a few examples from British cinema of men slinging the word around almost affectionately but that's about as real as the plot of "Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels". There might be a small number of men in real life who like to reply it at each other for shock comic effect but this is not widely accepted practice at all!

@108 sb53 (re: my comment @18): Yep---gluten-free tiramisu from the local Co-op, with organic raspberries and blueberries, Washington King salmon, and good red wine have all been on my birthday dinner menu this week---turned 5-1 yesterday. It's official (as of 1:35 pm--thanks, Mom!): I am, and have been a proud member of the 50's Club for a year and today. My beloved and I have been enjoying the warm, sunny convertible weather!

fetish @ 110
Yes, it does happen. It happened to me 2-3 times in the distant past, and way before anyone knew about my crossdressing/bigenderism/whateverism.
No long term damage, and at least in one incident I was amused once learning about the “rumor.”

Thanks Lance, no fight on this week, that I've noticed. Host and butler, Eh?
So a girls party with a twist.

i came out (as a dyke) online in the 80s ("hayes compatible" modem on a c-64...i could type faster than the baud rate could handle!) i can say with 99% surety that the first letter is a fake. super male-voicey, and just....NO. i had my gf read it and asked for her reaction without her reading any responses, and she said the same thing

dan if you ever need a pair of dyke eyes to filter through real and fake "lesbian" letters just be in touch.

You kind of don't have the option of never thinking about whether your non-horndog male partner is gay. Even if it is obvious to you that he isn't, you have to think about it because you have to refute it.

Back when the sexual mismatch in my marriage was a problem, the people I confided in would ask me if he could be closeted. And I'm like...no. I'm telling you what's up, he's on the asexual spectrum and has sexual anxiety. Trust me that I know when he is turned on, it's very straight? You're not the one in this relationship with him and me and my boobs, you know?

It's not like I ran around blabbing to every idiot I knew: I only talked to trusted friends who I thought were smart about sex. And I still got asked if he was gay, because he didn't want to fuck me as much as I wanted. It's kind of inescapable, and if I had written in to Dan I probably would have mentioned it, if only to say "and no, he's not gay."

I've saved this all week, as it seemed right to wait for Homocentric August to be upon us:

With all due apologies to those among the assembled company who dislike references to those no longer among us, I have recalled a long debate with Mr Ank (who, I now hope, is happily spending five hours a day with his Latvian grammar) during which, as he had admitted to having been anti-gay in his youth (as a reaction to abuse, if memory serves), I suggested and he agreed that, when comics used the anti-gay F-word, it gave him a small jolt of atavistic enjoyment that I thought definitely counted on the debit side (how far that counteracted whatever dubious social good he thought there might be in rebranding the F-word as a variant on the A-word is open to interpretation).

This is not quite in the same class as attempts to rebrand the F-word, but I presume that most of the assembled company noticed Mr Savage's humourously-intended anti-gay insult in his third response. For the record, I view it as merely deserving an eyeball roll by way of reply. While in this case it might be a bit of a stretch to term it an atavistic jolt, I just wonder if any of the women or straight men among us might have felt a slight chord of agreement with the insult, however much it might have been against what one's better self believes and works to bring about in the world. (This is an attempt to observe or to explore rather than to judge.)

(Dives into the depths, knife between his teeth)
Speaking for the straight male cohort, answer is no. Speaking for myself, I didn't see any anti-gay insult in the third reply. But no, don't get a charge when I hear someone called a 'faggot,' or anything like that. What the hell, man?

Venn - Yes, I think that someone with moral objections to X can decline a request for X without slut shaming. There's nothing wrong with a virginity pledger dating other virginity pledger of course, kinky sticking with kinky... and a relationship with a heathen might even be possible if the pledger discloses immediately and shows respect for the heathen's sacrifice/self control. But this guy reminds me of the chick a couple weeks ago who said that wife sharing was wrong. If you recall Dan took her to task for not adding the magic words "for me", changing the sentence from slut shaming "wife sharing is wrong" to a self description, "wife sharing is wrong for me"... better yet "I would prefer not to be shared". I think the same goes here but Dan missed the opportunity to drive the point home for men as well.

It might be a good rule of thumb that objecting to consensual sex acts on moral grounds is slut shamey, but I think there are exceptions. When you don't assume that others must share your morals, it might work fine. Just always add "for me" at the end: morally wrong for me, objectionable for me, etc.

Ms Phile - It's always easier when we have it in the person's own words. Here we only have the purportedly shamed party's account, which is that he said he had a moral conflict with sex. That strikes me as quite consistent with your "for me" caveat (though not proof that he framed it in a way you'd approve, but are you using a lens of Innocent Until Proven Guilty or Guilty Until Proven Innocent?). In this particular case, I'd hate to guess, as it's very murky, especially given that she apparently seems to think they haven't "had sex" yet and all his opinions are being filtered through her. If you think he's been Proved Guilty of S-shaming, I'll gladly take up the defence on an IUPG standard, but in much the same way that Rumpole defends the Timsons - suspecting that they're very likely guilty, but that the police have gingered up the verbals.

Of course, as it is now August, my official read of the letter should probably be that she is one of those people who go around accusing others of their own crimes, so that I ought to be hoping that she has dumped him and found a nice girlfriend who never declines any of her sexual requests.

Mr Hunter - Rolling an eyeball is having a fit?

Mr Cat - Okay, you're different from Mr Ank. I don't demand that people *like* others whom they try to treat decently. As this particular is a fairly mild one, it seems plausible that a case could be made in favour of owning a partial tendency to agree with the comparison as one works not to act on it as opposed to pretending that one completely disagrees.

My mind working the way it does, the first image that sprang to mind was that of a 19-year-old SS male out on a romantic date finding the crucial moment ruined by the thought popping into his mind that, "Mr Savage thinks we're pigs." As I said, only an eyeball-roll, but it seemed a good way to start August.

Venn, are you saying that Dan shortening Penis in Guy to "PIG", same as he shortens Penis in Vagina to "PIV", is a slur? Dude, that's a snipe hunt. I waited on the shore while Cat Brother went diving to find it, but I just do not see it. And this is coming from a woman who is way sick of the canned ham analogy.

Where does this line of thought end? Dan thinks he and Terry are swine because of the sex they have? He thinks all gay/bi men are pigs? Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, and an acronym is only that.

What the hell, Venn. Chord of agreement? No. I never felt no chord of agreement, can't even remember having any reaction.
I can see how PIG could be used by those with no sense of humour, as a slur. From Dan, one knows it's just another middle finger raised to all the nasty ones.
Yeah, we're PIG people, you gotta problem with us?

Ms Zoo - You are elevating "humourously-intended anti-gay insult" into "slur". If I were taking it for a slur, I'd find the appropriate reaction to be more than rolling an eyeball.

He could have selected PIM, PIA, PIBA, either of two PIBs, PIBB - there were numerous alternatives. And Mr Savage has frequently made the generalization that Men, Gay Men, All Men or All Gay Men are Dogs or Pigs both in writing and on the podcast. I make what I appreciate is a token objection to such a generalization as part of my duty to some of the best hearts in history who have graced and doubtless extended my existence, and life moves on.

I feel on safe ground contending that, when someone who has on multiple occasions called members of group Y pigs selects to describe a (possible, in this case) member of group Y an acronym (when there were multiple alternatives) that spells out PIG, the selection was deliberate (or just perhaps automatic). Rumpole doesn't prosecute, but either Phyllida Erskine Brown or Mizz Lizz Probert could bring that case home a winner even without an overtly sympathetic judge.

Well Venn, males are made of puppy dogs' tails, after all.
Or so the nursery rhyme goes.

Venn - A bit insulting, the guilty til proven innocent jab. But since you are generally such a lovely conversation partner, I'll share my nitty gritty reasoning, why I think he's a slut shamer and not a pious virginity pledge breeder... Because of the phrase "he informed me".
1) She didn't know he was a virginity pledger until he spoke of his moral conflict. So is his pledge more important than their sexual satisfaction, or is it so unimportant it's not worth mentioning? (Non vanilla folks shouldn't assume that others are kinky in the same way. Disclose early or you look like a coward or user.)
2) "He informed me" instead of "He disclosed" or "He broke it to me that.." -> He doesn't show any concern that she's not getting what she wants in bed, just expects her to suddenly go along with no vanilla sex because love, I guess.
3) She seemed shamed into silence in a similar way to the guy who was told that wife sharing was wrong by his wife. Confused about how to handle these "wrong" desires. What makes this "wrong" when other sex acts are "right"? Can marriage work without the kind of sex that makes me hot? I sound like Hun, how boring for you.

I'll hazard a theory. People rarely or never bring up morals unless they are a) illustrating how a behavior causes harm and should be universally adopted as immoral, b) illustrating how a behavior can be beneficial or at least harmless and ethical, c) seeking praise by those with similar morals, or d) to condemn another with different morals. In short, while debating ethics or discerning the "good people" from the "bad people". This sounds most like option d: "back off or I'll think you're an evil person. But don't leave, maybe it'll happen when my conflict resolves." IMO this would be a piss poor attempt at option a, or an ironic tragedy if his motivation was option c. Couldn't be option b as she has no moral objections here.

Re bias... If anything I think I was rooting for the underdog after you tore her a new one for wondering if closeted was a reason for bf's reluctance! I do think your message is important too. My general take was that she should realize that he's insulting her (dismissing her stated sex needs) and also that she is insulting him back (dismissing his stated orientation)... as she seems to be under the impression that they are both acting in good faith. I don't think they mean to insult each other, probably caught up with their own insecurities, but it's there.

And I think that calling men pigs, that they like sex so much they're willing to be jerks to get it, is insulting to men. Some men seem to think that jerkiness about sex is proof of their virility; and don't seem to mind being called a pig, though. If I got some thrill, it was a jolt of disappointment, or irritation at rape culture.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.ph…

Ms Lava - Again, I didn't call it a slur. Indeed, Mr Savage himself doesn't even seem to consider it an insult. (If the general discussion ever turns to the consideration of whether Mr Savage is or isn't a gynosupremacist, there will be more to say about that, but not now.) I receive very little backup as a rule when I object to the idea - #notallmen goes over not much better on this issue than it does in a discussion of rape culture (I am happy to punt on rape culture to Ms Hopkins). I'm used to being out on a limb alone (you have once or twice had the experience here yourself).

One of my numerous hypotheses is that a good many women and straight men do in a "kinda-sorta" way have the occasional idea that gay men in general are a little piglike. This can form part of various feelings - a modest touch of envy, a hope that marriage will make gays more monogamous, a slightly guilty feeling of moral superiourity, etc. In general, people who treat same-sexers decently get past such a response as a chord of agreement when people like Mr Savage call (gay) men dogs or pigs. Now, one interesting point is that there would probably be a lot of pushback if, say, the sentiment were to be voiced by a Republican presidential candidate or twelve (perhaps a low bar to set as the under-over for open homophobes out of seventeen candidates, but it's just off the top of my head).

Now another of my many hypotheses puts me in agreement with what I take to be Mr Savage's position in a way. Unlike Ms Rand, I rarely engage with those of the MGTOW or MRA persuasions, but I was recently moved to address a young man who struck me as falling into the trap of being the One Good Gay (although thankfully he'd seen the possibility for himself, which made engagement much easier). His friends are almost all straight; he frequently criticizes flamboyant gay males and encourages them to do the same including liberal use of the F-word; he makes himself and his sexuality the focus [pun with the B-word deliberately rejected] of running jokes. And of course, like so many gay men who readily criticize other gay men, he receives boatloads of straight approval. He's not a F*; he's the only gay person they've ever felt comfortable around; if they were gay they'd want to be just like him. And there is some value in such a role - as Mr Savage has pointed out numerous times, it can be difficult for straight people suddenly confronted with SS in their own circle to distinguish between what constitutes legitimate criticism and what's residual prejudice (and, yes, many SS people get away with things they shouldn't by using others' fear of the Homophobia Card). We had a brief exchange. Among other things, I asked what happened when one of his straight friends made an unjustified anti-gay criticism (he ducked the question). In the end, I settled for dropping a hint that, if his personal growth ever led him out of playing into a heterosupremacist double standard, he might find most of his straight friends less supportive than he'd wish.

Mr Hunter - I'm not sure whether this should be phrased as "if x+y = z+y" or "if xy = zy", but in either case, subtract or divide by Y and Ex Equals Zed, or Gay Equals Pig.

Ms Lava - I could introduce you to a good many MRAs who will give you great grief over the gynosupremacist nursery rhyme.

Ms Phile - A fair point, although I am inclined to think that someone who doesn't think oral = sex and who thinks that only religious people are entitled to have moral objections to anything is quite the type to reframe something being broken to her or disclosed as her being informed. This is hearsay evidence, which (except in the Family Division) cannot necessarily be accepted out of hand. Also, I admit I'm the tourist here, but is having "a moral conflict with sex" necessarily equal to being a "virginity pledger"?

My main objection, though, is that she made the request ONCE. How many people have made a stupid response to a request that caught them off guard? I don't think we can call this his considered response to the question without at least one recurrence. Again, I'm the tourist, but would three strikes be a reasonable standard? If a single refusal of a request to perform X constitutes "dismissing someone's stated sexual *needs*", then who among us is sufficiently without sin here to qualify to cast the first stone? (Shades of the very interesting interpretation of Greta Ohlsson in David Suchet's Orient Express.)

Truthfully, I'd like to find a way to defeat her without exonerating him. I feel like Rumpole defending Harold Brittling on the charge of forging a painting attributed to a greater artist, Septimus Cragg. Rumpole wins the case by revealing that the picture, a genuine but unknown Cragg, was painted during a brief affair Cragg had with Mrs Brittling, who gave her husband the painting. Many years later, he decided it was worth going to prison to be recognized as the painter of such a masterpiece; Rumpole both wins the case and exposes his client as a fake forger, someone merely talented seething with envy of a genius.

Now perhaps the conversation naturally goes in the direction of Female Socialization, and how a woman asking for something once is the equivalent of a man asking for it X number of times - or, perhaps more accurately, that a woman once refused will be in a comparable state to that of a man refused X times. The only thing I have to say to that at the moment is to wonder whether we are on the Equality Train, the Equity Train, or both at once.

Then again, as we're probably about as close to agreement as we ever get, this might be a good place to stop.

Hun - Actually, I think it's rude to doubt what someone says about themselves, period, but maybe it's worse when it's sexual. I think it's rude to call someone a hypocrite. However it's helpful to point out any seeming contradictions in others' reasoning. And a red flag if one doesn't mind holding contradicting beliefs, if they get defensive about their hypocrisy. I find hypocrisy a much lighter offense than hating on a class of people, or bullying one person. Hypocrisy seems pretty human, but an internal sense of equality also seems pretty human, and it's disturbing when that seems missing.

Venn - someone who doesn't think oral = sex and who thinks that only religious people are entitled to have moral objections
I think that oral=sex and I also call PIV "sex" sometimes. It's common, even if you look at the comments here you can find it in 5,15,50,74,107. And why do you conclude the latter? I don't remember religion mentioned. I think morals are related to faith in general, not necessarily organized faith/religion.

My main objection, though, is that she made the request ONCE.
Not taking "no" for an answer, repeatedly asking, seems like it would only be appropriate if you wanted to persuade someone to do things your way. I guess she was unwilling to do anything else to persuade him, so why invite rejection by nagging him about it? I think she's unwilling to try to persuade him because she wants to respect his ideas of right and wrong and he's slut shaming her. And/or she has done everything to turn him on that she's comfortable with, without PIV in the picture, so she has no more bargaining room for sex favors, and doesn't want to nag or bully. If you think it's male to refuse to accept no for an answer, I think that's a harmful stereotype.

It's not just sexual rejection that is the problem here. It's callous rejection. He disclosed last minute on moral grounds without addressing the very human pain of rejection.

Mr Hunter - A fit would be, in my view, beyond LMB. I've only once or twice reached LMB lately. When I'm having a fit, I'll be sure to let you know.

Ms Phile - She doesn't find his "moral conflict with sex" plausible because "We've done so much else, and he's not religious at all."

This is actually why I dislike both of them. I am prepared (though perhaps tentatively) to agree with LW that he likely ascribes to the idea that O and M are not real S, although V is. But she wants it both ways. Her opening statement is that they have not done S yet. Then she states that they have done O and M, and then that they have not yet done V. There is a difference between saying V implies S (your statement) and saying not-V implies not-S (LW's first combination of statements). Then she turns around and complains that, because they have done O and M, he cannot possibly have moral problems with V.

I was anticipating people raising gender-based objections and saying that men will ask for something more often than women will, for whatever reason. I'd actually frame it the other way around, not that it's male to refuse to take No for an answer, but that it's female to be socialized to take possibly temporary reluctance for NEVER. How do you see the Refusal Scene as proceeding? My view is that very likely her entire case for V consisted of asking, "Can we do V?" and then, when he informed or broke to her his "moral conflict", she shut it down and never raised the subject again. I don't think making one request rises to the level of establishing a stated sexual need. I hope you'd agree that, after an instance of partner A refusing partner B's request for activity @, B could and would at least, after having time to process the refusal, go to A and establish @ as a need rather than a mere passing fancy, and that one could do such a thing while still respecting the original No.

I didn't think of it specifically earlier, but how would his being a virginity pledger tie in with her envisioning a "sexless" marriage? This is what suggests to me that she shut down at the first sign of resistance rather than initiate enough clarifying discussion. He won't do V now, and so he never will, even when they're married? That seems a bit off.

I have a guess that nobody's mentioned yet, but I'm withholding it because it might annoy some people.

Pay that , Hunter.

Oh Venn, they get all excited over a child's poem? Must be a grain of truth in it , then.
If you feel some disturbance re Dan using these words, email him and ask him why.
It's Dan. He takes weird risks sometimes, though I often see wisdom in them, when I look.

Venn - I often say I had sex first with the person who took my PIV virginity, as that was the most important virginity to me, and I agree that it does sound like it erases my previous sexual activity, and is heterocentric, but I don't see a great alternative. Not everyone knows what PIV means and it's awkward to say (typing it is short and sweet though). There's not a great word for PIV besides "sex". "Sexual intercourse" doesn't even refer specifically to PIV, plus the definition seems focused on what the penis is doing, no girl parts necessary. "Vaginal intercourse" or "reproductive sex" sound so awkward. Maybe this language is why I don't find oral as common or vanilla as PIV, for hets anyway.

A virginity pledge is the only place I've heard of a moral objection to PIV. Without the backing of organized religion and exposure to many peers who share the same atypical morals, mentioning his unusual boundaries at the last minute looks even more shady; I tried to be generous. Perhaps that's what CUNT was thinking too.

Thanks for pointing out the religious part. If he is not religious then all of his morals must be based on personal faith. "PIV is wrong" makes no sense, he must think that most people in the world are wrong. I see no reason for this moral besides his feelings that PIV is wrong for him, I don't see how he can apply this to everyone as a moral truth. Consensual PIV doesn't hurt anyone. Yeah, she must be as crazy as he to put up with that bs, claiming his feelings must be moral, bleh.

As far as which gender respects boundaries more and which gender pushes boundaries more, I'm not sure. "Women nag" is cliche, but so is "men are pushy" and "men are pigs". I definitely believe that reluctance is a sign that someone might change their mind, and I'm a woman. But it sounds like she is done trying to persuade him physically, and doesn't have an argument against his morals. "I want to but it's morally wrong" is not reluctance, it's mixed feelings. "I'm not sure if I'm ready" would be reluctance. "I'm not ready yet" invites the question: "what do you need to be ready". Idk what else she could say here besides repeating that she wants PIV. And she doesn't sound willing to get dumped for pressuring him for PIV. It sounds like she's only verbally asked for one thing, I don't see how he can be confused about her sex needs.

And again, the guy a few weeks ago only asked his wife once about sharing her. He stopped asking too when she said it was wrong.

Tackling someone's belief system is delicate work, beliefs are a large part of personal identity, so it can feel like a personal attack if you're not careful to keep arguments impersonal.

Lava - You serious that whatever someone objects to must contain a grain of truth? I object to eating arsenic for breakfast. What truth is in this objection?

One of my morals is that I believe that people should respect each other. This doesn't mean that I argue with everyone I see acting with disrespect. It does mean that I will object to this behavior when I'm directly involved, or when questioned about my morals, or to save someone serious harm. Feelings are personal. Morals apply to all. "PIV is wrong" is a bad moral. We'd die out.

Please forgive me if I had posted this before, age and legalization may be taking their toll, but I find that junk stuff @ 147 extremely suitable for this particular site:
“Get longer together with your family..."

Goodweekeveryone

Ms Phile - Just to be clear, I am assuming that a virginity pledge applies to one's pre-marital conduct. The chance that he intends never to do V at any time in his life even after marrying is extremely small compared to the chance that he regards V as an activity to perform with his wife (or fiance, or intended fiance, ranging down to possibly someone with whom he'd be willing to co-parent in case of accident). Yet she immediately jumps to contemplating the possibility of their having a sexless marriage. The best explanation I can conjure for this is that his "moral conflict" was never sufficiently clarified. I could wonder if they've had the sort of Abstinence Only Sex Education that postulates a 32% failure rate for most methods of birth control, but I'm fed up with this pair, nearly enough to wish them into a Covenant Marriage.

We're on your field, and so I won't quarrel with what does or doesn't sound "shady" - and considering that my best guess at the moment is that the moral conflict was just the most convincing excuse he could grab at the moment, I suppose we almost agree in a way, although this is more like being on opposite ends of the horseshoe that anything else.

I could go into a long explanation of how I've asked for @ and # (one being a "need" and the other not) in different relationships in basically exactly the same manner. As it happens, the "need" was never refused, and the refusal of the non-need only occurred once, but I was prepared for possibility of having to initiate the, "I accept that you have a problem with this and don't want to pressure you but it's something I need," conversation some time afterwards. It doesn't feel to me as if this is the only physical request she's made, but there's really nowhere to go on that point.

I think we've both given either of the pair far more attention and consideration than the both of them combined deserve.

Venn - I should probably drop it, it's not the most pleasant subject matter. I see what you were driving at, maybe... it makes sense to morally object to having kids before you're ready to be responsible for them, but the birth control conversation may be too much for him. And it does sound like some major miscommunication all around, but I sucked at talking about sex at that age too. We're not born knowing what we need, we follow our gut or use trial and error or reasoning from what we know of our bodies or follow a template like religion or health class; we have to learn it. And it's not like there's a manual she should refer to. She's unhappy with the relationship he needs, general unhappiness means that you're not getting what you need -- CUNT, tell him he's wrong and you need it, like most het women, or just break up with him because you're sexually incompatible. Fight or flee don't slowly boil to death.

The only props I'd suggest to bring, to my girls only party, would be a jar of coconut oil.
Lance could do the butler thing, seeing the women thru the door, after he'd got the food together.
He'd have to leave then.

See YA latter, Alligator..

I'd mix up my girls only parties.
Sometimes ciswomen, sometimes cis and trans* women. That could be fun..

@148/157 Given the juxtaposition with "Sometimes I wonder if the difference we have libido-wise is a deal breaker." I thought it was pretty clear it meant she doesn't think he has an immense drive held back by his moral qualms. She could be wrong or she could be right, but she's definitely right that waiting 'til marriage (rereading reminds me he never said 'til marriage', but she and we assume 'moral conflict' means that) means she doesn't get to find out how their PIV would be, or if he will want sex (PIV and other) as often as she does until she's already signed on the dotted line. That's sensible, even if she doesn't express it super-clearly.

Really, nobody's heard of someone totally down for oral, and/or anal, but who refuses vaginal sex because in their mind, it crosses a barrier?
(Jeez, enough with the single-letter acronyms.) Post-college, I did the Western European tour thing, at least for a couple of weeks, with a pair of girls from school who were sucking Euro-cock like a pair of tipsy widows, but primly abstaining from fucking. I still remember one of them reporting on her Italian fling at breakfast, "...and he was all, eyes rolled back, 'Si, si, si...'

Young people have weird, inconsistent ideas regarding sex and other stuff, this is old news. They drag views that were percolating throughout adolescence into college, and what happens those first couple years is rarely linear, or logical. Really, I think we're all over-thinking this. He has some hang-ups, she wants to have a romantic relationship that includes sex, they're not on a deserted island, so put Old Yeller down, god bless'm.
Unless Venn's unspoken theory is that he's a scout for the Decepticons (sex would give it away!), in which case we need to get on the horn to Optimus Prime, stat.

Vaginal sex would include strap on sex, fingering and tongue fucking, not just PIV. (Similarly penile sex would include blowjobs, handjobs and anal.)
Maybe fucking means just PIV.

My apologies to Mr Cat, but that is a word I have never spoken or written in my life, and (shades of the Prince of Arragon) you'll look a lot better to me before I do it for you. I didn't expect that you'd be the first/only one to support that minor idea, but perhaps the word "moral" put other people off.

Continuing in the same line, add that they are about to be parted naturally.

As for Ms Fez's point, the point makes sense but builds on the acceptance of LW's unreliable starting point. At least it serves to explain some small part of LW's thinking.

Euro-cock, CatB? I gotta get me some of that.

So many countries to choose from.
Sometimes being so far away, has its benefits. Sometimes, not so much.
Although, we are a multiracial nation.

Lava @ 161
Checking my status, just in case I'm in the neighborhood.

CMD, I thought of you. Don't want to leave any contenders out..
Would just have to have a further mixing up, I'm guessing. Cis, trans* and cross dressers. That could be quite a party, don't you think?

Ladies League, Hunter? Please.
No. Nothing grabbed my league horns this week. Even if fake, someone, somewhere, is asking those questions.

"First things first: Sometimes I create a sign-off that, once abbreviated, spells out something cute or funny or relevant. This is not one of those times: I did not come up with this letter writer's sign-off."

And here all these years I thought that the letter writers were all just that clever. I don't know what to believe anymore.

Lava @ 169
I'll kick off the event in a tasteful burlesque (or “burlesque-like” for purists) number, featuring flowing moves and exquisite lingerie. I’m planning on checking out an intro class in two weeks.

Apparently there's also something called “boylesque” that seems to be more on the cis gender side with male performers cater to what I assume is a mostly female audience. Hard to see faces but the vocal appreciation shouts from the audience are all female. I suspect there are some men who may have been dragged (no, not intended) to the show by their ladies, but I suspect they are speechless and terrified by now.

So before I take the class and do my shtick at your all-inclusive paryt- thanks!- here are some of your very own countrymen performing boylesque:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSv3Aedg…

Re: cunt. "There is no negative power in a word unless you believe it yourself. What do you believe?"

http://www.elephantjournal.com/2015/08/i…

Thanks, Dan, and everybody! I have been enjoying catching up on this week's thread after some time off. Back to work for me after last month's birthday celebrations---and ending on a Blue Moon.

I hadn't thought of performances, CMD. Good idea, get the party started. . Anyone who wants to, can get up and perform. Then everyone, plays.

Grizelda, you'd come along, too? Maybe play a piece for everyone.