Comments

1
I dunno. I've found that the rules I've set for myself come in two categories. Rules I generally follow but that occasionally break ("Always forbidden, sometimes mandatory" in Greg Bear's formulation), which includes stuff like using E.

And then there are the hard-and-fast rules, the ones I have learned, often through bitter experience, never to break under any circumstances.

It sounds like meeting this guy may be breaking one of the latter kinds of rules here. Trust me, I know full well the temptations offered by a beautiful penis. I have, as a matter of fact, been led into some serious trouble by exactly that temptation in the past.

Here's the thing: there are a lot of gorgeous penises out there. As a straight or bi woman, your choices are nearly endless. You can afford to be selective about the character of the man that those penises are attached to.
2
Do whatever you feel comfortable with, but sending a dick pic after you've been turned down is some red flag behavior.
3
FAAAA-AAAAA-AAAAAKE as fuck.
4
I second DougSF @ 2.
5
This is a funny woman with a happy sex life who wanted to write to Dan about something. She's already reconsidering her 'hard no' rule about the hard ... erm, hards.

Dick pics mean something different in the gay world. They're the small change of flirtation. But I come from a different generation and am more squeamish than your average queer, so my native reaction is comparable, maybe, to that of a woman who takes the brainlessness / entitlement / implicit urge to dominate or aggress of the classic dickpic badly. In this case--immediately after a 'no, thanks'--the pic seemed to me more of a 'fuck you' than a 'see what you're missing'.

So ... however experienced in casual encounters the LW is, I think Dan's advice is due, and that she should find out whether he's a decent bloke before proceeding to the sliding-on-and-off.
6
It may not even be his dick. Just sayin'.
7
@3: What do you find implausible?
8
It's interesting to hear the straight take on this. Mostly because I don't really believe there is such a thing as an unsolicited gay dick pic. It's how we say hello, unless we're a bottom and then we send an ass pic.

I do feel that once you're talking about hooking up and bdsm or D/s, a dick pic might slide smoothly into the conversation without being explicitly solicited. Again, I have narrow gay perspective on this.
9
BDSM is also unfortunately a cover often used by assholes. Kind of like being a priest is to pedophiles. Between being only interested in BDSM, insulting LW for being vanilla, then instantly agreeing to her when his demand didn't work, then instantly going dick pic when she doesn't....

This guy has abusive asshole written all over him.
10
I am with Dan on this one: break your rule but MEET AHEAD and get some references. This guy sounds a bit strange to me: he wants BDSM but he is willing to make an exception? and the unsolicited Dick Pic makes him sound like a jerk who will agree to anything to get you in bed, then wants what HE wants and could even get violent about it. There is just too much weird about this guy for my taste.
11
“he replied I was just like every other vanilla girl out there. I was like, ok, no biggie, bye. He did a 180 and said we didn't have to do bdsm and could still just hook up. I declined politely. He then proceeded to send an unsolicited dick pic”

The PUA “negging”/berating tactic wasn’t a red flag enough? I imagine he doesn’t really participate in any “scene”.
12
There are gazillions of dick pics on the Internet. What makes you think this one actually belongs to him? That being said, you’ve used a set of criteria to fuck random guys on Tinder plenty of times. They’re your criteria. Alter them, or grant an exception if you feel like it. Criteria are great if you’re looking for a LTR, not so mandatory for a random roll in the hay.
13
Liberals in our times:

"Dick pics are a hard no. Unless I like the pic, then it's a yes. Why don't guys understand these clear rules??"
14
I say avoid! He's already acted in bad faith by negging you then unsolicited-dick-picking you. That's a clear signal he has issues obtaining consent--perhaps a relatively minor violation, but telling. Also embedded in his "just like every other vanilla girl out there" line is a point of view that you and other vanilla girls are conquests who can be "flipped," and he will likely push your boundaries to get you to do something you're not into. He's testing you.

Now, maybe there is some part of you that is into that aggressive energy, and you want to explore it--that's cool! Proceed with lots of caution and trust your gut. Dan's advice is definitely sound on a neutral location and references. But, if this isn't your thing--if you're really not into BDSM and have no curiosity about going there, then I'd stay away.
15
Dan, you've never dated men as a woman so might not be cognisant of all the red flags in this letter. I found four.

First, he denigrated her for being "like every vanilla girl" 1) as if there's something wrong with being vanilla; 2) he thought he needed to let her know of his contempt for vanilla. Then he pushed past her clear "no" and sent a dick pic. That shows 3) lack of respect for boundaries; 4) arrogance that his dick is oh so special and would be enough to convince her to ignore the boundary violations.

This guy's interactions remind me of that old saying, "He's not a Dom; he's just an asshole".

Sure, she can meet him for coffee and interrogate him, but dudes tend to LIE and this dude is an asshole. Is she confident she can tell sincerity from fake sincerity? Is she confident that once alone, he won't revert to Dom (asshole) and push past her boundaries and instigate BDSM? I don't think so.

I've slutted around a lot, and became quite the expert at reading guys, and I also finally came to the conclusion that getting the chance at a yummy-looking guy isn't worth the trouble and annoyance and possible danger when there are so many other equally yummy guys who aren't assholes.

My advice? Block.
16
@13: Go back to the Breitbart comment section, they surely miss your keen insights on women.
17
@15 is right on.
18
@8: But there are, and they're a pain to get out of your email caches.
19
The hard no should be in response to ‘you’re just like every other vanilla girl’ attempt at shaming and insult. Quite clear. Don’t know why that’s not obvious to Dan.
20
@19: Yeah, she’s gotta be really really thirsty to sidestep so many flags. And the personality indicates he won’t use whatever cock in such a way that she will enjoy.
21
@15 FTW
22
Also, and not to validate @13 necessarily, but it IS kind of irritating to hear over and over from every woman under the sun that unsolicited dick pics (UDPs) are terrible, tasteless dealbreakers...but then they see one they like and suddenly it’s not so bad. How many men will remember this letter the next time they are considering UDPing someone, and think “well perhaps she’ll just think my dick is special!”
23
Yes @15. Block. Only asshole Doms ignore boundaries. From a gay BDSM guy.
24
Trust your instincts; don’t think with “your” dick.
25
@20 she doesn't need to be thirsty, she needs to be average. I know you'll never accept that anyone with different ideas than you is even a human. In another lifetime you'd have been one of the ones beating the shit out of Emmitt Till and you're too damn self-righteous to understand why. Fuck you, fuck you, fuck you, you hatin-ass piece of shit. Fuck you again.

@22 Now, you see: our experiences don't count. Things that don't jibe with Ayn Rand's ideology simply don't exist in polite society. She's the grand decider here, don'chya know?
26
Block him. He doesn't respect women. I promise that the insults & boundaries problems are the trademark signature of an asshole. It starts out small then escalates. At best, he will merely belittle her and make her feel like a basic bitch for being vanilla. At worst, it's possible he could be capable of using force on her.

Also, I would like to vote for the commenter who said it would be bad sex no matter how nice that dick is- I dated a body builder with one of the best cocks I've ever seen but the sex was terrible. He only cared about getting himself off.
27
If I want to see a guy's dick pic, I'll look at his profile. Why would I need it sent to my phone?
28
Yes, please go and let some guy with boundary and power issues know that his dick made you break your own rules... I'm absolutely certain he won't attempt to take advantage of you.

-Dan Savage
29
@2, & 7, Sounded fake to me as well. Why? Short rundown of letter (from a lonely/horny/angry/alloftheabove male's perspective): "I'm a slut, but a choosy slut. I flirted with a guy but he was too dominant and aggressive for me so I laughed him off... but then he sent me a picture of his cock and I can't resist its power, I must give in to this uber-man and allow him to fuck me!"
I know that's gonna trigger a shit load of people, but it's the reason it seemed like such a fake letter to me. It read like it was written by a guy who's been rejected a ton and wants his "huge beautiful" cock to dominate the women who laughed at him. Just my humble opinion.
30
@3 - I had the same reaction.
31
@29, I agree. I thought it was far more likely to be written by a guy than by an actual woman who regularly hooks up on Tinder. Any woman who has had a few hookups knows that nice-looking dicks are meaningless when they are attached to ugly, awful men. Based on his communication, there is such a high chance that meeting him will be uncomfortable or disappointing that it wouldn't be worth her time.
32
To me it read like a fake written to fake-prove "women's rules only apply to beta males, they'll give up anything for alphas."

But there are lots of things in the world. If it's real, thanks to Dan for promoting the good advice from the comments, since his advice seemed bad for my world.
33
&29 - also, there’s this: “imagining sliding onto it greatly excites me.”

No one talks like that. No one but a writer of bad erotica, or a man with some messed up ideas about human relations.
34
@32 - that’s a bingo!
35
Speaking of blocking, wasn't there some kind of script that enabled us to block certain commentors here on Slog? I'd really really like that as an option.
36
Yeah, gonna agree with everyone else that this is 99.9% likely to be a fake. No woman who's this stupid outside of an enclosed nunnery in rural Romania would have survived to be this stupid for this long.

"Dear Dan, I like screwing around with lots of men. This one man said that he gets off on hurting women, and would I like to come over? Once I said no, he then proceeded to show me that he doesn't care about things like getting consent first. Normally I would say 'no,' just because he has offended my sensibilities ("I am sexually aroused by hurting women and don't care about boundaries and consent" isn't a screaming danger klaxon at all, but it offends my stuck-up nature). However, he showed me a picture of a nice penis. As someone who spends a lot of time dating on the internet, I do not at all suspect that the picture might not actually be his. Further, as someone who screws a lot of guys, I have in no way learned that "Good At Sex" = "The Whole Package of Skills." Nope, it's only the dick, and no one has fake pics on the internet.

What do I do? Do I go visit Jeffrey Donger the Sadist in his basement of Not At All A Murder Room, on the hopes of a dick pic being genuine? Help me Dan Kenobi, you're my only hope!"
37
I got only halfway through the letter before coming to the same conclusion as BlondeGirl. Forget his dick; he IS a dick. If you want to end up getting face-slapped or worse without being asked, and without subsequent apology, chase that dick. If not, run away. There are other dicks in the world, both to look at and to date.

Ciods @6: Great point!

Mick @8: It really is different then. As a general rule, women do not want to see a dick pic. If we do, we'll ask.

Sporty @13: You're not biased at all, not at all. At what point did this woman say she was a liberal?

Schmacky @22: This woman under the sun would not react the way LW did. Nor would a host of female commenters, if you can be bothered to read the comments. Be assured "we women aren't all the same."

Sweet @31: Presumably she has already seen his face and general build, and found them pleasing. It's Tinder, not Craigslist.

Mtn Beaver @32: Women do, sometimes, make poor decisions because we are horny. That's how we learn.
38
Guys into BDSM are held to higher standards re boundary respecting than guys who don't get off on controlling/causing pain in others. This guy is a major red flag. Also he's stupid. Guys use unsolicited cock shots as a "fuck you for rejecting me". Also, 50-50 as to whether or not it's actually his dick.
39
And not only are they held to a higher standard but they know they're held to a higher standard and why. The fact that he pushed past your boundaries is especially egregious because of this. Also he negged you with the vanilla comment, not cool outside of scene even with a sub you've just met/never met until you've talked a bit about that shit, and you very definitely hadn't.
40
@8 It is not how the straights say hello. Probably because it's an endless non-consensual barrage from what, age 12? That seems late. From people you have rejected/have expressed no interest in. Sorta a threat sometimes. But you get the idea. Do gay gentlemen get revenge porned as much? Perhaps that's part of it. Can't reciprocate as safely.
41
@20 seconded
42
Sanguisuga @35: Please post the link if you do find it! Assuming, of course, that I'm not one you'd like to block :)
43
LW we really need to see the pic in question. I think it would be educational.

@22 most dick pics taken by straight men suck. If you wish to upgrade the quality of your dick pics regardless of whether or not you have a truly exceptional cock (which is unnecessary for a great dick pic), Critique My Dick Pic can help.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.alterne…
44
@33 You never think of how prospective guys will feel inside you?
45
@22 if you haven't got the "wow your dick is spectacular" from most/all strangers you've sent pics to odds are it isn't, sorry. Didn't Chris Rock have a bit where he said he couldn't pick his dick out of a lineup? Neither can we. If you'd like to see what spectacular vs awful looks like ask any female friend if they've got any disasters or glorious incredible cocks saved on their phone. I know I've got a worst of collection just for laughs and I definitely keep the good ones til the end of time. I'm pretty sure what I think of as the good ones aren't anything like what you'd think the good ones were though. That's why you should ask female friends to show you theirs, and listen to why.
46
@36 gotta be a hell of a dick pic. You know when you go toy shopping and something you walk by makes you weak in the knees and you know for a goddamn fact it's a bad idea and well beyond your abilities or even safety but you buy it anyway? Like that. And every guy is a risk. A lot of them pull questionable shit. It's the background noise of dating men and we're all taught to ignore it. If every guy who sent a non-consensual dick pic were out of the dating pool the rest of you would absolutely be drowning in pussy, half your competition would be gone.
47
@37 I could see not being attracted to a guy in face or build and still wanting to test drive the cock. And that being overwhelming. Why be picky? It's the behavioral stuff that's the problem here.
48
@36 the threat was subtle enough Dan didn't see it.
49
@45 by "worst of" I probably don't mean what you think I mean either. I mean things like "buy some bleach and scrub your toilet dude dear fucking God!", etc. A common example.
50
@ no. 1.) Assuming that really even is his dick, even the best dildo in the world wouldn't feel good if it was just jammed in awkwardly. 2.) Dan is a man. He doesn't face the same risks that women face when hooking up with strange men - he actually acknowledged that in the article.
51
@25 Sportlandia, don't let undead get to you, they have never disclosed their sex/ gender.
. And undead, just leave the guy alone ffs. You do seem to have some sort of thing for him.
Maybe both of you could just not talk to each other? We don't want any punch ups here. I hate the sight of blood.
52
It's true these sort of situations are women sending double messages, I agree with you there Sportlandia. Personally I find the whole seeing the dick before anything happens is a strange ritual, which wasn't around in my youth and the few I've received in recent yrs, I've deleted pretty quickly. A disembodied cock doesn't do anything for me.
How to deal with a woman who sends double messages, be wary of her. Just like this LW needs to be wary of this man.
53
No @48: Dan didn't see the threat because men aren't a threat to men to anywhere near the extent they're a threat to women.

No @47: For me, there is no dick in the universe that will overcome an unattractive face or body, and that's before we even get to personality. There may be a face and body so attractive it will overcome some negative personality traits if casual sex is all that's desired, but this particular man is not just a douche but a danger. A dick pic may be useful for ruling someone *out*, if the dick is way too big, way too small, way too hairy, or just a weird shape, but no dick on its own can rule somebody *in.* Conversely, if I haven't seen your dick, the chances that we'll get to naked time and I'll reject you based on your dick are just about nil. Every guy who sends *me* an unsolicited dick pic *is* out of the dating pool. Because as you say, I can buy any dick I want; it's what's attached that's important.

Lava @51: Sportlandia should let SOMEONE get to him. His ceaseless barrage of misogyny deserves all the calling out it gets.
54
I disagree Fan. I see harassment. Coming from you and undead it's disturbing. Sportlandia's observation re double messages is right and one assumes liberal women write to Dan Savage.
How bout you and undead leave him be, I'm sure others will respond if gross examples of women hating show themselves. I don't see it. I see a young man sharing his side of the story, with a few not so choice feelings about some women. So? You and I get to complain about male behaviours we've been subjected to. No one says we hate all men.
55
@54 LavaGirl: Sportlandia's comment was extremely misogynistic and deserved to be criticized. The whole "double messages" thing is just a made-up argument to try and justify ignoring consent.

"OMG, I've been told hundreds of times that flashing my junk at people without their consent is Not Okay. BUT I heard one probably-fake story where someone maybe considered it not a dealbreaker! What are these crazy mixed messages! How am I supposed to know not to do sexual things to women without their consent if I somewhere on the internet heard a rumor that it might help get me laid 1% of the time?

Do I not commit the minor sex crime? I mean, it's illegal to flash my junk at people and I've been told hundreds of times that I shouldn't do it - you'd think it'd be a clear 'no.' BUT what if there's a .00001% chance that by committing indecent assault I could get laid? If one woman out of a thousand might not be upset, doesn't that justify creeping out the nine hundred and ninety-nine women I non-consensually expose myself to? Isn't this really women's fault for not making this clearer?"

It's a load of crap. It's not about being genuinely confused about "mixed messages" - it's about anger that he has to put the "don't sexually assault or harass women" rule higher than his "follow your dick wherever it leads" rule.
56
@55: Exactly. It’s muddying the waters of consent and insincere/nasty. He specifically gets the heat because while other posters can disagree strongly, they’re at least discussing the topic at hand.

Sporty sneers and expresses his own misogynistic views overbroadly, his rants about “liberals” belong on whatever alt-right sites he usually rants about women on.

I don’t think the LW is necessarily “fake” (though I don’t have any friends who think a screenshot of a cock that may not be the profile-holders is enough to get over a personality that screams “I WILL VIOLATE YOUR BOUNDARIES IN OUR FIRST CONVERSATION”) but using one person’s poor judgment / desperation to tar all women is garbage.

And yes, “you would enjoy my sexually harassing you IF I WAS HOTTER” is the rallying cry of the bitter regressive loser. I’ve heard it in person and it’s no less execrable.

Thing is, sure there are a smaller number of people with poor judgment. But using them as a cudgel to beat other women and tell them what they believe, want, and how you personally could violate their will (if you were more physically attractive) is pure, fact free nastiness.

It’s not offering perspective, it’s not interesting, and it’s certainly not kind. It’s dullwitted garbage we could find on any 4chanlike site devoted to basement-dwelling malcontents and the rationale belongs there with the rest of the people who can’t get dates and think that makes them somehow more of an expert on dating.
57
“It's not about being genuinely confused about "mixed messages"”

Exactly. It’s not asking any questions, it’s making an intentional statement that women, overbroadly just can’t admit that they all enjoy the harassment, all harassment, devoid of context. All it ends up illustrating is how that particular dude thinks of his looks/penis.

He thinks that he’s entitled to their attentions, and calling out the “unfairness” that the “hot guy” gets to do what he wants to do. It’s this weird nice-guyism ranting about how the jocks get the girl, but there’s nothing nice or about them if they’re wanting to disregard consent in any context because of one solitary anecdote that may or may not be cut from whole cloth. One anecdote runs alongside his preexisting beliefs, and all other experiences here don’t matter/count. Because Sporty knows best.
58
@33 - I wasn’t objecting to the substance of the sentence - I was reacting to it’s form. It’s stilted. It is the syntax of someone not fully in command of their feelings. The word “greatly” is the giveaway. It’s borrowed from the 18th century. In current usage, it’s the sign of someone dissociated from what they’re saying. About the only common usage is “greatly exaggerated” and that’s not an emotion. I liked @29 and @32’s interpretations of the LW’s psychology.
59
@58: Yeah, the psychology of @32 really seems to resonate with a few it would seem.
60
I'm more in sympathy with how Dan answered the letter than with the character-judgments of the commenters. (Nevertheless, the character-judges are right. Almost certainly right. They're saying that a guy who dick-pics and denigrates is likely to be an asshole and selfish in bed--and the evidence would seem, yes, to suggest this).

Dan's answer did not lose sight of the fact that a big dick is hot. This is true for gay men and straight women like the LW, at least. An unsolicited dick-pic may be an act of aggression, one-upmanship, petulance, crudeness, derogation, and so on. It can violate boundaries and be intended to put down, not to excite. The LW, though, likes dicks and was particularly won over by this dick-pic. It was thoroughly reasonable of Dan to answer in a spirit that joined the young woman in celebrating the visual and other pleasures of cock.

If the question was serious--'should I reconsider my hard no in the light of this splendid member?'--the answer should be, 'your 'no' is there for a reason--because the men who do this rather than flirting more decorously tend to be jerks. Do not reconsider your hard no simply because you like the goods on offer'. But it's likely the LW knows this, and the letter is in part a joke.

I wouldn't want to live in a world where there isn't badinage, sometimes edgily eroticised badinage, between people considering having sex with each other. But insults about 'vanilla girls' and unsolicited dickpics are not a gentle, refined form of flirtation, but the thumping exercise of het male privilege.
61
Wow, I need more coffee. I’m really rooted in the redundant department of redundancy today.
62
@60: “I wouldn't want to live in a world where there isn't badinage, sometimes edgily eroticised badinage, between people considering having sex with each other.“

I mean, as you know the issue is people who don’t want to see a delineation between flirting and harassment.

The people who make threats over how addressing harassment on dating sites, workplaces and on the street would eliminate flirtation entirely remind me more of Garrison Keillor’s “warnings” (and the nasty reality behind his concern trolling) than anyone sex-positive.

Conflating unwanted moves with flirtation doesn’t help, bro.
63
@36. Traffic Spiral. LOL!

Surely Dan has procedures in place to sort off the fake and ax-grinding from the genuine. Like, he emails the writer; he or his team ask for permission to run the letter; he gives his advice in person?
64
@61. Ayn. Did you read the next sentence?
65
@64: I did! It wasn’t directed at you, but venting at the people crawling out of the woodwork lately that stop at that point to decry the death of flirtation.
66
Sorry, thought the “as you know” implied that properly, the singular “bro” in the end must have been confusing.
66
The update is better advice, without question. This guy negged DICKPIC to test out how pressuring her into BDSM in which she said she is not interested might go (boundary testing), then he escalated and violated another boundary by sending the dick pic after she had turned him down TWICE. The fact that unsolicited pics are boundary violations is exactly why people do (and should!) have rules like DICKPIC's, and she should not break this one. Indeed, since flashing is sexual harassment/assault and unsolicited pictures of genitals are digitally-mediated flashing i.e. harassment/assault, I really think everybody should have that rule and stick to it as a specific instance of the "don't fuck people who sexually assault (to your knowledge) becasue they are inherently unsafe sexual partners" rule.
67
@55 Traffic. You're on fire today! Of course the 'mixed-messages' thing about women having soft spots for some kind of strangely disembodied dicks *really* is a load of crap.
68
@65. Ayn. I think (with you, I'm sure) that people drawing a line between knuckle-dragging misogyny and Silver Screen Hollywood comedy byplay are properly calling for a renewal of flirtation! Their call is surely for men (a bit more than women in straight relations, in that men make more of the passes) to up their game, to be more cultured, more refined, as they woo...

Equality is joyful. A situation where one half (roughly) of the gendered world is constantly on the guard for negs, is routinely or structurally inferiorized, is one where joy and wit cannot flower; where the development of any kind of capacity for laughter or creativity is stymied or faces headwinds. Feminism is likely to be tiresomely mischaracterized by its detractors as po-faced, but I think it has a story to tell about its supporting fun, genuinely equal interactions, broad-mindedness.
69
@68: Specifically, I was thinking of weird all-or-nothing oversteps like-

http://time.com/5041770/garrison-keillor…

“Following the revelation, comments about sexual harassment that Keillor made during a 1994 speech at the National Press Club resurfaced on social media. The comments, in which he claimed that “a world in which there is no sexual harassment at all is a world in which there will not be any flirtation”
70
BDF@42 - Ha, nooo, not you... More like the bloody reincarnations of that hooded cobra that keep popping up. I know there *used* to be something, but I think it was quite a few years ago, before Slog revamped their whole system. It would be a really nice feature to add, though...
71
@70: I’m pretty swamped this weekend but i could probably script something for Tampermomkey. I wish I could use it on my mobile though :(
72
*Tampermonkey.
73
Blondegrrr @ 15 FTW.

No @ 40 - "Do gay gentlemen get revenge porned as much?"

Perhaps, but we call that "good memories". (Just joking.)
74
Definetly question the common sense of a woman who is told by a potential NSA sex partner that she is totally interchangible with every other woman, but then considers meeting this person because of a photograph of his penis. If your potential sex partner has just told you that your disinterest in BDSM sex acts means you're reduced to being just another hole in which he can stick his cock, why would you want to have sex with this person no matter the size or athesthic qualities of his penis?

Fake letter or not, anyone who allows someone to treat them like an interchangible piece of meat isn't a worthy sex partner and deserves what they get.
75
Ayn @71 - yeah, I'm pretty much on my mobile all the time these days. Didn't think about that.
76
@74: “anyone who allows someone to treat them like an interchangible piece of meat isn't a worthy sex partner and deserves what they get.”

That’s unnecessary. They’re going to be disappointed at best, and likely have an extremely uncomfortable to traumatizing experience. Even if the picture matches his person, it’s obvious that he thinks having it is enough and that he doesn’t need to concern with what she’s interested in beyond.

People who make poor decisions don’t deserve “what they get”, no matter how inevitable. If she actually went through with it all, i’m sure she learned from the experience.
77
Making poor choices doesn’t make you “unworthy” of finding and keeping the right person, it just gets in the way.
78
I didn't read the comments above me as I don't have time right now, so sorry if I repeat something that has already been said. Two quick things:

1) I agree entirely that this man displayed all sorts of red flag behavior. Block, and move on.

2) The main part of the LW's question is about if her hard and fast rules should be softer, and I'd say yes. "No unsolicited dick pics" is a good rule in contact with people when the conversation is not explicitly sexual. Once you are discussing sex, I think dick pics are fine, and often welcome. The problem here is she said no she doesn't want them, the guy sent them anyway (which alone wouldn't be too big a thing since they were discussing sex but in the context of everything else seems disrespectful ESPECIALLY the PUA you're just like other girls line). So what did the LW learn? That she sometimes likes dick pics even when she didn't think she would, and should therefore relax her rules IN THE FUTURE about when to receive them.

This is easy to do. Take away the "no dick pics" rule in her profile since she is in fact looking for casual sex. Then judge on a case by case interaction if the guy sending the dick pic is just a sexy guy showing her what he's got or if he's a creep- since it's not the dick pic that makes a guy a creep but the other things (insults, showing he doesn't respect boundaries).

General rule of thumb- Unsolicited dick pics on dating sites are creepy when you are chatting with someone about going out for coffee or about what you are looking for in a relationship. They are not creepy when you are already chatting about sex. And the attitude/conversation around them make all the difference.
79
I'm entirely with BlondeGirl here. Thanks to the extreme atrocity of the current federal administration, unsolicited dicks are running amok more than ever these days, and illegally occupying the White House.
By the way, @69 undead ayn rand: Congrats on scoring the magic number!
80
@79 undead ayn rand (re: @69): PLEASE excuse me, I'm not calling you an unsolicited dick---!!---the @69 game is a completely different subject. The btw was a reminder to me on the number, so I chose to apply it to this Savage Love Letter of the Day as well.
81
@76/undead ayn rand: That is what I wrote, but I actually meant that the person treating someone like a piece of meat is the unworthy one, not the person who is treated like meat. My proofreading missing that mistake. Whoops.

But I do stand by my sentiment that Mr. Big Cock waved a huge red flag in his interactions with LW. She knows what potentially is in store by agreeing to an intimate encounter with this guy, and when you play with fire you sometimes get burned. LW is a grow-ass woman, and instituted rules to protect herself. If she plays with fire and gets burned, I'm not very sympathetic.
82
@81: Oops! Acknowledged.
83
@50 solved by her being on top, with is how she describes it. Also, don't we have to assume she sent the pic to Dan? I mean ok ok she didn't have the guys permission but I'm this instance I could see why you'd need to to make your letter make sense - and then Dan's response as well could have been swayed by the majesty of this astonishing dick.
84
@53 BDF Whereas I would want to fuck a guy on strength of dick alone. Personal preference no? Plenty of guys want to fuck me on strength of tits alone, it surely isn't because of my alluring personality. And tits are arguably far less relevant to quality of fuck (assuming of course that the luster is running it). I wouldn't reject a guy for his dick either, dick qualities are almost always irrelevant to me too, but that's why her letter makes sense to me. She's had a lot of different cocks, so this must surely be a champion prize winning cock of beauty. Don't you aesthetically appreciate a gorgeous cock? I get why Lava doesn't but then maybe she's never encountered one in the wild.
The reason why I reject unsolicited cock shotters is because they are non-consensual - it's that aspect that makes them repellant to me, same as catcalling.
85
@78 given the increased awareness of consent currently in the culture and also increased awareness of what constitutes harassment, and given that unsolicited cock shots are a dangerous territory for men to use w women they don't know well, wouldnt you look askance at a guy who didn't ask first?
86
@68 Harriet - feminism is about high quality consensual cock shots!
87
@78 is a good addition to answer the actual question here: sure, maybe you've learned you should relax your rule to approve of nice dicks sent not outright solicited but 1) with decent reason to think you might enjoy it (not as a fuck-off) and 2) from decent guys (not negging asses).

Oh also 3) with proof of ownership following. I mean dick pics are cheap and plentiful even more than dick itself.
88
@67 Harriet - it really is, especially since the complaint seems to be - some women are different than others?!?! You mean to tell me they are individuals with individual preferences?!? Their own thoughts and feelings and boundaries that I am somehow required to determine in order to not be considered a jerk?!? I demand to speak to the manager! This is pure injustice! Also Not All Men!
89
@87 beaver - a pic of your cock with a current print edition of the local newspaper, your face and state issued id in the shot or get out!
Useful to get it in different angles/lighting/distances. It's just like selfies. Just in case he chose the one good pic of his cock ever taken.
90
Just here to disagree with Dan's advice about references.

"if he's a regular player on the BDSM scene, ask for a reference or two. Getting a thumbs up from a woman he's played with/tied up in the past doesn't mean you have to let him tie you up, of course, but it will set your mind at ease."

Most consent-violators pick their victims carefully. They have consensual BDSM encounters (often in public) with enough people to build up a visible reputation as a safe player. And then they go after people new to kink and violate their consent in private. The newbie probably won't complain to anyone, and if they try, the predator just says the newbie wanted a relationship and is upset they got rejected. A popular player can get away with that shit for a long time.

So, no, hearing "he treated me well" from a couple of hand-picked references should not set a newbie's mind at ease about a kinkster.

The bottom line is that you can protect yourself from dismemberment (by letting people know who you're going off with) but it's damn hard to explore BDSM while protecting yourself from sexual assault or a fierce beating. Playing in public is probably the safest path.

And expecting vanilla sex in private from someone who prefers BDSM and has shown that he doesn't mind pushing limits -- that's a pretty dangerous game.
91
@79 auntie g - agreed hence the need for caution!
92
@90 agreed. Also, and you'd be better able to speak to this, but BDSM of course attracts abusers which is why there are much stronger education, etiquette and safety rules in the BDSM community. Plenty of rapey douchebags everywhere of course, but if a guy who says he's into BDSM doesn't have flawless manners re: consent/boundaries I'd be concerned. As for references? See: current famous female actors defending Woody Allen.
93
LW - I'm not sure if anyone has said this already but as women we're often taught to ignore our own judgement - Always Trust Your Fear!
94
Full credit to Ms Rand for picking up (ba-dop-bop) the operative denigrating moment, although a deduction for appearing to call Mx Harriet "bro".

It would be entertaining to give Ms Grizelda a Gertrude Award, but probably not quite fair.

As to what LW may or may not deserve, the one mitigating factor is that at least a stupid action won't have negative consequences for innocent parties, as whatever she did was unlikely to have any effect on Mr PUA. It isn't, for instance, on par with the woman who wanted to seduce her boss-mentor's son after he and his wife had welcomed her into their home socially. If LW followed through with it, I could see hoping it was an LMB-inducing experience that taught her a good, sharp lesson. I could also see hoping they entered a Covenant Marriage, even though it would be a little less equal than one usually prefers those to be.

As for the letter itself, it's confusing. I might guess at its being a bit of FeMRA fakery-pokery, except that the PUA bit doesn't match.
95
@55, traffic spiral: I still don't see it. You made that link to ignoring consent. If Sportlandia had said those words, I'd be one of the first to jump down his throat.
I do agree with that perception. And not so it can be used to question consent. The whole training women go thru is not to be straight shooters. From being told to keep our legs together at eight, so no one can see our undies, forward, we are contained. Told to be polite and coy and change our minds whenever we choose etc etc. all the allowances women get under Patriarchy. Double messages of course are not just what women use, men are also masters at it, for different reasons. They are taught to sweet talk to get what they want yet the woman picks up their true emotional distance.
I read Sportlandia's comments, and do not see they deserve such responses. He takes another position, argue that rather than down it with viciousness.
96
@95: “If Sportlandia had said those words, I'd be one of the first to jump down his throat.“

If you mused on the words stated a little longer you’d understand why everyone takes him as he intends to portray women. You’re being charitable, which I understand, but he doesn’t deserve that.
97
@11 undead ayn rand:

The PUA “negging”/berating tactic wasn’t a red flag enough?

Winner winner chicken dinner. Even if he has the most marvelous cock on this side of whatever state LW is in, she should pass on it for the team and not reward his behavior. I'm with the Blonde Girl reader feedback. Rub one (or a dozen) out to the pretty pic and block him.
98
Oh, btw "Jeffrey Donger" @36 launched my sides into orbit.
99
@85

If I had a profile on a date site that was nonsexual- more along the lines of "I like walking on the beach and holding hands in the rain and I'm looking for a boyfriend", and a guy sent me an unsolicited dick pic in the first message, yes that's a red flag. Same thing if I were already chatting with a guy, arranging the first date, being a little flirty but mostly in a "what's your favorite Thai place and when are you available" or "what do you do for a living, where do you want to be in five years" conversation and the guy sent me an unsolicited dick pic, yes that's also a red flag.

But if my profile is specifically asking for sex or I'm messaging him specifically about sex, and he sends me a dick pic, that is normal online hookup behavior as far as I'm aware, unless I state specifically that I don't want to see it, and even then I'd be willing to give him the benefit of the doubt that he just didn't bother reading rather than he was trying to push boundaries. And no, if a guy and I are messaging about how we like to fuck and he sends me a dick pic I would never in my wildest imaginations think of that as a consent issue.

The issues with the LW's dude are: A) PUA insult tactics, B) that he first says he wants to do X, when she pulls back, he gets desperate and says no actually he meant he'd be cool doing anything, when she pulls back again, C) he sends a dick pic. It's possible he did not read her boundary not to send it, but that doesn't change A or B. And in the context of A and B, C sounds more like an intentional insult though perhaps it was meant in the spirit of "see what you're missing"- again irrelevant given A and B.

As to the larger conversation about women's confusing signals, 1) this woman is not all women, 2) if she's reckless or unclear, it does not mean it's OK to disrespect boundaries, 3) women are also sexual beings who have to weigh the risks and benefits of their desires. Most women put up filters to try to weed out and identify the creeps. That doesn't mean sometimes we aren't just going to get horny and fuck a sexy creep. Just like I hear loads of guys say "don't stick your dick in crazy" but they seem to understand it when other guys get horny and do it anyway and then suffer the consequences. The fact that a guy got horny and did something stupid doesn't mean it is cool for a woman to be a crazy drama queen. Likewise with men. The fact that a woman gets horny and does something reckless doesn't mean it is cool for a man to disrespect boundaries or claim that women don't know what they want.

I really don't know what's so hard about this. It seems like common sense.

    Please wait...

    Comments are closed.

    Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.


    Add a comment
    Preview

    By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.