Savage Love



" what is it about the unexpected genitalia that suddenly turns you off?"

What is it about you that makes you think you get to criticize my consent or nonconsent?

No means no. "No" does not mean "interrogate me about why I said no, while implying I'm a bigot if I don't have sex with who you choose."

No means no. There are no exceptions. There are no groups you aren't allowed to say no to. There are no people you're allowed to punish for saying no. There are no circumstances under which you should chastise someone for saying no. There are no circumstances under which someone else's right to say no is subject to your approval. There are no circumstances under which you can coerce someone into sex they don't want without it being rape. It doesn't matter how subtle you think you're being about the coercion.

If you think you have found an exception to any of these, you have not.

This is why tribalism is a terrible substitute for morality or reasoning. If you think being trans overrides other people's right to refrain from having sex they don't want, you're at the very least attempting to be a rape accomplice, and your moral system is terribly, terribly broken.

If you're giving people shit for not having sex with someone--which is what you're very obviously doing here--then yes, attempting to override their "no" is exactly what you're doing. Trans people don't get a license to rape. Even if you think they're the Good Tribe, and that people who don't want to have sex with them are the Bad Tribe.

"If you're accepting that trans people are the gender they present as, why is that?"

You obviously think this is a trump card, but it is the opposite. If being a trans ally means issuing transpeople a license to rape, then being a trans ally is deeply immoral. If I can't stay a trans ally while believing that rape is never acceptable, then I suddenly lose all interest in being a trans ally. Equating transness with rape is not doing you the favors you think it is; you clearly hope it'll legitimize rape, but so far it's delegitimizing trans people.

If believing that transwomen are women means believing that straight men forfeit their right to not have sex with them, then why on Earth would I want to believe that? Trans women are women, but if I don't want to have sex with them, they don't get to have sex with me and you don't get to try to coerce me into changing my mind.

Fortunately, you are wrong; treating trans women as women does not mean giving up your right to refuse consent. Your efforts to obscure this fact are not doing any favors for the cause you're pretending to support.
#83, that's not what #73 said either.
M? Woof - The key is LW's desire to maintain her Trans Ally status, which is her standard. Within that standard, it has to be up to trans people to be able to declare what does or doesn't constitute an Ally, doesn't it?

The other day I heard a Youtube video by someone defending the use of the phrase, "that's so gay," as meaning, "that's stupid." His point was that he almost always backs "the H community" on our issues and never uses the G word in reference to orientation, only as a synonym for stupid; he thinks people who present using the G word should just accept that language has evolved, abandon the term to physical/mental ten-year-olds and present using the H word instead. (Somebody clearly wasn't around when we were all fighting *not* to be called the H word.) I did not comment on the video, but, if I had, I'd have detailed my distaste for being labeled H and given at least one good reason, then made it clear that, while I'd still accept support on my issues with gratitude, I couldn't in good conscience consider anyone who would choose to persist in insisting on calling me H over my objections an Ally.
104 - Torn up!
Estarianne, again, ‘dating website.’ There are tons of ways to just ‘meet’ people, from trivia night at the pub to group exercise to dragon boating (woot), but or Tinder ain’t for that.
@99: "My issue was with your bringing sexuality into the discussion about genitals. Because that implies that someone without the genitals of a genetic female can't really be a woman. And it was added to by the implication that someone who would go to bed with a man without a penis is bisexual."

Nope. The original discussion was about sexuality as it interacted/intersected with genitals. Never about gender at all, actually. And that wasn't at all my implication. I was covering all my bases, as I could see this issue applying to people of different genders and orientations. I may have misunderstood the meaning of "pansexual;" I used it to mean someone who is attracted to all genders and people on any point of the gender spectrum, and will any and all types of genitals, which is why I put it in as a disclaimer. I apologize if I got that wrong

But the rest of what I was saying was predicated on an understanding of the meeting being a prelude to a possible romantic/sexual relationship, something all the rest of the commentors seemed to agree on. You appear to have misunderstood virtually everything I or Eudaemonic or BiDanFan or unknown_entity has said.
Likewise with the ‘reducing people to genitals’ trope, also known as the ‘Fallacy of the Undistributed Middle.’ “You like the feel of a pussy, and all women have pussies, therefore, all women ARE to you are pussies!” Come on. Let’s not go back to Marcelina territory.

This would be the fallacy of the undistributed middle if the statement was "I like pussies."

However, the statement is "I can't be attracted to a woman without a pussy."

What does that mean? That no matter what else a woman is, without a pussy she is not enough. That the sex act is not worth doing if there is not a pussy involved.

So I stand by the statement that indeed, this is reducing people to their genitalia. It is a litmus test, not a like, and an exclusionary criteria.

Your assumption that it is unlikely that a straight guy would be attracted to a trans woman? I didn't think it was a crazy straw man at all. I figured there are attractive trans women, and if someone were to meet someone attractive of their desired gender they might be attracted to them. It seemed kind of obvious.

If I can't stay a trans ally while believing that rape is never acceptable, then I suddenly lose all interest in being a trans ally.

Exactly. I think that trans people should be treated with all due respect and afforded all civil rights. I vote that way, and one of my litmus tests for candidates is how they feel about civil rights for all minorities, including trans people.

But if not wanting to date trans women makes me a bigot, then I guess I'm a bigot.
Estarianne, what is your goal?

What are you trying to convince people of? In the world you're trying to create, what happens when someone does not want to have sex with trans people?
By the way, I almost think that Dan was trolling all of us with his response to CIS.
@111: Yeah. I'm not sure what the point of making it so that you can either oppose rape or be a trans ally is. What's the value of kicking all the non-rapists out of the "trans ally" bucket? It'd seem really weird, except I'm pretty sure Estarianne is overestimating how scary that threat is, presumably from having seen the threat of having an ally-card revoked used more successfully than she's using it here.
“Perfect Tommy: Pictures don't lie.
Reno: The hell they don't. I met my first wife that way.”
The Adventures of Buckaroo Banzai

Well, Eud, I do agree with me old schoolmate JibeHo that you might stop using the term ‘rape,’ as transpeople have not descended to roofie-ing young studs and having their Evil Way... (I know! They’ll come for me first! It has been prophesied!) Nobody’s getting raped by Ravaging Transpeople, nor suggesting it, so maybe we could change terms there. But!
"No means no. "No" does not mean "interrogate me about why I said no, while implying I'm a bigot if I don't have sex with who you choose.””

This is correct. If you are rejected, or dumped, or some other person doesn’t feel the way that you do, the answer is ‘Because, that’s why.’ Can’t talk your way through it, well, maybe you can, there was a famously ugly womanizer of the 18th Century named John Wilkes, who explained his romantic success with "Give me half an hour and I can talk my face away,” but Not Calling Transpeople Ugly!, more explaining on how, if, I don’t know, someone had a knife to the throat of my favorite stuffed animal and was remotely demanding that I pick up some chick who wouldn’t look at guys under 5”11, I could maybe squeak that out, but absent the extortion, just wouldn’t bother.

#107 - transpeople speak with one voice? As to what constitutes an ally? Does anyone remember years ago, when the fake video by some Jack Black-looking comedian posing as an Xtian activist and singing ‘God Hates a Fag,’ came out? Dan’s response at the time, “...just one? I myself hate a lot more than one!” As I myself despise more than one cis white males, yes, it’s true.
Any one transperson, like any gay person, or any left-handed Eskimo pipe-welding person, can choose whom they see as an ally, not sure it goes across the whole demographic.

Nope. The original discussion was about sexuality as it interacted/intersected with genitals. Never about gender at all, actually.

Since the whole discussion revolves around trans people and whether it is anti-trans to specifically exclude them, this is disingenuous.

You specifically linked sexuality to genitalia based on my post encouraging people not to base their opinions of people on genitalia. At that point, you posed the argument that sexual orientation is based on biological sex.

Based on that assumption (sexuality based on biological sex), someone made the argument that the only people who could possibly be attracted to people without worrying about their biological sex was to be bisexual. And you mentioned pansexuality. Because the argument is that attraction is based on... What?

What is attraction based on? Do you have to see a penis to want someone sexually? Most people develop attraction long before the clothes come off, so I'd imagine not.

When you mention sexual orientation, you automatically bring gender into it because gender is a huge factor in sexual preference. Much of our gender norms are behaviors meant to attract a mate. And we are attracted to those behaviors as well as the physical sex characteristics that we can see.
@115: It's impossible to say "That's not a legitimate reason to say no" without saying "In that circumstance, it's acceptable to rape you."
I'm uninterested in helping anyone obscure that fact.
Mr(?) Casely - That was quite the quartet. Given that Mr Rhone and Mr Ophian are #1 on the Savage Power Couples List (which reminds me to ask Ms Cute to choose whether she is to be listed with Mr Cat or Mr Bloomer; also, it appears that Mr Chairman might be about to displace someone), it would be quite something if they were to prove to be two parts of a unit. Personally, it's all I can do to be myself - four people would be decided overkill.

I didn't much care for the dynamic they got going on the podcast, especially with that caller they told to pretend to be abstinent for a year. Appearing to support and respect a rotten system may seem satisfactory, but sooner or later someone honest is going to get hurt by that machine, and then what?

Well, based on Dan's response, apparently there is some option beyond immediate sex. Did she say she used Tindr? .I thought she said "online dating," not "online sex." He mentioned "meeting for coffee," but if course he's almost as old as I am so...

He also said that a lot of people list a lot if requirements for one hookups and they sound like assholes because they are clearly looking for a breathing sex toy and not a person.
@116: "Since the whole discussion revolves around trans people and whether it is anti-trans to specifically exclude them, this is disingenuous."

If it's anti-trans to think people don't have to have sex with people they don't want to have sex with, then being anti-trans is the only ethical choice. If I wasn't absolutely, effortlessly certain that what you're saying is horseshit, I would right this moment define myself as anti-trans and be very proud of it.

Think about it. If you're right, then everyone should be anti-trans. Using the threat of being labeled anti-trans to coerce people into sex they don't want destigmatizes anti-trans, and is a rape attempt.

Using threats to coerce sex is never acceptable. There are no exceptions. There is never a time when you've thought of the right threat, where using this threat makes it not count as rape. Stop looking for the right threat; it doesn't exist.

Actually, that would only be true if I had any actual control over what you did.

You know, like if I said "saying no for this reason makes you an asshole" and you went out and met a trans person and liked them and got them naked and thought "I don't want to have sex with this pussyless person but ESTARIANNE SAID I HAVE TO" and had sex with them.

Except I didn't say you have to. I said that it would make you kind of an asshole if you didn't for that reason. But I also think it would make you an asshole to have sex with someone you didn't want to have sex with.

So really you're screwed either way once you get a trans person naked. So stay away from Tindr.
I'm not sure I understand Estarianne's point, but I do think there's a difference between having a preference and posting about that preference on your profile.

If I really don't want to date someone with ED, that's a legitimate preference, but one best suited for a private exchange with someone I'm getting to know, rather than posting "No ED please!" on my profile.

To me, a profile that said "only cismen [or ciswomen], please!" would indicate that the person was more concerned about not going out for coffee and conversation with the wrong kind of person than they are about not hurting the feelings of transmen who stumble onto reading those words. I would judge them for that. And I don't think that means that I believe in compulsory sex of any kind.
You're still using your apples to argue with my oranges, E. I never said you had to have sex with anyone.

Never. Not once.

Especially not with someone you aren't attracted to.

I said you shouldn't limit the people you might be interested in based on external factors. Do you really, honestly translate that to "you have to have sex with everyone?"

If I say "don't decide who you might vote for based on gay marriage" does that mean "you have to vote for everyone?"

Or does that mean to use all factors and consider the whole person/candidate/whatever?
What Estarianne may be trying to get at, in perhaps a way that does not provide the most clarity, is that one should be open to the possibility of sexual relations with someone whose genitals may not match their gender identity, provided that one is sexually attracted to them already.
For me personally, (aside: thank you nocutename and cat brother for your nuanced and patient replies), cock is a really big turn on. So, while in theory (i'm married and not seeking any partners) i would be open to sexual relations with a person whose genitals do not match their gender identity, it might be the kind of thing to try out (again, provided the sexual attraction was already strong), but who is to say it would be enjoyed by either partner? And what if the fact that the genitals-not-matching-gender-identity came as a surprise did damage to that existing sexual attraction, not because of some bias against all transpeople, but of a sudden bias against this specific person? Because we *are* allowed to make some basic assumptions about what is in people's pants based on their presentation, and if we are getting close to getting naked with them, it is probably in everyone's best interest if any type of potential "surprise" is disclosed before things get too far. This would include things like micropenis, impotence for any reason, multiple vaginal openings, anything outside of the (admittedly narrow) average expectations. i can completely understand someone being taken aback by not-matching-gender-identity-gentials if confronted with them when the situation is already sexual, this could feel disingenuous and would perhaps cause them to wonder what other things this person may be withholding. i stress that this hypothetical situation is one in which the partners are actively becoming sexual, and am not saying that transpeople (or anyone else with something a little different in their pants) should have to disclose that information to just anyone/everyone they meet/encounter.
Okay, I think I might have identified one source of the misunderstanding.
Estarianne has been with her partner for 22 years, so I'm going to assume she's not that familiar with internet dating and dating sites. If I'm wrong, apologies in advance, but:

Meeting someone and having that acquaintance or friendship evolve into romance and a sexual relationship is very different if the two of you meet as freshmen in your Intro to Organic Chemistry class or working the same shift at the Tastee Freeze or when you both ended up in traffic school together one long Saturday or when your older brothers have been friends since middle school than it is if you meet on Tindr or Grindr or or OkCupid or Christian Mingle. Under the former circumstances people get a chance to know each other more slowly and organically. In those scenarios, meeting someone for coffee doesn't carry the implication or assumption that sex is a probable outcome. So yes, someone who'd refuse to have coffee with a new acquaintance you'd struck up a conversation with when you were seated next to each other in your "Literary Aspects of Contemporary Film" class without knowing what genitals lurked under your clothes, would be a bigot indeed.

But that's not how it is in the world of internet dating. When you meet for a coffee after being introduced via dating profiles and perhaps a bit of email exchange or maybe a phone call or two, it's a different kind of meeting. As vennominon suggests, there is often the flavor of an interview about the affair, or sometimes an audition. Everyone is keenly aware of being sized up as a potential sexual and/or romantic partner. Both parties are also simultaneously trying to determine whether or not they want to have sex in the near future with each other. It's not just a coffee.

If, Estarianne, you can allow someone to have a preference to not date a Republican, I assume you can allow them to have a preference to not date someone to whose genitals they won't be attracted. Right? Do they have to lose their status as a trans ally someone who believes that trans people are fully deserving of all social, civil, and human rights and dignities as any-and everyone else? After all, I can be a gay ally without having to be willing to have sex with a woman, can't I? Or can I? I happen to think Dan was wrong in that answer, but that's going to be my next post.

I often hear men complain that women only are interested in tall men or men over a certain specified height, or men who aren't bald and I always say I don't date a head of hair, I date a man; I don't date a mark on a measuring stick, I date a man. (Cat Bro, I would--and have--gladly date a 5'7" tall man. I'm 5'6", so perhaps he wouldn't want to date me. But I've dated men who are significantly shorter than I am, too). But height or hair are aesthetic qualities; genitals are somewhat different. I find beauty in a thick, luxuriant mane and in a smooth head equally (I don't find a comb-over attractive, because I have my limits). I can appreciate all sorts of different nose sizes and shapes, though my preference is for big shnozzes. But I need--or at least, I profoundly want a big-enough hard human cock to ram me forcefully. That is one of the things I want out of sex. I want that cock to have been present on that man since his birth, attached to him by ligaments, not a harness, made out of flesh, not silicone. It's very different from preferring brown eyes to green ones but still finding beauty in a pair of green eyes.

By the way, Cat Bro: Flashman! I love those books. Have you read George MacDonald Fraser's book The Pyrates? Almost as good.

Cat @115 - I appreciate the support, but it seems Eud has doubled down on using the term since you posted. I count about a dozen more uses of the term.

Eud, as a fellow sexual abuse survivor, I hope you can understand that language matters and has the capacity to cause distress. Your insistence on repeating the term rape distresses me, and I find it hard to believe I'm the only one. I know you don't care for me, but for others reading the forum could you please in the future just stop? I know you think you're keeping it real or something, but no one is talking about rape except you.
Eh, this is going off the rails, you guys can talk to her if you want.

118#- Hey, Nocute, couple with me, baby! We got both acupuncture and massage over here!
Mr Cat - And therein lies a decent portion of my less-than-entire satisfaction with Ally Status. Life would be so much easier if we followed the example of Bewitched and had a standing Witches' Council to decide and decree on these matters. But it seems reasonable to engage in good faith if one is told one Isn't Being Ally-like by a member of the allied group, and to stipulate that a large number of voices backing up such a claim ought to be treated as correct.
@123: "I never said you had to have sex with anyone."

I know; you think you've been subtle enough about implying it to maintain plausible deniability. It didn't work. One of the things that makes this obvious is both your repeated obfuscation, and your flat refusal to answer the question of what your goal is.

Do you even know what your goal is?

You're pretty clearly here to chastise people for not having sex with trans people. There is no universe in which that isn't the same thing as saying that being trans means being allowed to rape. People get to not have sex, for any reason they want, or none at all. Their reasons are not subject to your approval. It doesn't matter how you phrase your disapproval. It doesn't matter how cleverly you think you're phrasing your disapproval. There is no group in which membership means people can't turn you down. No exceptions.

When someone declines to have sex with someone, you don't get to interrogate their motives. You don't get to impute shameful motives behind "no," or belittle the motives you're imagining they have. You don't get to insult them. You don't get to threaten them, no matter how small the threat. You don't get to do anything to them. If someone says "no," you do not get to punish them. You don't even get to threaten to call them a bigot. Even if you think it's true.

There is no punishment so politically correct, or so ineffective, that it changes this. Trying to punish a "no" is trying to rape. No exceptions.

No, there are two separate issues being argued.

One is that trans people are not a separate gender. Being attracted to trans people does not make you a different sexuality. Sexuality is not based on genitals. That is one issue.

Beyond that, I think people could be more open to seeing if they are attracted to people without setting limitations such as race or height or sex organs. I find a lot of things a big turn-on, including 6 pack abs and a great singing voice, neither of which my husband has ever possessed. But I've always been sexually attracted to him.

Since some people are interpreting this as basically scheduled sex and some are seeing it as just casual dating, I think there is some weird logic being applied that I mostly find kind of amusing.
#125 - Read almost all his stuff, except ‘The General Danced at Dawn,’ and ‘The Steel Bonnets.’ The most incisive cultural critique of Victorian England, and many other places, you could ever hope to find. I’ve found all older editions, couple with the Frazetta covers, as that relatively new acid-based paper is just slick under my fingers and gross.
I remember reading ‘Flashman At the Charge’ while I was in school up there, and laughing my ass off in the student lounge. Shame that his last one, ‘Flashman on the March’ was kind of ‘meh.’
I’m still in awe at the level of research he did for each one, the notes at the back of each book made my eyeballs glaze over.
Man, I love old books.
Fred @76, you have uncovered our---uh, I mean my--secret!

Congrats, nocute @77.

I haven't read all of the comments yet, but I'm not sure if I agree with Dan about stating dating preferences. If we exclude people out of hand, we do ourselves a disservice, limiting our opportunities for love and happiness. However, if we know what does and doesn't turn our crank, why not label the package accordingly?

One surely can be an ally of a group one doesn't date. Dan has defended the right to not date bisexuals because that's just how somebody feels about it. I can't disagree with that.
I think Dan was wrong in his reply to CIS. Saying "cis women only, please," or "no trans women" doesn't revoke your trans ally status. But it does confer douchebag status or asshole status on you.
Apparently, CIS has been getting a fair amount of responses from trans women who are successful enough to pass in photos, though not in person over coffee, or they disclose over coffee. I still think she can file those away under the category of "the hazards of internet dating," in that there are plenty of people who seem like a potential match based on their profiles and yet when you meet in person you discover a basic incompatibility. That's kind of part of what you sign up for. I think it is rude to list your unacceptable qualities on you profile and as EricaP and others point out, it's hard to think kindly of someone who wouldn't hesitate to use potentially hurtful language.

While I think it's admirable to say we should all be open to any/everybody and not to rule anyone out until we get to know them because we might find ourselves attracted to someone we had heretofore not thought we could be attracted to, I also think that's a bit unrealistic. And if someone isn't open to the possibility of a sexual/romantic entanglement with someone who has the set of genitals to which you aren't attracted I don't think that is such a horrible offense of prejudice.
@126: In case this was unclear, I don't heed tactical advice from people who don't share my values. If that wasn't tactical advice, then it should be clear that I especially don't heed tone arguments from same.

And about the issue at hand: I have no interest in helping rape advocates pretend that what they're advocating isn't rape. Attempting to use my history to make me do so buys you no favors whatsoever.
128# - Well, I don’t know.
I mean, yes, we should always engage in good faith. But to say, You should take it as given that I speak as a representative of that minority group to which I belong, or at least a large chunk of them, seems problematic.
I’m currently in a backwards Red state full of jingoistic boobs and dullards, and none of those groups are authorized to speak for me. I don’t want them speaking for (those who are) white American cis males, either. I’ve had gay guys come onto me, in most indecorous ways, including somewhat forcibly when I didn’t have my current strength and growth, but I never took their actions, which several times included calling me a homophobe for turning them down, as indicative of the wishes of American Gay Males in general.
This is why I mentioned the joke video (link posted below) and Dan’s response. Dan’s a fag (or so the rumor runs) and yet he has a healthy dislike for some other fags, even more than one! I imagine, and he’s free to chime in here, that he’d dislike any one gay guy, and by extension any transperson, or black person, or Mali person, intending to speak for the whole Group.…
@40 said - "I've mostly given up on keeping my eyes closed, despite the fact that it enhances the pleasurable sensations for me, because my husband feels that it sharply reduces the intimacy of the connection when I don't look into his eyes (and did I mention he's insecure about his looks?)"

For real.

For those who don't get why some may do this: It's like turning down the radio when you're driving in an unfamiliar place and trying to find an address - it allows you to process other things (in this case, the sensations of your partner's touch and your building orgasm).

I'm tend towards visual stimulation myself + can come through straight PIV sex (totally a different orgasm than with emergent clit stimulation, btw), but there are times when closing my eyes heightens everything else.

As long as that's not *all* that sex is about (Thanks for the O! Nighty night!"), it's not a huge deal.
@56 DRF
"I'd be interested in knowing what trans women who seek women would have to say to CIS"
I'm only a part-timer, not necessarily the classic trans person, and I date cis women (which have also included some certified-organic lesbians in the past), as well as trans men.
I do state my "situation" while online dating as I think it's the right thing to do and expect the same from those I'm going to meet.. Some people may say right away I'm not their cup of kombucha, others may be "willing to meet, just be aware that it's not very likely..." and some actually want me the way I am.
CIS has every right to state her preferences. She just needs to be respectful, like everyone else. And being respectful also means that trans women should also be open as to who they are despite the difficulty and challenges and possible rejection. Unfortunately that's also part of dating.

I have no goal, E. I've been responding to the goals.youve ascribed to me because you seemed to want me to.

Beyond my first post, I've been arguing that sexuality isn't based on whether someone has the right genitals, something you've both insisted you never said and kind of implied is true anyway. Beyond that, I have just been responding to your accusations.

Mostly people seem to be arguing that they could never be attracted to a trans person so the whole point is moot. I don't really believe that, but if you believe it, I don't think there's any point in arguing it.

I do think that argument, that you couldn't be attracted to a trans person, is anti-trans because it places trans people in a category separate from men and women. But there is a difference between saying you will never be attracted to a trans person and not being attracted to a specific trans person. It is a generalization vs. an individual situation.

When it comes to sex.... i am willing to say that i reduce people to their genitalia. Thats been bandied about as such a horrible thing. I completely disagree. I LOVE pussy. Love it. I don't watch porn for the supposed personalities of the performers. I watch because i am attracted to whats between their legs. Enough to get excited about it. It isnt my responsibility to DATE other orientations to bridge the bigotry gap. If i was making out with a transwoman and pulled her pants down to reveal a cock... i wouldn't freak out... i wouldn't hurt her... i wouldn't call her horrible names. I would simply end the engagement, explain that i didnt appreciate that piece of information being left out... and leave. If she and I had great rapport (which we would... if we got to the point of undressing each other... as i dont go there if i don't genuinely like the person...) then i would likely continue to communicate with her as a friend (if she wanted). Acting like i am an asshole for wanting pussy in my sexual diet is total bullshit. And if my partner treated me like a living breathing sex toy... i would think that was insanely hot. Never in my life have i felt the need to vocalize "you only want me because...." That just isn't in my wheelhouse. No inferiority complex to speak of.... and the last thing i want to be for a PARTNER is a life coach. Either we are on the same page (more or less) or we are not. That old square peg round hole problem seems to bite everyone in the ass.

If i buy a chocolate bar...because i absolutely LOVE chocolate... and i open it... and its a damn peanut bar.... am i an intolerant prick for going back to the register? Am i going to have Mr Peanut tell me that i can't morally eat peanut butter any more? There is a point at which tolerance is self defeating. No one should grin and bear it. We are becoming intolerant of the WAY people choose to be tolerant. It confuses me.

And Dan, my own experience (ya know...with my own dick and libido) disagrees with point #2 of the CAYA response. I am only fixated on my own dick when it is my turn to be pleasured...and even then i am still paying attention to HER enjoyment...because that turns me on. The letter indicates that she is fixated on her clit at the expense of all else. I don't know many men whose dick fixation would fit THAT degree of sexual narcissism.

A blanket response to the many posts who think the right thing to do is to go on a date with a trans person (or anyone else outside of their desire) just to be nice... That is so patronizing it pains me to hear it. If i went on a date with someone who was only there because they pitied me on some level and wanted to show themselves or the world how understanding they were.... i'd want to throw my drink in their face and tell them how much their compassion missed the mark. That isn't tolerance... that is charity and its ugly. "i'm not attracted to you, but you're a person...just like i thought they bigger thing to do was to totally waste your time and give you the impression this might go somewhere."
@138: I don't think most of us are saying we could never be attracted to a trans person. As a matter of fact, I'm certain that I could be attracted to a trans man. But I also only want to have sex with someone with original, organic, biological male genitalia. There's a big difference between those two statements.
Ms Cute - Isn't Listen and Believe part of alliance, though? If so, how many trans people would have to tell you they don't take such people to be Allies to change your mind? I'm sure I needn't remind anyone of a particular case of someone's claiming, if not absolute Ally status, something very near despite posting opinions entirely without either Listen or Believe, thereby completely negating the voices of the group in question (I should have bestowed a Bell Award at the time). I can see your point if your Ally standard is fairly loose and there's general acceptance of an Ally/A**H*** coin-type dichotomy, but how do you stop that snowball before it avalanches into Dr Schwyzer heading a S***Walk? (LMB Bags provided for anyone in the assembled company who feels the need of one.)
Yes, boyfriend should eat broccoli. Maybe he cry and eat a piece if I dump.
@142: People who publicly declare that there are circumstances where someone isn't allowed to refuse consent, or circumstances where having sex without consent is rape. Permutations include believing that certain kinds of people aren't allowed to refuse sex, or that raping them isn't rape. Today we've had the display of the kind that believes there are certain kinds of people you have to be willing to have sex with or risk penalties.

One of the most obvious traits of the most committed examples of the breed is that there is no principle, belief, or knowledge which they won't happily toss overboard as long as it lets them expound upon how their preferred type of rape isn't rape, or is otherwise permissable. For instance, Estarianne, under any other circumstance, would probably remember that no one who tells other people what the second person's sexual orientation is or isn't about has ever been correct.
There's an "is" in the first sentence of 145 that should've been "isn't." I'm going to bed.
#144, having flashback to Peter Sellers/Sidney Wang being upbraided by Truman Capote in ‘Murder By Death’ for dropping his propositions and articles.
You dump, maybe he cry, big sad, he eat green, everyone happy again. You boyfriend not eat green, you give me call. Tarzan want.
Good for you, COB.

143 Really? So when yours stop working you will no longer be sexual?

140 NCN, as I said, I get that. I wish you a penis filled future.

But then you don't really have any argument with my point, that if someone is squicky about trans people they should do some self reflection. Because if it's about them not having the right parts, and you're willing to cop to being really focused on the parts, then that's something to know because it affects other people besides trans people. And if it isn't about the parts, but is specific to trans people, why?

The LW doesn't really say whether her goal is sex or love or friendship or some other thing, by the way. She doesn't say whether she is looking for people to know or people to have sex with once and then move on from. So, we've all made our own assumptions on that.
What a Cool Cat column.

@Cat in Fez - Thanks for catching my mistake. I checked back at the letter but stopped at when we are having sex, she's so fixated on stimulating her clit, it's almost like we are in two different worlds. I still think that implies he's not into stimulating her clit. But maybe he can get her off himself. In which case, yeah, she should try something new to verify that he's skilled enough to make it good for her, that would add some healthy trust. Maybe she could go through a bdsm checklist, she's gotta think that something new might be fun. Probably won't be the same as the things he wants to try himself.

@42 Cat Bro - I would fill your mouth if we met baby no problemo. No seriously, love your thoughts, I'm sure you always get a second date... Reach around in doggy makes the penetration part awkward and I find it nicer to do myself. You can reach down between y'all, from the back, and alternate grabbing your dick and tugging around her pussy, using just the head for penetration... for super overkill give her some gay porn to watch if she'd like to open her eyes. Or her straight porn (your straight porn will give her more questions than orgasms). Reach around seems to work best when torsos are aligned.. lying face down or standing up.
Oh and I find it hilarious that Eud objects so strongly to mention of WHO he should date in the same column that he feels free talking about WHAT Caya's wife should do. Dissing a preference for missionary (I seriously doubt she's rubbing them out in missionary but who knows).
Mr Cat - I'll give you a temporary pass for the bragging, but the repeated invocation of the F word (and you are, in my view, by this point using it rather than quoting it) is getting on my nerves. Yes, I say that as one person and not as a representative chosen to elaborate on consensus. But I trust I have more standing on this issue than if, say, to take someone not here at the moment, Mr Horton were to express a contrary opinion.

To be accurate, a lone voice in the wilderness could be an outlier. A supported voice, yes, doesn't speak for the whole group, but refusal to acknowledge that a sufficiently supported voice speaks for a presumably large portion of the group feels like a patriarch trying to weasel his way into maintaining the status quo. We could get into further complications by subdividing into issues with a strongly supported contrary voice from the same group, but I hope I've made myself clear enough for the purposes of this discussion.
@141: Mr. Ven, I don't understand your post; I'm not sure what Listen and Believe is, for one thing. But here's how I define my alliance status to trans people and gay people (or anyone for that matter):
I don't knowingly use slurs or deprecate. If I find out that a term I used inadvertently caused distress, I apologize and stop using it in the future. I argue for, vote for, and financially support all measures and laws that confer equality in civil rights and human rights and dignities on everyone. I participate in protests, in discussion forums, in ways to let peoples' voices be heard. I use my position and whatever limited influence I might possess over my students, coworkers, family members, and friends to try to eradicate bigotry and ignorance. I try to surround myself with people from many different backgrounds to my own. I listen to people's stories and respect their experience (perhaps this is what you mean by Listen and Believe) and recognize that in many ways my privileged position as a straight, white, middle-class, educated, cis-gender woman doesn't allow me to really thoroughly grok what others live with. I humbly acknowledge that.

If my saying that I wouldn't want to have sex with a trans man or that I am only attracted to biologically original male genitalia undermines all that and strips me of my ally status by consensus of all trans people or even if only though the feelings of a minority of trans people, then there's nothing I can do about that, except to say that I think it's foolish to throw away a would-be ally for one difference of opinion and that this would seem to me a case of shooting oneself in the foot or cutting one's nose to spite one's face. But I suppose it's someone's right not to consider me an ally. I will continue to work for civic and social and legal equality nevertheless.
@149: In the absence of her declaring that she's not interested in anything but platonic friendship, it's a safe assumption that CIS is either looking for love or sex or a combination of both. If it's love without sex, I'm pretty sure she'd identify herself as asexual rather than as a lesbian. She wrote to Dan, a sex and love (with the emphasis on sex) advice columnist, so that's another reason to assume that she's not just interested in finding new members for her book group. Here's her letter in its entirety:

"I'm a lesbian who has been pretty successful at online dating. Lately, however, I've had a few women contact me who turn out not to be cisgender. I've tried to remain open, but I have never been attracted to a trans woman. I don't rule out the possibility that it could happen. But one great thing about online dating is that you can express preferences before going on a date, and I'd rather not unknowingly walk into these potentially awkward and painful situations. Is there something I could put on my profile expressing my preference for cisgender women that is not offensive to trans people? It's important to me that I remain an ally."

So in the absence of a statement of intent to keep things non-sexual, I'm going to go with the logical inference that CIS is looking to date, that is to hang out with people and be intimate sexually with them and perhaps be open to falling in romantic and sexually fulfilling love with them. Occam's Razor and all that.

And to most of us, though I get that not to you, an interest in having sex with someone is genital-specific.

If you declare a group undateable because of their group membership, can you argue that isn't a value judgement on your part?

If I say "I won't date black/fat/Republican men" can I then say "not that there's anything wrong with that" without being a hypocrite?

I think Dan's point wasn't that she should date people she doesn't want to date to be nice. I think it was that she should recognize that declaring a group undateable is a value judgement that she will in return be judged by.
LW1; a delicate subject.
The wife's orgasm.
Fantasies I've found a very good way to loosen the flow. Maybe your wife could be encouraged during her alone self pleasuring times, to explore different scenes in her head.

Being on top, so the clit can come into direct contact with the man's belly, and the woman can direct the fuck as she finds her grovve, my preferred position for reaching orgasm.
156 Huh. Well good luck to you on that!
@149 - Estarianne - good for me? now you have me wondering... was that blanket approval or blanket dismissal? they each seem as unlikely as the other... haha

i'd say it is very unlikely that CIS is writing into Dan Savage to ask how she avoids having coffee with transwomen if her goal is just to find "people to know". Seems we can be pretty safe in the assumption that she is looking for sex or sex and relationship... If we can't make THAT kind of assumption... then whats the point of this whole comments section...??? *crickets*
Oh, I have crushes aplenty: In addition to Mr. Ven, Ophion, lolorhone, there's LateBloomer, ChairmanOfTheBored (nicely said @139, btw), and Cat Bro. If I hadn't already ascertained that I could never be sexually attracted to them, I'd add BiDanFan, sissoucat, and Cat in fez.

Hmm: I'm noticing a distinct cat leitmotif . . .
COB, it was an approval of your willingness to embrace your genital obsession.

I am not sure why meeting someone to know and meeting someone to have sex with are exclusive? The point is that if you want to make friends you choose differently than if sex is your *only* goal.
@157 - if you left republican off that first part... i think you can say it without being a hypocrite. If you aren't sexually attracted to fat black men... then so be it. I'd even let you march alongside fat black men in the FBM march.... without having to turn in your equality card. And if an FBM turned to you in line and said "if you won't date me, leave"... i'd even take your side when you stayed.
@157: Yep: "she should recognize that declaring a group undateable is a value judgement that she will in return be judged by. "
The key word is "declaring." Because it would be offensive to say "I won't date transwomen" or "only ciswomen need contact me." Not once does Dan say or imply that she should be open to dating (you know: having sex with, getting into a romantic relationship with) a transwoman. At most, he says "you never know" and suggests that the polite thing to do--the only thing to do if you don't want to lose your ally status, though I contend it's more a case of not acquiring asshole status--is to resign yourself to having the occasional coffee with someone to whom you're not going to be sexually attractive. Which is kind of the definition of internet dating.
@164: That should have read " . . . someone to whom you're not going to be sexually attracted," not "attractive."
I'm curious whether lesbians are more likely to get approached on dating sites by lesbian identified trans women? I just kind of blew my mind trying to articulate that thought, since it now seems perfectly obvious.

So, my queston for Estarianne is this - if most lesbians aren't interested in trans women (for whatever reason), and a particular trans woman is only interested in dating women - which person, the cis lesbian or the trans man lesbian should be the one to disregard genitals when entering a dating site?
@162 - Est..... my inclination is to be annoyed at being tagged with a "genital obsession"...but i find i quite like it.... and tis true. As to the rest.. I agree...they dont have to be mutually exclusive.... but my own personal experience with online dating... there are just WAY TOO MANY single people to meet them all... so friendship was a happy accident as opposed to part of the goal for me. (meaning... if i wasnt attracted to the person in the pictures... i wasnt going to go on the date... because i joined a dating site to find a person to be in a relationship with.... but that was my own goal... and i dont know what the LW's goal is/was)
Ms Cute - You haven't come across Listen and Believe? You do it anyway. But I thought it was a term that had reached at least the general feminist consciousness.

My only point of contention was the definitiveness of your statement that "Cis only, please" in a profile, while an AH move, doesn't revoke ally status, and only on the grounds that such a statement has to at least include and preferably centre trans voices. As you do Listen and Believe, and you do centre trans voices, I don't think we have any substantive disagreement.
@166 Jibe... "I'm curious whether lesbians are more likely to get approached on dating sites by lesbian identified trans women?"

more likely than who? Than lesbian identified trans women being approached by lesbians?

I'm going to risk saying something unintentionally insulting... but.... since i have now heard of the concept of a "penis free home" and have yet to hear of the concept of a "vagina free home".... i'm going to make the leap that it seems more likely a lesbian would have a problem with a penis down there... than perhaps even a progressive hetero man. If you are horribly insulted by that concept... then clearly... you misunderstood. (how's that for a hedge? haha)
Ophian @132 nice try — but word is Alexie's going to out me, so the jig is up. I admit that my previous post was a red herring, and that I am also Sandiai as well as both venomlashes.
JibeHo @166, is the "trans man lesbian" in your last sentence supposed to be a transwoman lesbian? Seems as if those lesbians (the ciswoman and the transwoman) could meet for coffee without anyone being traumatized.

Presumably as they chat about their backgrounds, the transwoman will explain her particular circumstances in good faith.
I'm reminded of an experience from my long-ago past. I was 22, temporarily in Denmark, though an American citizen. I was carrying on a torrid and secret fling with Tony, a cute guy from Jamaica with a wonderful Jamaican/English accent courtesy of his English boarding school days, huge chocolate-colored eyes, and a wicked sense of humor. I don't remember why we were on the downlow, but maybe he had a girlfriend. Anyway, no one knew we were sleeping together.
One night, an old acquaintance of my host came to town and we all went out to dinner together. This guy was really old (probably younger than I am now!), like 45 or so. He was black (as was Tony)--a fringe figure in the civil rights movement a good 20 years before, and I am white--at that time, a fairly naive suburban girl. Most of the other people at the dinner weren't aware of the more subtle racial politics involved in American society; this man and I were the only two Americans present.

So it's dinner, and this geezer is hitting on me, none too subtly. I try to politely redirect and evade his advances, partly because I was raised to be tactful and polite, partly so as not to hurt a man's feelings, partly because he is an old friend of my host's and being rude to him feels like being rude to my host, a man I admire a lot and have a crush on, as well (and who's putting me up at his house when he doesn't have to). As the evening goes on, this guy gets more and more aggressive about his seduction attempt and I am getting more and more irritated while still trying to pretend I don't notice that he's hitting on me so I won't have to actively reject him.
Finally, he comes out with an offer that I can't pretend not to understand, and I tell him, as politely as I can, that "while I'm flattered . . . I'm really not interested . . . " It's kind of uncomfortable, as I can't tell whether my host would just prefer that I sleep with the old fart in the interest of hospitality. And all the while, Tony is observing from way down at the other end of the table, smiling evilly, enjoying the whole spectacle (we'd not sat near each other, because we're not supposed to be anything more than acquaintances who are staying at the same guy's house).

And you know what that old jerk did when I politely turned him down? He played the race card. He knew that as a white middle-class liberal America Jewish girl, I was likely to be guilted into sleeping with him. It was such a manipulative cheap shot that it made my blood boil.
So I said, "Actually, I'm fucking Tony over there, so you can see this has nothing to do with your race. It's because you're old."

Then Tony and I looked over at our host, Jacob, who we thought would be angry, but he just began to laugh. The old geezer, however, was not amused, but rather a bit humiliated. Oh, well.
So I can declare an entire group of people undateable as long as I don't tell them about it, and the fact that I've prejudged every person in that group as being someone impossible for me to feel attraction for does not devalue the group at all?

And I wouldn't be guilty of stereotyping?


I find it really fascinating that people are so willing to generalize in this situation and yet see the harm in the same behavior in other
@173: How is my wanting to have sex with, or not wanting to have sex with a member of a particular group devaluing that group? I hadn't realized that my sexual attraction had that much power and influence.
Jeeby @166 "I'm curious whether lesbians are more likely to get approached on dating sites by lesbian identified trans women?"
From my experience (as a trans woman) probably yes. I think it stems from the fact that some trans women who are into women themselves may assume that lesbians, who have already gone through at least one major exploration journey, may be more accepting and/or willing to try new things. The butch and boi looks may also be a factor, at least for me.
Say what? Hunter@4. I don't think so.
You've acknowledged that declaring the value judgement would be offensive. Why do you think that is? Because the words themselves bother people or because the idea that they've been written off due to their group membership bothers people?

Most people want to be judged individually, and most groups don't like knowing that they are considered less (attractive, smart, capable) than people not in their group.

When you make an individual "I just don't feel attracted to this person" decision, they usually assume that there was more at work than just a single trait.

That's why people are judged for doing it, whether it is trans people or overweight people or whatever.

As I said before, it is reducing people to a single trait. No matter what else you are, how many amazing and attractive attributes you have, this one thing makes you unattractive to me and I know this without even meeting you.

Estarianne, I currently rule out all women and all vanilla and/or monogamous guys. You wouldn't rule out any broad groups? People of inconvenient geography? No common language?
i rule out all people i am not attracted to..... and even many that i am attracted to.... when someone has an external trait that i am not attracted to... i consider myself lucky it can be so easily identified... as opposed to starting to date someone...and then discovering they are anti-choice (or something along those lines). i don't need to be the least picky person on the planet to feel that i am not a bigot
and why is a warm personality a more important trait than a perfect ass? (dont judge me). lol. Sooner or later... that warm personality is going to grate on me.... but that perfect ass never will...

Everyone makes judgments Estarianne. The judgment i am about to make about you is that you would not get to know a blond ken doll looking man with no facial hair and a plaid polo shirt and sweater around his shoulders long enough to know whether he was amazing or full of shit. You'd just move on. (if that happens to actually BE your type... you don't have to point that out... you can just humor me)
Starting 2 years ago, I did about 6 months worth of online dating after 17 years out of the "pool." Making a profile was a challenge - I am flexible on some accounts (e.g. men and women of most varieties could be possible matches), and not so flexible on others (e.g. someone who wants to date me seriously can't be homophobic or biphobic). So I appreciated getting more information in a profile, rather than less.

As it happened, my "prefer men but open to women" statement caused my current sweetie to pass me by initially, thinking I might not be able to be monogamous, and I only got that first tea date by being persistent. I took the one angry brush-off I got from a lesbian as just a cost of laying my cards on the table.

So having done the online dating thing as an oldster with a child in tow, I think it's OK to be as specific about your dating preferences as you like, since the goal is finding someone(s) to date and not just another friend, but to frame them in positive ways as much as possible.

Orgasm ... when I was younger, I could occasionally come from face-to-face PIV, especially if I was on top and could have some control over angle, depth and clitoral stimulation. Now that I'm older, it seems that I do need direct pressure or clitoral stimulation to come, whether provided by me or my partner. I'm an eyes closed gal - it's a matter of reducing competing sensations and a need to focus on touch.

Coming every time - it's hard to get past the feeling that I want my partner and myself to come every time, and that coming together is especially pleasurable. And for many many years I did come 98% of the time when I had sex - although it did take some work at times. But nowadays, reality dictates that I don't necessarily come every time; nor does my partner. So focusing on the journey, rather than the destination, really helps. Having an oral fixation does too ;)
Sorry Hunter@4, I may be jumped the gun. Though flogging is such a harsh word, if you chose a feather to do the flogging, it could be kind of nice..
Yes. Change up the erotic moves a bit, stimulate the bed room.
The reason the blatant advertisement of non-starters is offensive on a dating site is because it is so presumptuous.

I think it is honest to have distinct preferences. It is fair to state them clearly on a profile. But, in the case of saying "no trans".... it is far kinder to leave that to the email correspondence. Once upon a time, we kept our insults to ourselves. When i was a kid, my mom would've been horrified if i said something like "no fat chicks"... nowadays its emblazoned on t-shirts. We get more progressive and ruder simultaneously. Too bad we can't have manners AND acceptance at the same time. I object to being told i am bigoted if i don't want to date anyone who isn't cis female hetero.... but i also object to people thinking "honesty" is required at all times even at the expense of someone else's feelings (when it costs us nothing to spare someone by fibbing a little). My advice to CIS, don't put "no trans" (or any other variation) in your profile. If you are ending up on dates with too many transwomen because they are not disclosing it to you in advance, then you should communicate a bit more via email/phone first... and figure out a leading question that will get you better informed. And if you still end up on another date with a transwomen after conversing at length.... ask yourself if your time is more important to you than the horrible feeling of isolation a random transwomen gets every time she sees the phrase "no trans" in a profile....and consider your not using it as an act of kindness
" Keep your eyes on the road and your hands upon the wheels"
I'm a close the eyes comer.
Of course. The action is all inside.

Maybe this woman isn't giving herself permission to have fantasies. That's why she's having to focus so hard and forget he's there.
Fantasies can be scary and one can worry they might cause a rift with one's partner.
My way round having fantasies with people I know in them, is to have scenarios. Erotic scenes, not person specific.
LW; all you can really do is state your displeasure to your wife. Clearly and kindly.
She may not take too kindly to you giving her" how to " erotic advice.
Yet. Sometimes a kick in the butt is how a marriage moves on.
Nice one Chairman,@183.
Can one say ciswoman though, if one is looking for a ciswoman.
I'm confused. We either encourage Trans men and women to stand tall, or we hold their hands like they are little children.
I read here at different times, people whose erotic turn leads them to wanting to be with a trans person.
Surely trans women don't want their time wasted either, by some do good lesbian, as Dan suggests this LW should be.
LW1: Your partner is focused on getting their orgasmic organ stimulated and reaching their own orgasm during sex? Congratulations--you married a man!

Re LW2: I don't think she's talking about having coffee with people she's not attracted to. She's talking about seeing an an attractive lesbian who, when getting hot and heavy, suddenly has a hard dick. It's not as simple as not asking for a second date after coffee. I don't see anything wrong with saying that she's looking for a cis-gender lesbian in her online profile. She's not only clearly stating her orientation, but she's helping prevent a potentially humiliating experience for a trans lesbian.
@98: Ah yes, I'm very familiar with the term and concept of "price of admission" -- just don't think I'd seen it acronymised before.

In that case, ORGASM's price of admission -- "you will accept that this is my sexuality and that I can enjoy sex without coming every time" -- is a reasonable one, while his boyfriend's -- "you will come every time we have sex" -- is not.

@117/@120: Agreed, it's really tiresome your comparing everything to rape. "You're not allowed to say no for this reason" doesn't logically conclude with "therefore it's okay to rape you," it concludes with "therefore you're an arsehole."
Which I also disagree with, but let's at least compare apples and apples.

Estarienne: Can you seriously not imagine a situation where a person is attracted to someone, then learns more about them, and is not attracted to them anymore? For instance, learning that they are covered in tattoos not visible when they are dressed, or that they had a boob job, or that they vote Republican, or that they're asexual? How is losing one's initial attraction after learning they were originally a different biological sex any different to losing attraction for any other reason? Sure, some people will say, "I'm straight, and I don't typically like people with penises, but once I got to know her it didn't matter," but to a lot of people it does matter. Those people are not all assholes or bigots. They just like sexual activities that can only take place with people who have certain genitals. Or they don't want to face the considerable challenge of openly dating someone trans; we had a letter from one of those -- who was an asshole, but still -- recently. Seriously, if you're "evolved" and "open-minded" enough that genitals don't matter, then bully for you, but you don't get to lecture other people on whether they should matter.
@129: "Trying to punish a "no" is trying to rape. No exceptions."

Are you certifiable?

You really think that going around the schoolyard saying "That cold bitch is frigid" after a girl said no is the same thing as raping her?
@157/@173: I consider myself an advocate of fat acceptance, or Body Acceptance, as I prefer to think of it. I am not attracted to fat people. But I fully support their self-acceptance as people who are unique, beautiful individuals and attractive to some people. No one is attractive to everyone. If someone makes a fat joke, I call them out on it. I'm not required to sleep with fat people to prove that I respect them.

I'm skinny and flat-chested. Not everyone finds that attractive. That's fine. Liking boobs doesn't make someone a bigot. If they don't fancy me, I don't want them to force themselves out of some sense of obligation. I imagine fat people, trans people, anyone with a bit of self-esteem feels the same way.

@161: The girl-crush is entirely mutual! I often find myself reading your posts and thinking "I'm glad she posted that, as she said exactly what I would have said only a lot more eloquently."
Eud has doubled down on using the term [rape] since you posted.

Oh, he knows exactly what he's doing. He's using the same language (Take Back the Night, etc.) that women use when talking about rape and rape culture. It's the same kind of literature and speech that women activists use regarding men's attitudes toward woman ("no means no"; phrases like "oh come on baby, lighten up") and what constitutes rape culture.

It's bloody brilliant, actually.
Regarding my previous post (#191), Eudaemonic, I don't know your gender and I hope my careless use of the gender neutral "he" doesn't offend you. Also, if my assumption regarding the purpose of your posts is wrong, my apologies.


why not label the package accordingly?

I see what you did there.
@191: Could you clarify what you mean by "brilliant"? Because he (yes, he's a he) is losing all credibility with people who had previously agreed with him -- and alienating every woman who's reading -- by playing the rape card in situations where it's so blatantly incongruous.
@Chairman: A woman who's out for a willing dick attached to a decent dude probably wouldn't mind if you were openly out for a willing pussy attached to a decent lady. But if a woman worries about being seen that way, it's probably not because she's insecure, but because that's not what she's looking for in a relationship. You're not a bigot for having a genitalia preference (most people do) or for putting the physical stuff first, but do keep in mind that a lot of women have had awful experiences with being treated like their worth as human beings (not just as sex partners, but as human beings) came from whether they were hot or not and whether they put out, so... just saying, a lot of women are going to be super turned off by dudes who put a great ass above a great personality. You absolutely have the right to your priorities, but please respect that.

Excellent point about the presumptuousness thing, though. :)
#193. Well ... I wish I was a good enough writer to explain clearly. I don't think that Estarianne is promoting rape culture, and I want to be clear on that. That being said, I also think that women and feminists use the word "rape" far to quickly and carelessly sometimes. (Not always, but sometimes.)

What I think that Eudaemonic is doing--at least how I'm reading it--is pointing out that if Estarianne was a man making the same argument about a non-trans woman (go against your own judgement; give it a try; you might like it; if you don't, you're a bigot), a lot of people would cry, "rape culture." But because the letter writer is a woman (and because Estarianne is a woman) nobody (except Eudaemonic, apparently) thinks her words are threatening.

He's turning the current climate regarding gender in on itself. By example, he's highlighting a double-standard. I think. I may be full of shit. I may be reading more into this than is actually there.
NoCute crush – Three sweetest words out there!

#150 – Yeah, leaving the doggie reach-around to the girl seems to work best. That, especially if done with a bullet vibe, and a butt-plug, can result in in some truly heroic, full-body vibration orgasms, very nice to be there for those.

#153- Re the F word, I was quoting the name of the joke video, and used it once in reference to Dan, as it seemed to flow better for the sentence, echoing as it did how Dan himself responded to the video. I've used it nowhere else, ever, on SL, so calm your nerves. If what you meant to clearly communicate was that non-homosexuals should not use the F-word, no problem.
Your next paragraph jumps from a lone voice in the wilderness to a 'sufficiently supported voice,' how did we get there, and with a Patriarch? That's kind of the point, right? That if someone claims to speak for A Group, we in the non-group have the right to think about whether that's actually the case as in #172 when a creepy old dude presumed to speak for Black Males and point the You’re a Racist Stick. I cited the case that I'm out of step with many cis white males in my state, many of whom are decrying the loss of power of white males in general, so I'm part of the Patriarchy?
The citing of Patriarchy, which you may have heard non-heterosexual males also have been accused of benefitting from, just seems lazy, like the old BBC TV series Goodness Gracious Me where the family's patriarch (ha!) attributes everything good in the world to Indian culture. Or maybe just coming up when Monty Python and the Holy Grail was big, and the 'someone disagrees with me, must be the Patriarchy/Ooo, lookit him oppressin' me there! speeches become one and the same.
This whole discussion has mostly moved off of closed eyes and clits, and has become an extended riff on if and how expressing preferences on dating sites and in general constitutes prejudice or oppression, with Ms E, like an 80's-era Afghan guerrilla, defending one trench, then when overrun slipping through a tunnel to the next one and continuing to fight on; ”Who said anything about dating? This is coffee!” “Ok, it's a dating site, but who said anything about sex?” and so on. Nothing to gain there by taking that hill, so presumably both sides will declare victory and go home 'till the next one.

@195: "What I think that Eudaemonic is doing--at least how I'm reading it--is pointing out that if Estarianne was a man making the same argument about a non-trans woman (go against your own judgement; give it a try; you might like it; if you don't, you're a bigot), a lot of people would cry, "rape culture." But because the letter writer is a woman (and because Estarianne is a woman) nobody (except Eudaemonic, apparently) thinks her words are threatening.

He's turning the current climate regarding gender in on itself. By example, he's highlighting a double-standard. I think. I may be full of shit. I may be reading more into this than is actually there."

I agree that's what he's attempting to do. But it's kind of like a Godwin's Law. Someone doesn't agree with something, they call Nazi. Eudaemonic doesn't agree with something, he cries rape culture. In both cases using such an exaggerated comparison only shows that the person complaining is irrational. If someone were to say that a woman should give short guys a chance, to use Cat Brother's example, I don't think anyone would cry "rape culture!" -- or that if they did, they'd be rightly ridiculed. So I don't agree that Eudaemonic's strategy is "brilliant" in the least, at least not in the cases where he has employed it here on SL. His co-opting of rape comparisons, among other examples of "turning the current climate regarding gender in on itself" in outrageously unfair ways, led me to refer to him as an MRA a few weeks back, which he inexplicably found offensive. A "brilliant" debating strategy would show your opponent, not yourself, as the irrational one.
Actually, #198, I'm now thinking that all women who won't date short guys are Tools of the Patriarchy. And they meet in the secret Rosicrucian chamber under the Washington Monument, alternating Tuesdays.
Anyone else remember Dr Noah's bomb from the original Casino Royale? 'Makes all women beautiful, and kills all men over 4'6." I'm tellin' ya, if we can send a man to the moon....
Ms Fan - Agreed, but I meant that to be the conversation starter, not the finish. Or maybe it would be better as a spectrum - how big an ask something is. (Consider the POA of a hardcore sadist, for instance.) And how do we establish procedure for dealing with conflicting POAs?

Carrying over from a couple of daily threads ago and your electoral displeasure, you haven't indicated a stance on the recent decision against independence or the SNP, but I just saw that a full 1/8 of their delegation (7 of 56) listed as out, which is certainly the first instance I can recall of such high proportional LGBT presence in a significant party at such a level.
A "brilliant" debating strategy would show your opponent, not yourself, as the irrational one.

But, see, I think that's what he's doing. In a very harsh, crude way certainly. But I think he's accomplishing what he's setting out to do.

Also, I do think that a small, very loud group of women on tumblr and twitter would absolutely cry "rape culture" if a man wrote a blog or many, many comments (as Estarianne has done here) repeatedly encouraging women to go on dates with men they're not attracted to, and then call them bigots if they don't. They absolutely would, and hardly anyone all would dare call them irrational, for risk of being accused of sexism.
It seems I posted my thought rather inarticulately right before calling it a night so I’m going to try it again. EricaP @171 - You are correct that I mistyped @166, what I meant was a pre-op trans woman lesbian.

If a lesbian cis woman goes on a dating site to find a mate, generally she's looking for another lesbian cis woman. After all, one of the things that most persons attracted to women have in common is a deep abiding love for the wondrous female sex organs. Wet swollen labia and a rock hard clit just do it for me.

If a lesbian trans woman, (pre-op, post-op - doesn't matter) is also on that dating site looking for love (and presumably sex), it follows that she will be looking for vagina-having persons for love and presumably sex. She will have a preference for vaginas (by default) if she is looking for a lesbian relationship.

To complicate matters, what about a heterosexual trans man? Will he be looking for only hetero women? Or will any vagina-having person (including lesbians) suffice?

I think CMD @175 hit the nail on the head: “From my experience (as a trans woman) probably yes. I think it stems from the fact that some trans women who are into women themselves may assume that lesbians, who have already gone through at least one major exploration journey, may be more accepting and/or willing to try new things.”

To many trans people, as CMD points out, lesbians are potential mates because they are already members of the queer tribe, and as such are perceived (rightly or wrongly) as being more open minded. I think this is the point that most people are missing with the LW’s predicament. As a lesbian, she is probably getting a much higher response rate from the trans community than a heterosexual cis woman would get. I’m not saying the LW should put “cis-only” in her profile, but maybe, just maybe, she doesn’t want to go have coffee with people she wouldn’t be interested in dating. Just like everyone else, she's allowed to have preferences and deal-breakers.

So again, my question for Estarianne is this: In your gender-blind Utopia, why is it okay for any trans person to state a preference for a particular gender (and presumably whatever genitalia that implies), but it's not okay for the cis lesbian?

My mind is boggled, so I’m probably overlooking something obvious. I’m interested in hearing other people’s perspectives.
@200: "But, see, I think that's what he's doing. In a very harsh, crude way certainly. But I think he's accomplishing what he's setting out to do."

I think that what he's accomplishing, by making such ludicrous arguments, is provoking strong reactions amongst those who support the opposite view. Also known as "trolling", but trolling implies that the troll is doing it for fun whereas I think Eudaemonic is completely serious. Once provoked to an emotional reaction, his opponents are more likely to post in haste and either misspeak or resort to ad hominems, at which point he can go "See? YOU'RE the asshole! I was just stating an opinion and you attacked me!" -- thereby claiming victory in the debate.

Also, I do think that a small, very loud group of women on tumblr and twitter would absolutely cry "rape culture" if a man wrote a blog or many, many comments (as Estarianne has done here) repeatedly encouraging women to go on dates with men they're not attracted to, and then call them bigots if they don't. They absolutely would, and hardly anyone all would dare call them irrational, for risk of being accused of sexism.

Ugh, you've just made me grateful once again that I'm not on Tumblr or Twitter. But my point stands that this is equally ridiculous, not to mention harmful, because it directly fuels anti-feminist attitudes like Eudaemonic's. Human beings, why can't we just try seeing ourselves and each other as human beings for a change?
@197: I don't think you're completely correct, but close enough. You're right that I don't do double standards, and I don't tolerate them when I don't have to. It's not that I don't believe the principles people like BDF and Estarianne pretend to believe in, it's I mostly do--I've conceded that point--but that I've noticed they don't actually believe what they say they everyone should believe. I don't completely agree with the current definition of rape, but I don't have to; it is what it is. I don't make the rules, and I'm mostly not the one to enforce them, but that doesn't mean I have to be comfortable with the fact that the people who do are illegitimately exempting themselves.
Since it's being applied to one group, I'm applying it to all, because that's how morality works; there are no moral rules black people have to follow but white people don't, and vice versa. The same for men and women. If this makes someone rethink the rules they enforce, then that's a good thing, but they're still bigots. They could take this opportunity to choose to become former bigots, but they almost never do.

It's interesting that behaving much like BDF only without applying double standards makes her whine about "unfairness." It's almost as though her kind of asshole--who make and enforce the rules--assume they'll never be held to their own standards, and base their whole identities on the idea that rules only apply to people who picked the wrong parents, or the wrong gender, or the wrong place to be born into.

Given how her kind treats anyone who questions the rules they make, I don't see a reason to treat her differently when she whines about being judged in accordance with the rules she pretends to believe people should follow.

I mean, look at this whole thread: Estarianne is basing all of her reasoning on the assumption that there's a hierarchy, with her favorite kinds of people on the top, and her less-favorite kinds of people on the bottom, and that consent only matters when interacting with people higher up in her imaginary hierarchy--and that if it's a higher-up interacting with a lower-down, then no such rules apply, so the higher-up is the only one whose preferences matter. BiDanFan is furious that someone acts as if the hierarchy doesn't exist, as if all humans are entitled to the same rights as the people at the top.

Of course, this won't impede her in the slightest next time it's her in-group's rights being ignored; then she'll suddenly pretend to recall that rights are rights, instead of pretending to forget that. The garden-variety Unprincipled Tribalist is predictable, after all, and selective memory (along with a bizarre immunity to cognitive dissonance, and shame) is one of their signature traits.

I'm a he, though; that seems to be the only thing she's said that was true. Unlike the nonsense about losing credibility with people who previously agreed with me--she never did, though she may have mistakenly thought so when it was her tribe's rights I was speaking up for--or alienating every woman who's reading this; BDF seems to have a shockingly low opinion of women. I'm pretty sure not every woman is alienated by the suggestion that everyone gets to say no to sex they don't want, and no one should be punished for it.

@188: "Agreed, it's really tiresome your comparing everything to rape."

I assumed it was obvious, but the worry that someone like you will find my actions tiresome isn't exactly something I give a damn about. Less than a damn, really. I really don't care if sexist bigots get tired of hearing about sexism. I don't care if racists get tired of hearing about racism, either, for the same reasons. If serial murderers are unhappy at how much time they spend hearing that you shouldn't kill people, I can't see how that's a bad thing. Why should I want those people to be happy?

"You're not allowed to say no for this reason" doesn't logically conclude with "therefore it's okay to rape you,"

You're wrong, obviously, which you'd have no trouble at all recognizing if it came from a man and was about a woman; either that, or your concept of rape and rape culture are both lies. However, as long as it's punching down on the hierarchy you believe in, you're fine with it. Another excellent example of why tribalism really isn't a good substitute for morality.

"You really think that going around the schoolyard saying "That cold bitch is frigid" after a girl said no is the same thing as raping her?"

Either you've never met anyone who would call that an example of rape culture, and a rape attempt (no matter how diffuse or ineffective), or you're being dishonest. Obviously, it's the latter. Again.

And just FYI: When you're invading Poland with a swastika on your uniform, crying "Godwin's law!" at anyone who spots you isn't as good a defense as you're assuming.
Mr Cat - We largely agree, though by different paths. The bit about the F word was a semi-rhetorical example; I did think you somewhere crossed the line from quoting (perfectly legitimate in my view) the F word to using it, but it served more as an illustration.

I was really thinking of my personal example, about the video by the well-meaning dolt who insists on calling gay people homosexual regardless of their preference or history. If I had the archives, I could bring up minutes of meetings where we occasionally discussed not wanting to be called the H word and how to bring about change - in other words, I could present him with a supported voice to show that I wasn't just presenting my own personal distaste as a Group Preference.

Where things get interesting for me is the difference between situations when there are conflicting supported voices and when the only supported voices of notable strength are saying basically the same thing.

(My third-snarkiest apologies, by the way, for diverting the conversation away from discussions of your preferred sexual practices. I'm sure somebody will give you a cookie soon as a reward for being able to survive such arduous conditions.)

I don't know about your area, but around here, it is very common for people who like the status quo to try to (I want to use a word that rhymes with "jiggle" here, but am not sure whether it's on the Naughty List or not) reasonable requests for change to death by returning the reply, "Sorry, but you're only one person." (Patriarch was just the most convenient shorthand that came to mind for someone deriving enormous benefit from not changing the status quo. I admit to the use of occasional time savers; not everyone has the time to bring to every party a cake baked from scratch.) One can't accommodate everybody, and one of my major reservations about the post-gay world towards which we appear to be unavoidably heading is that it will let Status Quo Preservers do so more easily once gays have been assimilated into total insignificance, when One Can't Accommodate Everybody will become One Needn't Accommodate Any(One Single)body, because there will no longer be the structure to support any single gay voice, allowing the straight voices to drown it out and let the SQPs sail along on their triumphal progress.

Now we're actually going to agree again, because I quite accept that it's an important step to evaluate whether someone making a Groupish Statement is speaking as a lone voice impersonating a Committee or whether the expression is genuinely indicative of the thinking of a considerable portion of the group. I'm hopeful that I didn't imply otherwise, but appreciate the chance to clarify that we agree here.

You have my sincere sympathy for being considered part of a demographic in your current location with which you are righteously at odds, but I suspect it would take us too long to hammer out the relative importance of Group Identity to each of us, and this post is quite long enough.

By the way, I'm surprised you've engaged so civilly. I thought I was on your list of those best summed up by a comparison to Robert Ferrars when he elaborated on a number of his views to Elinor Dashwood and she agreed to it all because she did not think he deserved the compliment of rational opposition.
"But my point stands that this is equally ridiculous, not to mention harmful, because it directly fuels anti-feminist attitudes like Eudaemonic's."

It's hilarious that you think taking you at your word makes someone an antifeminist. Sort of like if someone who spent their who spent their whole lives chastising pagans claimed that believing you should love your neighbor and give to the poor makes you anti-Christian.

It's almost as though that would completely give away the fact that the "Christians" didn't actually believe any of what they said was the core of their faith, wouldn't it?

"Human beings, why can't we just try seeing ourselves and each other as human beings for a change?"

Good question! Why don't you. Why not actually start believing this, instead of just paying lip service while trying to silence the people who actually do believe it? It would be easier than you think to stop being completely unprincipled; all you'd need to do would be to start comparing your decisions to the principles you think you believe, and stop making choices that conflict with them.

Start seeing your beliefs as rules, rather than as merely a bludgeon to get Your Kind Of People a place of power over Other Kinds Of People. I understand how hard it would be for you--it would mean giving up some privileges, and, worse, giving up the struggle for a higher seat in the pyramid, which is almost all your type ever really cares about--but it's worth doing. Realize that the tragedy of the commons is a tragedy, and that acting like crabs in a bucket is a disaster, rather than an instruction manual for the only way to live a human life.
@200: "Also, I do think that a small, very loud group of women on tumblr and twitter would absolutely cry "rape culture" if a man wrote a blog or many, many comments (as Estarianne has done here) repeatedly encouraging women to go on dates with men they're not attracted to, and then call them bigots if they don't. They absolutely would, and hardly anyone all would dare call them irrational, for risk of being accused of sexism."

I disagree only that this group is small or restricted to tumblr or twitter; I don't have any contact with either of those things, but this group has been omnipresent, in my experience, and anything but small, and for a long time before either of those existed. If they've colonized those platforms, it's only because they colonize everything. I mean, they're here too, and BiDanFan is very much one of them. Estarianne almost certainly is, and Philophile is too, to the extent of falsely claiming that someone did that when they didn't.
Ms Star - I'm going to guess that the size and/or specificity of the group in question may matter.

Gay MM sites/adverts have a clearly implied "no women" attached. While I have at first or second hand run into the occasional feminist/bisupremacist/SJW who has earned a Ricci Award by playing the Discrimination Card (done so successfully in The Opposite of Sex), my very existence is not (yet?) deeply offensive to the vast majority of women.

(By the way, it's too bad I didn't get to this one first. Nothing against what Mr Chairman or Ms Erica had to say, but as someone who had to fight for and win after hard battle the right to be NOT attracted to an entire gender/sex, I'd have enjoyed the opportunity.)

Expressing a preference for non-trans respondents in a profile is extremely specific and singles out a tiny group for exclusion. I'd suggest that feels much more personal than the implication of "No Women" in a gay profile.

To pick a larger example, "No Christians" would probably offend for a variety of reasons, more than "No Women" but less than "Cis Only".
#204, now Ven, that was mostly polite, but do you really want to start going around, say, my sometimes-tangential, which they weren't here, sexual notes, and your Victorian literature digressions, and see whose cookie pile quickly grows larger? Let's do be civil, as this board gives rise to enough heat and light on its own.
Regarding your other point, Lone Voice vs Several Voices from Different Quarters that Agree, this particular thread, especially with contributions of people like JibeHo and CMDWannabe, is showing that Ms E is not the voice of a rising groundswell, but advocating (then denying she's advocating) a point that liberal straight men, gay women, and transpeople are not signing on to, at least here on SL.
Whether one is walking alone or leading a parade depends on the angle at which they are viewed, as does the status quo. Estarianne is entitled to hold and express her opinions on online dating, but she doesn't seem to be the voice of a New Generation.
Are you expressing agreement with Estarianne's points in this thread, or speaking of your expectations for what comes after, say, the legalization of gay marriage?
I also agree with Eud (vs Estar), that devaluing someone's sexual preferences, whether they like cock or pussy or men or women or fat or skinny etc, is sex shaming. However it's also sex shaming to tell Caya that he should divorce a wife who only likes missionary. While sex shaming is not rape, it is rape culture. But I think it looks foolish to compare rape and sex shaming.

I also liked Woofb's reminder that it's only the clit head that we've been talking about, not the whole clit. Sometimes changing the thickness of what is sailing up the vaginal canal helps engage the clit from inside. Ie toys (and change up the angle and depth). I am Woofb. j/k