Merry Christmas, Dan! Thanks got all you do... Oh, and FIRST!

Thanks FOR all you do... (crap)

Wait, FOMOOF. How is "forsaking all other feet" any different to "forsaking all other pussy"? Your girlfriend is happy to let you suck her toes, but you also fantasise about other women's feet. Substitute "pussy" for "feet" and you are in the same boat as every straight/bi man ever. Monogamy is monogamy. What you want is nonmonogamy, or possibly non-pedogamy, let's coin a word for it. So you need to have the same "shall we open our relationship" discussion that anyone who wants nonmonogamy needs to have. And are you willing to let her have the kind of sex that she likes with other men (and/or women, if she is so inclined)? Weigh this against a life of sucking toes you sometimes fantasise are attached to somebody else, and/or masturbating, which is what the majority of the monogamous do.

GUILT: The question is not whether your preferences are valid. All preferences are valid; we don't choose them; we can't help what we like. The question is whether you're treating the trans women you are attracted to like people or like objects. This would be the same question if you were "fetishising" cis women. Do you like THEM, or do you just like their genitals? Women, cis and trans, can tell the difference.

Hunter: You may want to read the long, long comment thread on AIC and her Freudian slip here: http://www.thestranger.com/slog/2016/12/…

@ 3 - Pedogamy ? Sounds like getting married to children. And that's NOT an OK fetish to have.

Podogamy, perhaps?

GUILT (attracted to trans women)-
As I read it Dan is trying to tell you that it’s ok to have relationship/s with pre/never/non-op trans women, and that your friends and family and coworkers and checkers in the grocery store will never ever label you as gay/pervert/fetishist/abuser or whatever.
I think he’s also trying to tell you to stop worrying about all this.

BDF @ 3 pointed to another issue you should be upfront about. Is your attraction sexual only or are you also looking for a relationship?
Nothing wrong with either, yet you should let potential mates know what is it that you’re looking for.

GUILT writes:
I've been told that if I'm attracted to women, it shouldn't matter what genitals they have. I've also been told that if I like penis, it shouldn't matter if the owner presents as male or female.

Told by whom? By people who don't want it to matter when they see that it does.

@3

I think it's a little unfair to say that feet are the same thing as vaginas. Even if there are all the same mental and emotional hurdles, there are not the same physical ones.

Licking toes is a relatively low risk sexual behavior (can athletes foot affect the mouth?) whereas fucking pussy is a high risk sexual behavior (Pregnancy, stds).

We could further discuss the differences and the similarities, but I think Licking toes is more similar to online flirting than it is to fucking.

@3 My girlfriend is happy to talk to me about my life and spend time with me but I don't forsake all other friendships to be with her. He thinks of strange feet differently than he does strange pussy - something he needs to talk about with her certainly but I don't think he's "in the same boat as every other straight / bi man." And who says we are all in the same boat to begin with?

vab251 @ 10 certainly has a point, genitalia is a major factor in any relationship. I think LW added those lines in order to convince himself he's an ok person and that he considers himself to be straight.
Regardless of accuracy, with further acceptance of self and others there may not be a need to state any of it in the future.

@10 and @13, After being accused several times of being transphobic, I feel like Dan is determined to toe the purist line that people who identify as male are male and people who identify as female are female and nobody else is allowed to feel that there is an important difference between cis women without penises and trans women with penises. I agree with the first part of that, but can't agree with the second. A person can consider himself a straight man who has sex with cis women and trans women or even only trans women, but a man can also decide that, for him, his heterosexuality does not include having sex with people who have or ever have had penises. That doesn't make them transphobic, that makes them free people who have made their own decisions about who they define as being the type of person they fuck. Of course, all of this is also true for straight women who may or may not include men with vaginas as falling withing the scope of the type of men they fuck.

And, yes, I do think this has bearing on whether trans people should reveal their trans status to romantic partners who may not consider trans people to fit within the scope of their sexuality. I have actually had the experience of unknowingly receiving a blowjob from someone who would now be called a trans woman, but probably would have identified as a gay cross-dresser in the early 90s. (Not having discussed sexuality with the person, I can't really know how he or she identified, but I think at the time most people with penises who had no intention of undergoing surgery and had sex with men considered themselves gay male cross-dressers.) When I sobered up the next day and figured it out, it wasn't a big deal for me, but I know people who would have been very upset if it had happened to them and I thought that was not a cool thing for that person to do because they could really have upset someone. To me, it's just an amusing anecdote because of the many signs I missed, but for someone else it could have been traumatic.

dcp
Disclosure is very important and should be laid on the table- a term I find very inspiring in this sex advice column- before any hokey pokey activity.
Trans of any shade that I know, myself included, follow that guideline. Same responsibility is expected from others to state what is it that they want or not. If you’re into pre/never-op trans please mention it, as well as the type of relationship you’re looking for.

Experiences of non-disclosure, such as yours, can end up very badly once people feel cheated and freaked out.

If I were a trans person, I'd disclose from the beginning. I'd not want to be with someone who didn't want to be with all of me.

Watching trump and his cronies is like seeing a gangster movie. And these crooks have taken over the town. Threatening people for speaking out, John Wayne better turn up soon.

I hope the constitutional lawyers are onto the blantant corruption occurring in front of our eyes, and be ready to get to the Supreme Court before trump does. Happy now Susan.

Nice to see Jane Fonda and Lily Tomlin defending Standing Rock.
And Gloria has popped her head in.

Vab251 @10: Yes. By that logic, if you like penis, you should be happy to have sex with any and all men in the world. That's not how attraction works.

Dirty @11: "I think Licking toes is more similar to online flirting than it is to fucking."

You think so because you are not a foot fetishist. To a foot fetishist, licking toes is their source of sexual gratification and is therefore more similar to fucking. From an STI perspective, perhaps it's more similar to making out. But when it's somebody's be-all and end-all, it can't be considered "foreplay." It's the main event.

Dcp123 @14: I too had the experience of going home with a non-op trans woman who hadn't disclosed. Although I am bisexual, I was disappointed at not getting pussy. So yes, if your genitals are not what your presentation would suggest, you should disclose before getting naughty.

@22: You know, it may have to due with the fact that the "attractive coworker" that AIC is so jealous of is a female. Since the majority of people are straight and AIC saw no need to specify orientations, it is pretty safe to assume that AIC, who has a boyfriend and is jealous of a woman, is also a woman.

@22: "The refusal of the commenters to deal with Aic as a man is totally symptomatic of the gay erasure and heteronormativity in these pages that Venn had been complaining about."

Hunter, you sanctimonious tongueclucker, if they were in a SS relationship, the LW would have called out that they were uncomfortable because they felt a woman was a legitimate risk to their SS partnership. She didn't call out any concerns of the boyfriend being Bisexual, nor did she need to. In this case the unstated and lack of specificity in her jealousy gives a very high probability of the outcome we understand.

Try looking into the situation and analyze it before taking a stance.

@23: Exactly. It wouldn't have changed the scenario materially anyway, but the she she she her her her description of her rival was a pretty big clue.

Presuming same-sex characters in a clear opposite-sex situation is Hunter's idea of a joke. Move along.

I find the best part of having avatars is that if you know that you will find reading a particular person's comment to be a waste of your time, you can quite easily skip that comment. That's one reason I have an avatar, to help identify me to people who don't want to read me. It would be nice if we all had them, but some people have distinctive enough writing styles to make their identities known after a few words. In any case, life's too short to bother with fools or irritations.

nocutename @27 Hey, wait a minute! You're back to being "nocutename" from "iwasnocutename". So you finallly managed to access your old account?

@26: Ah, I thought he was just being stupid versus stupid AND crass.

Go find somewhere else to jerk yourself off if you're going to be so unlikeable, Hunter.

@31: No one said anything close to that. Go take a nap or something. No one can even tell what the hell you are talking about anymore, due to these opaque attempts to be cute, or whatever you are doing.

@33: He tends to cycle between those weird roundups, hitting on the commentariat, and mocking same sex relationships (and venn) for whatever reason.

At least armchair advice from the peanut gallery is entertaining, I don't get what the rest is about.

As a trans woman, the answer to question #3 is an unequivocal "Ew, yes".

Please, Dan, if you care one whit about any transgender person on the planet, never answer a transgender question ever again. Use a guest opinion. Fetishists like this almost make dating harder than the open bigots. Transgender people are human beings, not objects to satisfy the kinks of others.

@35 I don't necessarily agree. I'm a fat woman. I would prefer to be with men who prefer fat women. I don't want to be with someone who wishes I was slimmer, who likes me despite my body. I want him to admire and enjoy and lust after me. Some fat admirers are creepy and dehumanising. But some men just prefer fat women, and don't make me feel like a fetish.

#36, I respect your preference and opinion, but I would not advocate it in a sex advice column. We need to start loving people for who they are inside, not because of any gender/genital/superficial preference. I have dated fat women, older women, younger and older men. Most of them were not my ideal body preference. That didn't matter. I dated, and often loved, them. Not their age, weight, or gender, but who they are as human beings. If I just stuck to my type, I would be a scant fraction of the person I am now.
If people want to be superficial, that's fine. But to support it in an advice column to the degree it emboldens fetishists is beyond the pale, and for the safety and security of my community I feel the need to call Dan out for that behavior.

Thanks libertine for coming on the thread. I hope Dan reads your comments.

Libertine @35 @37 I get what you are saying, but people still want what they want, and wishing that we could all get past our superficial preferences is admirable (and a bit self-serving, in your particular case) but also idealistic. All of those diverse people you dated who were not your ideal body type? They nonetheless had some great qualities that attracted you, and without those specific attractive factors, you could never have loved them, and probably wouldn't have had much fun even on a casual date. My own spouse "broke the rules" in allowing for a hard-and-fast disqualifier (in previous relationships) in order to date me, something I didn't even know until years later after we were married. When I asked why I was the exception to the rule, my partner just said "Well I guess you were special." So love can indeed be blind, but only if there are enough other attractive traits and mutual compatibilities to outweigh whatever gender/genital/superficial disqualifications previously existed for that particular lover.

I think Joe Newton must have heavily lobbied Dan to reprint LW1's SSLOTD from last week as a weekly column, so that Joe could produce his unique artistic rendering of "marshmallow fluff and unicorn farts." Well done, sir. Well done!

LW1 seems to miss the point that if the former intern is a millennial then the intern not only would instagram the get together but any making out because that's what millennials do. (Ok, that's a joke....with some partial truth.) She needs to break up with the guy and move on to a relationship that will make her feel less insecure and more sexually satisfied. And then she needs to work on her own shit. Looking through a partner's phone is never a good sign.

What sort of electricity company sends their bill to turn up the Friday before Xmas eve?
a cruel one. And I'm not going to let it spoil my low key Christmas story. I'll open it on Boxing Day.

Libertine @37: "We need to start loving people for who they are inside, not because of any gender/genital/superficial preference."

Oh, come on. Most people are not pan/sapiosexual, which is what you are talking about. We all have different preferences -- some physical, some non-physical -- and that is ok. Don't shame people for preferring one set of genitals over the other, or stocky builds to slim. Perhaps you're more open to dating people who are not your physical preference because you have far fewer choices: The people who aren't interested in trans people have ruled themselves out of your dating pool, and you've ruled out a large number of the people who are interested in dating trans people, so if you chose to stick with one gender or body type you'd have practically no one left to date.

GUILT is at least ahead of the curve of self-awareness because he recognises the potential pitfalls of his preference. "Your preference is valid, but don't be a creep" is good advice.

I would guess libertine @35 is tired of being chased by otherwise heterosexual "penis fetishists".

RE @44: No guessing required, that's what she said. Another case, though, of "I wouldn't want to be in a club that would have me as a member." A lot of cis women are tired of being chased by heterosexual pussy fetishists. It's the behaviour, not the preference itself, that's objectionable.

BDF @45 Yes, but in the case of MTF trans women there may be an extra complication: chances are that the MTF trans woman (pre-op) does not like her penis and would rather have a pussy. Now she is being fetishized because of a body part that she herself would prefer to do without. That must be more unpleasant than as a cis woman being chased by "pussy fetishists".

Good point RE. Then again, they have kept their penis and it can't always be a financial decision. There must be some trans women who enjoy having a penis.
I do think libertine's point is valid, rather than Dan answering trans questions, he get a guest person who lives the experience.

RE @46: Yes, that's a good point. In my experience, many trans women who really do not like their penises take themselves off the dating market until they can have the surgery. Those trans women who are pre- or non-op and are advertising themselves as such -- I am viewing this in the context of online dating, where someone discloses their -op status on their profile, otherwise how would anyone know -- are either ambivalent about their penises or are planning to keep them.

I guess the question GUILT needs to ask himself is, would he be okay with a trans woman who decided to have bottom surgery, or is the penis a necessity? I suppose he's far more likely to have to ask himself this question than people who are generally attracted to cis folks of just one gender. But it's a tough question. How about the straight woman whose husband comes out as transgender? It's generally viewed as acceptable for her to leave a spouse who no longer has a penis.

So complicated, this is making me appreciate being bi and not being fussed about genitals! :)

@28: Reg Eur: I wrote to the webmaster as soon as the change happened, heard nothing, and resigned myself to the somewhat forlorn-sounding name. Then about 8 months later, I got an email from the webmaster and they changed my name back.
By that time, I doubted if it mattered, but it was nice of them to bother.

Love Dan's advice this week, especially to Fomoof. "Unless you are shoving your feet into his mouth to shut him up".... hysterical!
Seriously though I definitely am making fomoof a conversation topic on "date night" this week with my Miss N.
I will stress Dan's advice that couples should discuss fetishes (his and hers) as well as possible future adventures and suchlike. I have no great hope of learning anything but this is a way to move the conversation topic to sex indirectly. heh heh.
Where would I be without S.L.?

@43: Right on, thank you.

For many (if not most) people, genitals are definitely not a "superficial preference" and anyone who claims that they should be is engaging in some self-serving projection of their own desires. Just like those poor advisors called out @10.

ER @ 60 and libertine @ 37 touch on a phenomenon I’ve heard from non-op trans women, going on a seemingly “serious” date with a man just to find out time and again the only things that matter to their dates are that they have breasts and a penis to play with.

Just to clarify, my trans expression goes a bit differently. I make sure potential partners are fully aware that I go out as a woman on occasion. Some have already seen me in both personas beforehand and may have a preference.

Merry Christmas, Happy Hannukah, Happy Holidays, Happy Kwannzaa, Happy Boxing Day (please add all those celebrations not listed here) to Dan and everybody.

Big snowflakes here----everybody stay happy, healthy warm and safe.
XO, and VW beeps
Griz and her beloved Love Bug

I was once at a party and part of a conversation where a man I had just met announced to the general assembly that he was tired of pretending he didn't just want a woman who looked like a magazine model--tall, thin, big boobs. I spent some time afterwards thinking about how I felt about that. On the one hand, I had an immediate hostile reflex, borderline offended (which I kept to myself). But then that quickly faded into something more like amusement. I realized his up-front priorities made it easy for me to avoid him (not that he would have dated me anyway, given that I don't match the qualifications!) I managed not to ask if he was well-off; he didn't seem to me good-looking enough to be making such demands unless he had money to wave around. In the end, although I think the pronouncement was a bit crass, props to him. He wants what he wants. Go for it, dude, and best of luck. I suspect over time flexibility will have to set in--but hey, who knows.

You crack me up sb53, having to find indirect ways of talking about sex with your Miss N.
Early Christmas Eve here Grizelda. And you've got snow. Perfect timing.
happy holidays to you as well. Stay warm.

The toe fetish guy. You've got to come clean with your partner about these constant fantasies.
Then the two of you find a way forward or not. She might find this situation not something she can accomodate. And you can't afford to continue to lie to yourself.

The trans situation is fraught, even as cis people stand as firm allies, understanding comes slowly. Trans people feel the sex they are just like cis people do. A trans woman feels her woman, just as I do.
There is still a conflict here and it can't be ignored. That the body is biologically male.
A trans man like Buck Angel really celebrates and accepts his whole self. Vagina included.
This LW sounds like a bit of a creep to me. When a fetish takes over like that, the other person can get lost.

#39, I would caution you against accusations my preferences are self serving. I have taken myself off the meat market, so I have no skin in the dating game.
As far as superficial qualities, I'd guess less than 25% of my dates have fallen into my type. As I alluded to earlier, it is the heart and mind that overcome physical traits for me.

#43, while I would identify personally as sapiosexual, the term has begun to be falsely labeled as ableist (some believe it refers to education level or IQ). I might also question you unfounded assertion that most people seek out superficial qualities in a partner.
To continue with Your unfounded assertions, I am relatively new to transition. The people I dated I did so prior to transition, so I had no issue with my "choices" in that regard.

#44, I am keeping my penis. I am the letter writer's fetish target. His attitude reflects a real and personal danger to me. I refuse to apologize if that offends you. My security overrides your and LW's preferences.

To everyone. The terms pre/post/non-op are now considered passé and offensive, and have been since the 00's. The separation is considered artificial and designed to appeal to people like LW as opposed to the transgender community. We no longer make the distinction, as it does not matter physically or psychologically.

The spacing and carriage returns are properly typed, but the preview excludes them. My apologies if this ends up unreadable.

Libertine @57 you're right, I made the assumption that you were sexually active (or hoping to be) and making the case for more and better partnership choices for yourself and other trans women. It was wrong of me, and I apologize.

However, the point that I was trying to make (as was BDF @43 if I'm not mistaken) is that most people have very specific physical preferences that are hard-wired, not deliberately chosen, and not easy to overcome. Only the most highly evolved among us can truly rise above and focus solely on the beautiful soul that dwells within a potential lover, without paying any attention to the package that contains it. It's certainly possible to fall in love with people who don't match your preferences - in fact very few of us manage to meet and mate with our true physical ideal. But they have to exude a whole lot boatload of sapiosexuality (looked it up on Google - I learned a new word today!) or have other attractive (and equally superficial) attributes - money, fame, and power come to mind - if they don't automatically push any of your happy buttons in the superficial attractiveness department.

Also, I don't mean to be insensitive - I'm trying to learn, so I can be more sensitive in the future - but how does a person's attraction to trans women with penises threaten your security? I don't understand why you think his attraction endangers you personally, as long as he backs off when you tell him, "Sorry, but I only hook up with guys who are able to appreciate me body AND soul. Good luck finding someone who'll be thrilled to satisfy your dick-woman fetish."

@5 Hunter: I nominate AIC's typo "...we haven't been in contact for sex months..." for the Typo of the Year Award. That's a classic.

"Unless you are shoving your feet into his mouth to shut him up..." (re FOMOOF):
@50 sb53 and @55 LavaGirl: LOL--agreed! Dan's sassy responses like these are among
what makes Savage Love an ongoing classic weekly advice column.
@55 LavaGirl: We're having a mix of rain and snow here---coming down as slush---but NO fun after freezing overnight. Our whole neighborhood becomes a skating rink, and too many idiots don't know how to drive in it. So I went shopping to stock up on groceries, and my beloved VW & I plan to hibernate, stay warm, inside and covered, and call it good. Merry Christmas and hoping your holiday isn't too sweltering hot in Australia. Hit the beach!

BDF @48

How about the straight woman whose husband comes out as transgender? It's generally viewed as acceptable for her to leave a spouse who no longer has a penis.

It's far more likely that the straight woman would be more unhappy to be married to someone who now feels and presents herself as a woman more than whether or not the spouse still has a penis, precisely because she's straight and originally married someone who had presented themselves as a biological male.

Uh ... regarding the foot fetish etymology, one doesn't change poly because that means many (as opposed to mono meaning one), one changes gamy ... perhaps to pedics (think of orthopedics). So, the new word might be "polypedics" - finding sexual arousal from many feet.

I guess we'd need to specify whether it's "polyandropedics" (male feet) or "polygynopedics" (female feet), to be precise. Now that I've invented some weird words, I think it's time for dessert with a painkillers chaser!

@57 thanks libertine for articulating your feelings, actions and position so well. I wish you happiness.

@58: Thank you for that, Capricornius.

@58, I sense little if any insensitivity on your part. You are doing just fine in my book.

An attraction that leads to the level of a fetish is dangerous, period. The person being fetishized is being objectified. Once brought down to the level of object, one can be dehumanized and casually treated in all number of horrible ways. This is how transgender people get murdered. Despite the narrative, we are more often killed by self loathing people who are attracted to us, sleep with us, and feel crushing shame afterwards. I have friends and family in the BDSM community, and there are many discussions behind closed doors about these dangers and the people who do not understand how dangerous their behavior is.

I do not wish to come across as considering myself superior, and if I do I apologize. In the interest of honest disclosure, I have recently been diagnosed as neurodivergent (ASD without intellectual impairment), so it may be safe to assume my mileage varies. I personally do not think this impacts my view, but I prefer that others decide for themselves.

@libertine @66, about this:
"An attraction that leads to the level of a fetish is dangerous, period. The person being fetishized is being objectified. Once brought down to the level of object, one can be dehumanized and casually treated in all number of horrible ways. This is how transgender people get murdered. Despite the narrative, we are more often killed by self loathing people who are attracted to us, sleep with us, and feel crushing shame afterwards."

At first I wanted to object--because it seems to mean that fetishes are bad, and I feel that can't be right. But the more I thought about your sentence, the more correct it seemed. That is how transgender people get murdered. And gay people. And women.

It's like that guy at the party ciods, he was looking for an object not a real person.

It seems to me that there is a line between being attracted to a physical attribute and only being interested in someone because they possess that attribute. There is line between being attracted and therefore more predisposed to falling in love with someone based on a physical attribute and being turned-off to the point where you don't want to become physically involved based on the lack of that attribute. There is a line between attraction and fetishization, between light objectification and heavy-duty objectification. There is a line between objectifying someone and feeling self-loathing for that objectification or attraction.

It is ridiculous and unrealistic to expect people not to have preferences or not to be attracted by specific physical attributes. It is perfectly fine to like what you like and want what you want; you just have to treat everyone respectfully, whether you want them or what they have to offer or not, and you should be able to see the person you're attracted to as an individual and a person with their own feelings, thoughts, and needs, rather than as a manifestation of whatever attributes you are attracted to. More importantly, you cannot force yourself to be attracted to someone just because that would be the nice or right thing to do. You cannot be attracted or not attracted to an attribute through sheer force of will. And you should let yourself off the hook for whatever it is--or isn't--that you're attracted to.

Then be a mensch and treat everyone--including yourself--as you would want to be treated by others.

The end.

Congrats nocute. The magic no @ Xmas.

So, to try to clarify: it's not the fetish that's dangerous, but the shame and self-loathing about having it. Yes?

@71: That's how I'd see it, ciods; with the understanding that shame and self-loathing about having a particular fetish are culturally cultivated and that probably very few heterosexual men feel shame and self-loathing for fetishizing large breasts on women.

Happy Holidays Dan and all you wild people here.

@libertine, it's horrible that men fetishize women like you, don't respond to them as human beings, but as a collection of features they are aroused by, and are simultaneously ashamed of and full of self-loathing for their own desires, such that they attack women like you, whether or not they've been in intimate relationships with the objects of their violence. That's wrong, absolutely.

I don't think the solution is to insist that anyone who is attracted to a particular physical fact of someone's life is a brutalizer just waiting to happen and that all people should be mandated to have no preferences for the gender, age, characteristics, or genital configurations of anyone they should meet as a potential dating partner. That's not feasible. Insistence on it borders on loss of free will and autonomy. I am a straight cis overweight woman who can only be fully attracted to someone if he's smart and if we click intellectually or artistically, or ideologically; but I also have to genuinely be attracted to the dude's physical self. To that end, women, be they trans or cis, aren't going to cut it, and men, for me to be sexually attracted to them, must be in possession of a working penis, Those are baseline-level requirements that need to be present.

On top of that, there are more, perhaps shallower attractions: hair--less or more or can I settle for less than the optimal level; muscle mass relative to overall body weight; height; body or facial hair: its absences, presence, or texture, amount, style, or color; facial features such as teeth, skin, eye color or shape, nose shape and size; features like chins, foreheads, deep or shallow set eyes--all sorts of things which we may not even realize are important to us until we feel a wild attraction to something we never thought would move us or we are unmoved by someone who, on paper, had everything we thought we wanted and were in fact asking for. Humans are funny and vulnerable that way. I admire people like you who seem to be capable of simply deciding that you will be attracted to this opportune person, but I'm going to assert that in my 54 years, I almost never seen that model work. Lord knows, I can't summon it at will and I've let myself down and turned away from people who would undoubtedly have been wonderful partners, if only I had been able to either overcome my aversion or scare up a passingly-decent level of attraction, It has been my sadness that I cannot. That shame or sadness has been intensified when I know that the other person would like nothing more for me to feel towards him or her what they feel for me. Most painful still, is knowing that I am not liked or that I am not exerting attraction over someone I wish to enchant, based on specific physical attributes that I either do or do not possess and about the way in which I have no meaningful control over acquiring or ridding myself of whatever I have too much of or not enough of . Yet remove the part about the cis vs. trans, and the self-directed loathing ,and it's pretty close to this vastly more commonly-occurring situation.

It seems to me to boil down to the fact that life's not always fair, not always just. It's not a meritocracy, even though the American dream pretends that be just that. It further strikes me that it's the cis gendered among us who experience this more often, though with admittedly less potentially damaging results.
The way to begin to deal with this is two-fold--1) stress that all people are worthy of attraction, that all are worthy of truly-meant appreciation and kindness even if they're not your type and that 2) that if you, the holder of the attraction, has issues of deeply-seated embarrassment, shame, humiliation for feeling attracted to the "wrong" kind of people, it is your obligation to not project your own feelings of embarrassment of shame onto the source of those feelings and punish him or her for "making" you feel the way you legitimately did. And at a deeper level, to challenge the notion that there are body types or configurations that should more obviously result in embarrassment for those who have attractions to them.

Then you go back to the Confucius analect that tells people not to treat anyone as you, yourself would not want to be treated.

nocute, I always appreciate your posts. You so often think things through clearly, and, to my mind, rightly.

I'm sure it would pay if I read thru all the comments, from the letter only however , I sense no shame coming from this writer.
He is objectifying and ordering body parts and asks Dan if he's cool with that.
"I like penis, it doesn't matter whether it's attached to a man or a woman", say what?
This guy is the trans seeking equivalent of what women have put up with forever. Except this man is mixing and matching both sexes. Something feels off about him leading with this.
Sorry. Xmas morning and all, didn't really want to join the frey. I couldn't see where shame
was evident in the letter.

Thanks, ciods. I always appreciate your comments, too.

ciods, as I think others said better than me, the issue is the objectification of individuals who physically fulfill/embody that fetish. It is more of a nonconscious labeling to negate. The self loathing and violent aspects/potentials in such a relationship are how it can turn deadly.

nocutename , that is a lot to digest and respond to. It has taken me a little while to parse and respond.

Certainly there is nothing wrong with having a "type" one is attracted to, and your paragraphs on mutual/non-mutual attraction ring very true. Yet LW certainly seems to be thinking of the objects of his affection as just that; a collection of hormones and body parts, and little more. Certainly it may just be hoe they are coming across in print, but in print they sound very dangerous from my perspective. I do not wish to belittle or malign anyone's preference, but I am going to be afraid of anyone who simply lists off a collection of body parts as their sole or primary means of attraction.

In the end, it does amount to Golden Rule ideology. If you want to be seen as more than an object (in this case, an object to fear), one must treat others as more than objects. I don't see that in LW, hence my terror and gut reaction.

My apologies for grammar errors. The autocorrect on my tablet is abysmal.

@79: libertine, I hope you're not thinking that I was critical of your having your fears of the lw or anyone who sounds like him. You articulated your position and the reason for your fears very eloquently @66 and I don't in any way mean to act as an apologist for him. I don't know him and I can't guess at whether or not he'd ever attack the object of his desire. The reality is that you are at a higher risk of attack than many of us and you've learned to recognize more threats than most of us would.

I think it's that you were speaking in more specific terms--how you felt about this man, the threat you felt from his specific letter, and @ posts #s 69 and 75 I was speaking more generally in response to your earlier proposal composed of posts @35, 37, and 57, which suggested the way to stop attacks like the one you envision from happening is to somehow insist on and force people into not having strong preferences or attractions to any particular attribute. You implied having attractions to or strong preferences for or against any physical attribute, including genitalia, was unevolved or not very enlightened and that it was a problem to be overcome. That was the tone I was responding to in my earlier messages.

As we've talked about often enough here, albeit in a context in which violence and self-loathing wasn't so much the concern as mere loss of respect, fetishization often results in objectification and objectification all the time and in all circumstances is not to be desired. But a little objectification, at convenient times, expressed not obnoxiously, (and for some people, within the context of a mutually egalitarian holistically-respectful consideration of each person to be a subject) can be a good thing for a satisfying sexual relationship.

libertine-
First, I hope you stick around as I find your perspective very valuable.
As to the issue at hand, it seems like you had some bad experiences and you are also being fetishized way more than you want to, if any at all.

I didn’t catch the imminent danger you see in GUILT, though fully aware that our experiences and background is likely to differ.
When I point/complain to my friends about stuff I care about they sometimes wonder what I’m talking about. It makes me think where the gap is and what I need to do to communicate it better.
If you care and comfortable with it I wonder if you can tell us more about yourself, and the kind of experiences/interactions that led you to this conclusion.

@81, I would be happy to answer questions, and as the person who intentionally misgendered me with intent to harass has not poked their head into this thread, I feel as safe as I possibly can in this thread.

I have friends and family who have been part of the local BDSM community for decades. It is there that I witnessed and dealt with narcissists, sadists, and objectifiers of all sorts. Knowing I was trans for over a decade prior to starting HRT, I listened to many stories from friends and community members about how these same individuals would stalk and groom transgender people. Taking myself out of the dating game proactively, at least while I still feel "half baked", was a response to real behaviors I have witnessed over time.

There may also be a temporal element. I went from a toddler to a teenager in the 1980s. I remember the AIDS scare, witnessed the worst reactions among my community at the time (Aberdeen/Raymond region). I heard people advocating putting homosexual men in concentration camps "for the health and safety of us all". Those memories, and the fear they created, caused me to delay my transition considerably (roughly 14 years from discovery to seeking transition).

I have repeatedly seen how the worst among us have mistreated others. Even when not killed, I saw trans people used as sexual trophies, used for a one night stand to satisfy curiosity before being tossed to the curb. I have seen narcissists wine, dine, and then abuse to pieces some of the best people I have known.

I freely admit I may be over sensitive in this issue. That sensitivity, however, comes from seeing the damage left behind once people have gotten their thrill and moved on. I have been the shoulder, have helped rebuild what others have destroyed.

In the end, LW's tone reminds me of countless people who would assure me and others they are not like that, only to watch another person broken when they are given the benefit of the doubt.

libertine- Thank you so much for sharing this with us, I can certainly relate to where you come from. Getting such a strong negative vibe from society in regards to who you are is a severe blow to begin with, and an ongoing abuse sure doesn’t help.
And that area where you grew up at… Some 15 years ago while on a camping trip we stopped in Raymond for a Sunday morning breakfast. The waitress, who seemed to be around 40 yo, kept whispering something while tending other tables.
When asked if there’s something wrong she giggled and told us a local a girl is visiting from college, she brought her black boyfriend with her, and they sit in the back.

@83, at the time my neighbor's opinion of "I ain't got no problem with n_____s, I just don't want to live next to one. Ain't nothing wrong with that." was considered enlightened and magnanimous. I am very aware of the faults in my upbringing. Many trans people have come from similarly dark childhoods and areas. In that respect, even as my mileage varies, my peers have their own not dissimilar mileage.

@69 nocutename: Amen, and Congrats on hitting the magic number this week!
@73 LavaGirl: Happy Holidays and big hugs, positrons, and VW beeps right back atcha!

@62 & @63 Helenka (also a Canuck): I like your Welcome to Canada avatar. Are those of us who voted for Hillary still welcome up there?

@35 & @37 libertine, @46 RE, and @47 LavaGirl: You all make some good points. As a cis female I usually read through letters to Dan from transgender individuals but usually don't comment because I don't know how to respond, largely due to having no experience of my own to share. I like your suggestion of guest responders to such letters who are transgender and who can more easily relate to transgender issues.
@48 BiDanFan: What to do though if sex re-assignment surgery is cost prohibitive? I am reminded of a long ago letter to Dan from a LW signed Dickless in Frisco. Both the LW and Dan agreed that scrotal surgery, at $70K (back then--- in 1998?), involving thigh tissue transplants and no 100% guarantee of the LW's desired results wasn't worth the time, blood, sweat, tears, trouble, and money Dickless in Frisco would have otherwise spent out-of-pocket from lack of health coverage.

libertine, LavaGirl, Registered European, BiDanFan, and others----I am truly naive on the subject of transgender issues. This is one of many reasons why I consider Dan's outstanding weekly column, Savage Love a must read----I swear I really do learn something every week, whether it's from Dan, letter writers, commenters, guest responders, et al., and appreciate the ongoing sex-related enlightenment.

@83 CMD wannabe: I'm sorry you and your friend had to go through that while on a camping trip! Negative societal vibes are no fun anywhere.

I think it's time for Dan to get a new go-to trans man besides Buck Angel ("If you're not attracted to men with penises and you're not attracted to men like Buck Angel . . ."). Not every trans man is "like" Buck Angel.

AIC - I don't know if I am the crazy, paranoid, controlling party here
irrational jealousy
my toxic feelings
I feel lied to, and I feel insecure.
...
He acted like I was being ridiculous.

This might be the main problem (although there doesn't seem to be much mutual sexual attraction either). He acted like what was ridiculous? Your feelings or your behavior? There's nothing wrong with your feelings. You are not wrong for having uncomfortable feelings, they let you know when something is wrong. Sometimes, people cannot feel right about their life no matter what they do, and go to a therapist for help.

Feelings are involuntary reflexes. But you are responsible for your behavior, and there is some bad behavior listed; snooping, lying, ridiculing, blaming... Look, maybe it was a big turn off that he was so attracted to his intern. Don't blame him for being imperfect. If he's not right for you, better to spend your time looking at the alternatives or separate or introduce some distance than trying to pound a square peg into a round hole. Do you really thing you would have looked like the bad guy if you had left him because he couldn't quit hanging out with his intern? You would have looked sympathetic before; staying with him and beating him up about it doesn't look so good. You can't change people who don't want to change. Maybe this is asshole but fuck it break the chain and go get well laid already.

FOMOOF - Golden. If you can't negotiate a good sex life with her, that's not a reason to be shitty to her. You'll survive if you break up, but you might feel like shit for the rest of your life if she catches you cheating and never speaks to you again.

GUILT - You know who likes to guilt others into following their rules? Assholes. Is there some logical reason you should get sexual with penises attached to guys? Nope. You get sexual with the stuff that gets you off good and stay away from the guilt-trippers. There's some societal obligation to treat people fairly and politely.. but would you tell someone else who they should be sleeping with like this? I'd only keep talking to guilt trippers if you're curious about assholes.

Dear auntie grizelda @86
Oh, I'd do an exchange of our Canadian Trumpsters for American immigrants fleeing a bleak future in a heartbeat. In fact (and there has been thoughtful analysis of this in the past), I believe that one of the best things that EVER happened to Canada was the influx of American draft dodgers (and their girlfriends/SOs). They were well suited to adapt to the Canadian way of life, where - among other things - we don't go around judging people's patriotism because they don't place their hands on their hearts (I swear, that just looks so robotic), or insist the entire country be bound by the narrow constricts of one religion.

@93 Hunter: If you're peeved about another weak commentary response to this week's Dan's Savage Love column in your (usually) Monday SL Week in Review, I am willing to make a college educated guess that a lot of the usual commenters are a) on holiday vacation, b) like me, still reeling from this year's disastrous election and doing what we can in preparation for Plans B, C, D, etc., etc., in facing the pending Trump Reich Apocalypse, and c) possibly drinking alcoholic beverages more heavily now than ever before.

Hunter @92: Sorry, but a term for "foot fetish" wasn't what I was thinking needed coinage. A term for "having multiple foot-fetish partners" was. One can be a monogamous podophile. FOMOOF does not want to be one of these.

@50 sb53 - I'm sorry but I bet that will be too indirect. If there's a pause afterward, could you catch her eye and smile and tell her that you'd love to hear about a new fetish of hers? Verbally poke at the idea of growth in your own sex lives?

Nocute@69 Yes, when you let your feelings blind you to the reality of the person you are with and respect goes out the window.. You wrote some beautiful pieces this week.

Hun - I think it's more like bisexuals. They're looking for something they are or they aren't and everything in between. Well.. we are omnivores.

After reading the comments, one of GUILT's sentences stands out to me.. "I've been told that if I'm attracted to women, it shouldn't matter what genitals they have." If he shares this opinion, that is skeevy. Does he go around telling other people that genitals shouldn't matter to them, too? I guess that's why Dan put in the warning about not dehumanizing his lovers or denigrating others... Along with this inability to stand up for his preferences as perfectly fine, contributing to happy relationships, and no he's not going to date men with penises just because some random guy says he should. If he happens to want to date men with penises, that doesn't mean that dating men with penises is mandatory for all "good" people. It's ok because it doesn't hurt anybody.

Nearing the end. I hope Ms Grizelda has not had to make good use of LMB yet, but that its presence in her arsenal has been of service.

The Gertrude Award is left to Ms Erica, who, at least on the incomplete information presented in this venue, has struck me as the Best Parent among the assembled company.

As Rumpolesplaining seems a bit much for any one member of the assembled company, I shall leave it jointly to all the Australians in memory of Leo McKern.

I may be able to finish in one more post.

As for this week's column, I'd wondered if the Youtube conflagration started by non-binary gay trans woman Riley J Dennis would make it over here. Ms Dennis asks the viewer if one would date someone who's: trans, black, fat or disabled, the bulk of the video being devoted to the trans question. Notable points - she calls requiring a particular set of genitals in a partner "genitalifying", mentions with pride that she would date a woman with a p**** and that she can be attracted to ANY woman with any genitalia, disapproves of how non-straight people often present a particular dislike to certain private parts, confusingly mentions together almost as if they support the same argument that gay conversion therapy doesn't work and that she herself really thought about her own disinclination to date women with the "wrong" parts and got over it, then concludes that the world would be a more welcoming place for everybody if people all got over their prejudices about genitals.

A wide assortment of responses has been posted, some rather good - one in particular examining the date/boink/marry trichotomy, and another especially catching the anti-SS aspects of the message and how it largely constituted an attack on monosexuality. Nobody, alas, did a response using Riley's own points to ask her, "Would you date someone who's male?" or delving into the tricky question of whether it's worse for a lesbian woman not to date trans women or to date trans men. But one cannot have everything.

Catching up...

CMD @52: "ER @ 60 and libertine @ 37 touch on a phenomenon I’ve heard from non-op trans women, going on a seemingly “serious” date with a man just to find out time and again the only things that matter to their dates are that they have breasts and a penis to play with."

Annoying, to be sure, but what's the difference between this and a cis woman who goes on a date with a man just to find out time and again that the only things that matter to their dates are that they have breasts and a vagina to play with?

Good point from RE that the trans women may wish they didn't have a penis to play with; Libertine argues the risk of violence -- which cis women face as well, though admittedly in lower numbers. And to which I'd respond, isn't it riskier not to disclose the ownership of a penis? I suspect that more violence against trans women occurs when the assailant didn't know she had a penis than when the assailant did know and experienced a particularly heinous kind of buyer's remorse, as Libertine describes.

Libertine @66: "An attraction that leads to the level of a fetish is dangerous, period."

So would you include FOMOOF's foot fetish in this? Are all fetishes "dangerous"? If so, to whom?

I'm trying to draw a line between "fetishisation" and "objectification," as I believe the two concepts are being muddled. To me the difference seems to be the commonality of the preference. For instance, a man who fantasises about sucking women's breasts is not considered a fetishist, but a man who fantasises about sucking women's feet is. A man who fantasises about women with vaginas is not a fetishist, but a man who fantasises about women with penises is. The only difference is how common the desire is. Yes?

So desiring women with vaginas is okay, so long as the line is not crossed into objectifying them. Yes? If not, every straight/bi man in the world -- in fact, every non-asexual person in the world, as every sexual person desires people with genitals -- is committing a grievous sin every time they look at a person they find attractive. But if so -- if straight men can desire cis women non-problematically -- then certainly people who prefer other genders can desire people of those genders non-problematically. So while I appreciate your experiences, I'm still not sold on the idea that "fetishising" a trans person is any worse than the objectification cis women go through on a daily basis. Perhaps being reduced to a set of genitals is just something trans women aren't used to, but cis women have had to sigh and accept.

@96 Philo you are correct, it was indeed too indirect. I may propose a discussion about this weeks letters again though. We are leaving to visit family in sunny Florida for a week and many times Miss N. will entertain a spot of heavy breathing in advance because she simply NEVER entertains anything like that while away from home.
Ahem "Hope doth ever spring eternal"

@99 vennominon: What is the LMB Award?

@101 sb53: Happy New Year and you and Miss N. both enjoy sunny Florida!
My beloved VW & I send butt swats to Rampy.

@Registered European (re: @102, above): Thank you for the clarification on the LMB (Let Me Barf) Award from vennominon, and Venn---thank you, too. I may very well need to barf soon in 2017. Thank God and Goddess I do NOT have a TV and have no intention whatsoever of watching the upcoming inauguration from Hell. I can imagine that bars everywhere will be making shitloads of money on 01/20/17.

SB53 - Thanks for being kind, sorry I was so nosy. I do love to hear good news from y'all. I'm sure she wouldn't have said anything immediately to my suggestion either, and you'd likely have to change the subject afterward.. but.. talking about improving your personal sex life may germinate over time, I think. As well as keeping nice touch alive. One of these times she may have something new to share.

Or... my newest lover has a thing for dirty talk. He's very encouraging and patiently answers my questions. Maybe that might work for your Miss N? I'm motivated to go along because it doesn't seem like he is trying to mold me to be like some other dirty-talking crush.. it's a new way to focus on the sex we're having (or wish we were having).. and he will take off his shirt for me while we're hanging out the way I like sometimes.. I'm not sure if the key is that he shows his appreciation well, or that I know that he does things that are a little awkward for him just for my enjoyment sometimes and I want to contribute equally. He has some great lines. "Will you repeat that please?" "Please say that right into my ear." Maybe it is how he says them.

Hun - Damn, I had it all wrong. I thought sapiosexual was like pansexual. Attracted to a beautiful mind seems common enough. But this extreme is weird to me too; a healthy body is just as important. I'm turned off more by an unhealthy body than an unhealthy mind, I think. Smell is so important to me.

many people are using supplements to increase their sex drive. a very good supplement worth trying without spending a dime is goo.gl/Wb59Wh
get your trial bottle right now