@83. Lionface. There is maybe a slight difference between what you and I are saying in that I don't see the need for anyone to make categorical statements.

I have been, or felt, endangered enough times by closeted guys, guys extraverting their shame at being gay in the form of sudden verbal (at best) violence directed at me, that I'm happy to say, 'there is a greater likelihood of closeted homosexuals being violent'. Some are sweetie-pies. I would guess I've slept with some men without knowing they were closeted, too--just as they have slept with me without knowing that e.g. I was doing a PhD on the topic about which they just made casual remarks; I was using them to get over a broken heart; I knew their girlfriend socially; I had maybe graded one of their college papers as a 'forfeit' so I could suck another TA's dick--whatever random stuff happens in a life. In other words, the scary unpredictability of closeted tops is one of these things that float round in this world, but it's mixed in, cut through, with so many other things, many of which are entirely individual and personal.

It may be appropriate to say that, to me, the older guy, the D-Dom or D-Daddy, is absolutely not entitled to any form of relationship outwith consent. And, yes, consent needs to be more carefully negotiated, more of an autonomous transaction, even a spontaneous gesture on the younger person's part, when there's an age differential.

@101, antiserumite. This young woman could find a local man, a kinky one, closer to her own age, who would delight in her submissiveness.
Why should she hang around for some old fella, who gives her one fucking week a year, yet controls her thru his daily texts. Of course he knows how to keep the hook in, he’s been doing it since she was the tender age of seventeen and caught by repressive bores. This guy is holding her back from being the full beautiful, powerful young woman she can be. He has no intention of leaving his wife, property no doubt binds them as much as love and habit.
She’s got a lot going for her and yes wean herself off texting him each day. Take this great new job, congratulations LW, and find the kink community where her job is.
This young woman has written into Dan because she is starting to wake to what a crock this arrangement is.

@101, I completely agree with you. @1oo, I'm sorry I may have misinterpreted, consider me humbled.

Yes Fan, @100, if this man ever left his wife for this girl, she’d be up the duff in five minutes. Cement her into place. But why should he go thru all that again while she stays around for his pathetic offerings.
Kink is not about taking advantage of others.
Reading many of you men seeing no issue here, indicates to me how deep patriarchal training is, even amongst this group.
Just an aside about the use of the word mob.
Australian Aborigines use that word about family, kinship groups. I’m not an Aboriginal though of their land.

@104 Harriat, Let them fuck as they may.

@104 Harriet_by_the_bullrushes, I went over your spiel a couple times, trying to figure out if it was a humblebrag, or something more, while also trying to determine your PhD. Anyways, I'm sorry I spelled your handle wrong in the post above.

@98. Bi. I know one D/g relationship where I would think the 'g' is in chronological years older than the 'D'. She is a girl in her mind; she finds it relaxing (I think) to lapse into a pose of helplessness, of needing direction and discipline. But more usually--no?--the party supposed to be younger is younger, and the older party older. Some kind of basis in reality, psychological or physical, will undergird all roleplay. A dashing, slightly unscruplous person will dress up as a pirate or highwayman, not as the damsel swept up by these fantasy figures.

I do think that some people take the view that a young woman needs to be older, significantly above the ordinary age of consent, to know that she wants to take part in kink, or to be in a D/s (or D/g) relationship. 'She needs to know her own mind'. The view would be that a young woman is strongarmed or sweet-talked into the setup by an essentially manipulative older guy--a patriarchal bastard, a CPOS, to use kind terms. But, in this case, as EmmaLiz @97 says, it would not seem that the LW lacks the capacity to think through her situation rationally; nor has her age been exploited. It would be to refuse to credit her account, to undermine her and deny her agency, in my view, to try to press on her some narrative that she's been taken advantage of.

Stepping back, there seem two schools of thought re this case of a 47yo man opening a relationship with a 17yo young woman looking for answers about sex, kink and abstinence. The first is the view mostly pointed by the male Doms and kinksters, including @95 Dadddy--a welcome voice--that an experienced, responsible Dom would not leave the LW so much at a loss as TMI seems to be. Their supposition is that he will have encouraged her to find new partners in the city; and that, if he has said he 'loves' her, it will be in the context of something like, 'I love you, so I'm letting you go'--and that perhaps she has misunderstood, or mistaken the tone in which he has said this. The other school of thought is of women like yourself, who see a creepy episode overwhelmingly characterised by an imbalance in power and experience--and a time in the LW's life best shot, got rid of. In this view, as I take it, if the guy is a D, he's using the shorthand, or sexual identity, as a cover for a deeply questionable liaison with someone whose vulnerability he could easily exploit (and perhaps is exploiting). I do not know which of these views has more truth. We would need to know more about the situation. If we could each ask TMI ten questions, say, I hope that the two views would converge a lot more than they seem to at the moment. Like, e.g., 'is he initiating or soliciting textual contact with you, or is it you contacting him?' 'Do you have the mindspace to give yourself to finding other connections that may be satisfying to you--or does he take them up?' 'And the space in your heart for this?' 'If you came round to a view that condemned your lover, would this be the conventional religious view--the shocked, horrified view--of your parents, or might you think that the relationship was imbalanced, not fairly negotiated, while accepting that you have a penchant for D/s?' Etc.

Yes--I think that the person supposedly being massaged is either under a misapprehension how easy i.e. not easy it is to come from your balls being brushed, or is making fun of the absurdly nice sexual scruple of liberal men by imagining an implausible scenario. (Or I am missing out on something in the testicular-sensitivity department...).

@109. antiserumite. Mostly a humblebrag; but people who follow my posts would know (?) that I threw myself into study as a younger man because I didn't think I could have a happy relationship. So it's also in the spirit of 'I didn't always have it right; this is what I have learnt'. It was in Sociology crossing over with Law, with a lot of queer theory material. I went back to school because I was thrilled by queer theory. I'm a lawyer.

@107. I will heartily endorse the principle that '[k]ink is not about taking advantage of others'. Anyone squatting on land should take off-- ;)

Ms Fan - Thank you. I can generally agree with your points about OS, and the ages do make Older Man still potentially menacing whereas Older Woman would at least have moved out of LeTourneau territory - although, these days, that may not be so sure.

I wonder if the MM tradition of less regard for age difference will fade out in modern times. I remember seeing a lot of young women getting very snippy about Call Me By Your Name and insisting the 25yo was a pedo for having a 17yo partner.

Antiserumite @102: What are you talking about? Of course a man can't get another man pregnant, please go back to Biology 101. Unless he's a trans man, but I would think that if you went back to the 1950s and compared the number of young trans men who got knocked up by older men and expected to marry and be househusbands was miniscule compared to women who experienced that fate.

@103: One cannot edit comments; I've often wished we could.

And @106, you're agreeing with yourself!? What's going on here?

Harriet @110: I have no idea what research has been done into the comparative ages of the people in D/g relationships. You're the PhD. ;-) It would seem logical that more often than not, the man is older, but that goes for vanilla hetero relationships too. I don't think it can be inferred that because they are a daddy and a little girl, they've chosen to roleplay a daddy and a little girl.

And not that you specifically meant me, but the one thing about this scenario that doesn't bother -me- is that she's exploring BDSM at 17. I completely believe it's possible to know at that age that one is kinky, and I have no issue with teenagers exploring kinky sex. With others if they're old enough to do so, on their own if they are not. I have no issue with anything she has done here, aside from not telling this creepy cheater to fuck off. But again, just because this particular young woman beat the odds and emerged from this not just unscathed but improved doesn't mean the guy's creepy cheating was justified. Like I said many comments ago, just because she's not a victim doesn't mean he's not a predator. How many other underage girls has he exploited, and how many of them turned out quite so well adjusted?

Some commenters on both camps seem to like TMI’s scenario. I see the allure and could possibly recreate this dynamic as a role-play if someone asked for it, maybe also initiate myself with reverse roles. After all sex with an older person was something I craved when I was in my late teens, though nothing as elaborate as TMI’s.

Now in my 50’s and a parent to adult children I would find it mentally challenging to be involved in real life with someone 20 years younger. My desire to get involved with a 17 yo greatly diminished once in my mid 20’s.

@110: Harriet, I find it hilarious that you accuse me of reading my own biases and experiences into TMI's letter when I come to the not-at-all-implausible supposition that a relationship between a young, still in college (or, as Emma Liz points out, perhaps in a vocational training school) woman and a man old enough to be her father, has a financial arrangement side to it.

And then you go on to say:
"Their supposition is that he will have encouraged her to find new partners in the city; and that, if he has said he 'loves' her, it will be in the context of something like, 'I love you, so I'm letting you go'--and that perhaps she has misunderstood, or mistaken the tone in which he has said this."

If you insist I walk back my interpretation of a financial arrangement in this relationship, I would ask you to stop making up scenarios in which the man says "I love you" in a way that you, Harriet, find unobjectionable, and then attributing a misunderstanding to TMI. You have less original source material to back up your interpretation than I have for mine. Sauce for the goose, my friend. (I don't mean to mis-gender you--you are also a goose, or a gander with goose-overtones. Or anyway, I hope you know that I'm trying to honor your gender identity and expression while comparing us to water fowl of the family Anatidae.)

I'm glad that BiDan pointed out that the D/g dynamic doesn't mean that the D has to be the actual age of the g's real-life father. And may I point out that she describes the man as "dominant," and says she likes kink; she doesn't characterize the relationship dynamic as D/g. While we're on the subject of whether or not this is a D/g or D/s relationship, I want to reiterate that this man is not the only capital letter in the world. She can find another man, more suitable for her (i.e. unattached, geographically proximate, closer to her own age) who can be her capital letter kinky partner. There will be plenty of men, of all ages who want to dominate a sexually submissive young woman in her new big city. I'm confident that she has the skills to find them.

I haven't brought up the creep factor (my comments are too long as it is already!) but for what it's worth, I think the guy's a creep; I think it's wrong for a mature person, in their late 40s to seduce or enter into a sexual relationship with a 17-year-old. There is a power imbalance that doesn't fall under the +game+ of D/g or D/s. Fortunately, I don't think that TMI has been exploited (or not too much) or is going to be scarred by this. Maybe he's following Dan's Campsite rule, although since she hasn't tried to end the relationship yet, I can't feel so confident. Still, I doubt that she'll look back on this relationship with regret; I'm sure she'll remember it fondly. None of my advice to her was predicated on the supposition that she's being taken advantage of and I wasn't encouraging her to dump him flat-out, because to me that didn't seem necessary and she doesn't seem to be ready to do that. That doesn't mean that I don't think the man was a sleaze-ball for having entered into it. And I do think that ideally, she tells him that she's closing this chapter of her life along with school and being financially dependent (on whomever), and moving on.

It seems clear that so far, the only sex that TMI has had that really gets her going has been with this man, who has been a mentor and teacher for her. Naturally, she's associating him with sexual satisfaction and with the dynamic she prefers: he plays a huge role in her sexual awakening (even if she wasn't a virgin when she met him, she makes it pretty clear that he's the first person she's explored her kinks with). She's gone on dates with vanilla guys that don't fulfill her sexually, so he looms even larger. I contend that she will be able to find kinky, dominant sexual partners beyond him. Some may still be older men; some may well be her own age, as she dates people in their 20s. If she really wants a D/g relationship or a 24/7 D/s relationship, she can find that with other men, too. This man, married and cheating and living in a different country, is unavailable to be in the kind of relationship she probably wants, one in which they are a social couple and see each other more than a week a year--and one in which one person isn't cheating on their spouse.

Lastly, she obviously wants to end or alter this relationship; otherwise, she wouldn't have written to Dan. So the choices come down to "dump and move on," or "downshift and move on."

LavaGirl @107. TMI expressly said that she wasn't "groomed". (Apparently she correctly expected "haters", as the kids say.) She says that the time with her lover was "amazing, both sexually and emotionally", and that it has helped her navigate her kinks and sexuality.

If you think she's wrong in this, perhaps you can become the Patriarchy and tell her what she ought to do and think. Nobody else seems willing to do the job.

If there is one letter writer I wish would show up in the comments, it's TMI.

When the advice is to date single kinky guys who are peers instead of daily texting +traveling affairs with this much older married guy overseas, it's not about kink. It's about age and availability. Also about experience and money. Calling that anti- kink is a straw man.

"Things must improve" does not sound happy with the status quo. But she speaks more about Mr TMI leaving his wife for her, then about leaving Mr TMI. I'm not sure she's really understood that you can fall in love with inappropriate matches. Unreciprocated love. Loving someone emotionally unavailable, or unable to live with you or unable to treat you respectfully, like someone who gambles away the mortgage, or someone who is married. Someone who can't make the time to see you or who can't be nice the way you need or have sex the way you need. In these cases it makes sense to pull back. LW should pull back instead of dwelling on a future second marriage with this guy who will probably die 3 or 4 decades before her. If she truly wants to replace his wife or likes being the secondary partner she has those choices of pursuit too, but in general she is likely to find someone she attaches to much easier and more happily locally and it's surprising others disagree. Date kinky guys locally is the gold advice.

I think that TMI must be intelligent, to be graduating college a year early. But I'm not sure that she knows what grooming means, she doesn't say he was reluctantly seduced by her. Happy and respectful may-december relationships usually develop when the May seduces the December. When it starts out with the December seducing the May, it's creepy. People are expected to relate to age-appropriate partners, and youth/inexperience make one easy to manipulate/seduce. Grooming just means that the December started seducing the May when they were a minor. It appears that he started speaking with her in hopes of romancing a younger single woman, but I doubt that she started speaking to him with hopes of starting an affair with a much older married man. If he truly cared for her health and happiness he'd encourage her to date other KINKY single peer aged guys locally. If NoCute is right and HE initiates texting daily and she needs excuses to break the habit of daily replying then he is manipulating her, maybe unconsciously but who cares, he's saying he loves her but seemingly not showing care for her happiness that's dangerous. It's not illegal or prosecutable, this guy is just creepy, like calling black people and women n*s and b*es. He's on the right side of the law just bad at relating, lying to his wife, his girlfriend is writing sex advice columns.. I'd love to be with wrong and lots of reassuring info is missing and at least his wife knows but that also means TMI is confused and unhappy cause of unknown mental problems or something. And she seems ok except for the cheating partner problem, but also the vast majority wouldn't find her partner a physically attractive option as a teen, stuff starts to sag starting middle age, and physical attraction is important to most people. Maybe she needs to own up to some gerontophilism, purposely date older, to date others she's truly attracted to. But as others have said, it's dodgy as hell as is, dude sounds like a relationally dumb flashy creep she's been half pity fucking and is now guilt ridden into continuing an unhappy status quo.

TMI-"dependent on his conversation and advice" could mean overly attached to inappropriate person or insufficiently independent or some combo. Talk less if you feel concerned about it. What exactly is stopping you?

The right choices are the ones you feel peaceful and happy about. Not objective. He doesn't know what's right for you. He just has more experience with his body and succeeding in his culture. Don't trade sex for his advice unless you truly want the sex too, or you are truly comfortable with sex work.

Massage - I think this massage was different because you had chemistry with the masseuse. Like. You came and she was only grazing your balls, you were hot for her. Start seeing another masseuse. And book one more session but not for massage. Just tell her you're sorry she was too good and you started seeing another masseuse. But maybe mention you'd like to take her out.. That you'd like to make her feel just as good as she did for you.. You'd trade massages with her anytime..etc

PTSA- I don't think an attraction to masculine people is going to just go away. Nor the attraction to boobs. There are a couple types of "ew". It's new and scary and weird, or it just doesn't feel right, something feels bad. The first may go away with good associations I think. So maybe this guy could be bi. If he doesn't want to have sex with a cis woman then he should not have sex with a cis woman he should not be pressured. It'll be ok whether he settles down with a man or a transwoman or gender fluid man or even a cis woman or one of each. The family will accept it if you are respectful to them, or they don't really love you and you are better off apart. Sorry. I hate homophobia and proscriptive sex.

This Dom did groom TMI. TMI enthusiastically consented to be groomed, but she was still groomed.

Philo @119: "Happy and respectful may-december relationships usually develop when the May seduces the December. When it starts out with the December seducing the May, it's creepy." - Well said.

@119,120: Yes, Philophile was spot on with that!

Precocious teenage girls who seem wiser than their years are a dime a dozen. I've volunteered with kids for many years in many communities, and I take the view... that when these girls inevitably crush on me (there's always one), even when they're more mature that the other kids (realistically, I've been crushed on by high school girls that were probably more mature than me), doesn't make them mature enough to make a clear-eyed decision as to if they want your dick in them. Their inappropriate crush is QED in that regard.

All that being said, at least this guy doesn't seem to have taken advantage of this girl. She's lucky, he's probably decent enough. The abstract of if 17-47 is OK is immaterial to TMI, that horse is out of the gate.

Mercury must be in retrograde: this is the second time this week I agree with Sportlandia, Hunter made a clever and timely joke at the end of last week's column (which I think no one saw but me), and I'm even agreeing more than usual with Philophile and LavaGirl.

Of course, to remind me that I'm not living in a parallel universe, I still got irritated at Dadddy@95 and as usual Harriet_by_the_bulrushes is questioning my ability to both read and think.

@98 Me having an affair with an older married man sounds like a quick way to lose my appetite, but perhaps I'm only okay with the idea of this girl doing it because of the distance. I'm closer to her age and I know what online relationships entail, and what they don't entail, like pregnancy. Is this guy a total creep? It's likely if not guaranteed, but the only pertinent question here is, is he a total creep to her? Both parties have the power to ghost the other at any time. Yes, e-stalking is a thing, but we don't know the circumstances under which they first talked or started their relationship, and the only things we know are this guy's age and that he's a cheater with kids in another continent. Oh, and he's dominant I guess. That's about it.

It's totally possible this guy is a creepazoid in real life and maybe many of him would find him that way IRL. I'd bet good money he is, but the age gap in itself isn't necessarily an indicator he's abusive. At 17 you should know enough to be able to avoid giant red flags like nonconsensual, non-D/s abuse. Sounds like she still agrees with her taste from 2015.

LW, sorry I haven’t addressed you till now. Some gender politics to deal with. What with Pence et al trying to take control of women’s Bodies, its back on the table. Not that if ever left, just lay low for a bit.
You sound like a strong, intelligent young woman. Bravo for getting beyond your repressive parents, and about to get a good job.
Whatever you decide to do, and it shows by writing to Dan, and letting us here rattle around in your story, brave of you, you know and feel this power within. It’s called Youth. You won’t get it for long, it’s gone in a blink. Think wisely about how you want to spend this time.
Patriarchy exists, in our culture and in most others. The guys sent women to the camp fire with the kids while they hunted food and chatted between themselves. Hence the beginning of creating a world in their image. Women and children, whatever, they will do what they are told. See Pence et al.
There are young men out there who might srouse you just as much as thus man does. Young men. Virile men. Don’t pine after this guy, he’s helped you see who you are. Thank him and move on. Young man flesh is so much hotter than old man flesh. And this man is offering you nothing. You’ve got to face that.
He’ll try to hang onto you, his fantasy internet girl ( you’ve seen him for three weeks, in three years), so keep firm. Move on as Dan so beautifully said, with local kinky men.
Thank you for writing in. Good luck with your life.

We do exist you know, cis women. And I for one am appalled at so many men on this thread trying to erase our experiences. Like Fuck Off with your attempts to invalidate and put down. Have all the categories you want in your understanding of your life. Fine by me. But just fuck right off trying to erase my experiences of over sixty five yrs as a cis woman.

@125: Perfectly said, Lava!

Ms Cute - M?? Harriet surely does it on purpose.

While I thank Ms Phile for the (I'll assume unintended) support, I must protest late teens and late forties being considered May and December, reckoning which would seem to have originated with the Tudors and not changed since. Late teens would seem barely into April, and late forties early September. If I went by my bridge players, late forties would be about the first or second week in July.

Thanks nocute. She is brave eh, letting her story loose here.

And something even more genuinely distressing than straight-chasers, the death of whom, or which team is now a field goal ahead in the Culture War Bowl:

Denis Ten (he is a figure skater who won two world medals and an Olympic medal for Kazakhstan) has been murdered by stabbing. The official account appears to be that the murder occurred during an attempt by the killers to steal his car mirrors. There is speculation afloat that there was a, shall we say, more convincing motive, but I have not found such a report yet.

Meanwhile, silence. I certainly expected to see a mention here, as the news is more than thirty hours old. And nothing in similar venues, either.

@98 BiDanFan. Could you explain what "power" a 50-year-old who's apparently (I accept EmmaLiz @97's correction) living in another continent has over what you call a "barely legal teen" who's actually 20, who's dating men her age, who's graduating soon, who has a big job lined up in a big city and who'll finally be financially independent?

Aside from the power of ending the relationship, of course, but if that's a power imbalance in itself, then we're all in trouble.

@69 Harriet_bythe_Bulrushes: Wahoo!! Congrats on scoring this week's Lucky @69! May an abundance of riches shower upon you!

WOW---griz has a lot of catching up to do on reading LWs, Dan's responses, and comments. Great to see the comments over 132 already on Friday.

@100 BiDanFan: Congrats, too on scoring the big HUNSKY!

Lionface @124 "At 17 you should know enough to be able to avoid giant red flags like nonconsensual, non-D/s abuse."

I have about 25 years of experience with the BDSM scene. Plenty of adults get drawn into abusive relationships at every age, whether kinky or not. D/s relationships aren't inherently abusive, but they also aren't immune from abuse.

Esperantisto @131 -- when I see someone preemptively saying "I know you think X but that's definitely not what happened," I tend to think, well, maybe some X did happen to make you sensitive about it.

So a man my age has been texting daily with an adolescent for three years, and helped her through the early stages of exploring her kinks. And he says he loves her but isn't planning to introduce her to his wife. He probably has a lot of emotional power over her, from the work he has done over the years to affect her thoughts and beliefs. And, yes, I call that grooming, and I suspect that the dom has been grooming her, and I suspect that's why she is having trouble seeing that it makes sense for her to move on from dating him.

I wouldn't go so far as to call their relationship abusive (since she doesn't), but I would encourage her to see that she may think of him less positively in five years, when she has more perspective than she does right now.

Eventually it all boils down to genitalia wars.
Lava –one if not the first commenters to address the power imbalance that will always be present in a 47-17 relationship was a penis haver, same goes to acknowledging TMI’s strength, maturity and intelligence.
Yes, there are some annoying men here who don’t get it and constantly shop for endless arguments. Some may be borderline creepy. Not all though, and many have expressed it here in the past.
This week I was actually surprised that some regulars and often-thoughtful vagina-havers were very late to address/acknowledge the built-in imbalance. Another one wrote, “I agree with people above that the age difference is the least disturbing thing here.”

I was having a pleasant Friday evening and came back only because I had an epiphany that based on TMI’s strength, intelligence, maturity, confidence, and yes, also experience, I can totally see her becoming at least a switch in few years.
She’ll be a great dom.

@134 You are absolutely right! What I meant to convey there was that at 17 she should be able to distinguish whether or not he respects her boundaries. That's a given for any relationship that's going to go anywhere. Right now she doesn't seem to regret her decision and I don't think she should, it's a decision she made in good faith at the time and more power to her for knowing what she wants and going after it honestly! If he has "emotional power" over her, I assume it's because she enjoys the time she spends with him. She has dreams and goals and self-respect and I'd say a healthy view of all this. The more I read her letter, the more I think she's going to do just fine for herself. We could use more letters like this from people who know what's up and just want to check in. It's nice!

@135 I concur, I think she'd make an excellent dominant, if she decided she liked it. She has a fantastic attitude and when it comes to dominance, a little good attitude goes so very far. Plus, nothing prepares someone for being a dominant like being a submissive, it grants empathy and creativity beyond whatever you'd get with a dominant who cannot put themselves in the sub's shoes. If she keeps on like this, she'll do wonderfully either way.

EricaP @134. I can think of a reason, unrelated to "grooming" and power, why a married man might avoid presenting his lover to his wife. I can also think of a reason why the lover might agree.

Whether or not to continue the situation is up to TMI, of course.

@125 & @126: You GO, LavaGirl!!

Hi everyone, this is TMI. I really debated replying in the comments section out of privacy concerns, so I won't be able to address everything that's been said, but I truly appreciate everyone's honesty towards me. I never thought I would be able to tell someone about this without judgement, but this community of understanding, empathetic, and openminded people is a breath of fresh air. When I initially sent the letter in to Dan, I wrote it as a way to hopefully find advice for something that was troubling me, because it's not something I can discuss with other people in my life. I also freaking love this column as a longtime reader and knew Dan would have a balanced and insightful answer for me, even if it wasn't what I wanted to hear. That being said, Dan's response was very helpful and gave me a lot of clarity. The response from Dan himself, and the other people who have contributed, has been beyond what I ever expected.

To address a few points: I'm graduating on a normal timeline, I was only implying that I have a guaranteed job offer lined up at the same place I have an exciting internship. I also have a good relationship with my parents and am not estranged from them despite fundamentally disagreeing with their views on sex and religion. I can forgive them for being ignorant about some things; in the end it's my life and my choices. In terms of being excited to be financially independent, I'm excited until my freedom is no longer determined by who's paying for me, although I appreciate my parents' financial support until I'm very soon earning money myself. I understand the concerns over the age difference, but I don't feel traumatized in any way over what's happened; it's something I see as a positive experience, even though I recognize it's not one that can last forever. Thanks again to everyone. I hope you continue to voice your thoughts because it's been incredibly helpful in determining my next steps with my future, and shedding light on a situation that otherwise was confined to the echo chamber of worries in my head.

Perhaps Jack Nicholson, as "your typical horny, little devil" said it best in The Witches of Eastwick: "Men are such cocksuckers."

@140 gr8luck: Thank you for joining our SL comment thread! All the best to you, and congratulations on your degree.

@140: I'm glad you joined in, gr8luck, and hope that you find any of what any of us said helpful.

Thanks for checking in, gr8luck, and wishing you the best of luck in your undoubtedly very bright future!

@115. CMD. I'm not a biological parent but I experienced something similar after a stint as a caregiver. My attraction is to 'daddy' or elder brother figures anyways.

@114. Bi. My PhD is in comparative family law, not really quantitative sociology. Wherever I am, I do something people don't do. Like I'm a bad American. I studied almost no federal law. This is because I'm terrified of American competitiveness and individualism in elite settings.

There is at last common ground between us in how we see this case :)

@116. Nocute. You make one point I very much agree with. It’s that TMI's satisfying sexual experiences thus far are very likely only with this guy. So if (or when) it's hard for her to pull away, it's because of this very strong sexual pull. You think it's much clearer that she wants to break with (and is asking help for breaking with him) than I do. To me the letter is more confused.

On the more 'housekeeping' side of our comments, it was you who said you were projecting! And I was not crabbing you; it did not seem to me you were obviously wrong in your analysis because you maybe read your own experience into TMI's inititiatory sex. The supposition about her lover saying he was 'loving her and letting her go' was my ventriloquising what the advocates of 'this is a hot OR healthy D/g relationship' would have to think. It wasn't my view. I was trying to be even-handed.

I really don't mind whether I am goose or gander in this context. Your view, as I understand it, is that the genders are largely natural kinds; gay men are much more like straight men than straight women, and trans people (presumably) 'are' or 'are heavily like' the gender they have adopted. (I don't know how you deal with boundary queerers or experimenters). To you I am a gander; and that's fine--I understand that you're quite happy for me to view you as a goose. Honk honk! ;) I cannot think you would lock a disabled lavatory on me, or grab the placard from out my hands at a feminist rally. I also have problems with men who adopt a feminine identity, appropriating the structural and lifelong experience of women without entirely having been subjected to that disadvantage and without fully checking their privilege. I do not think your posts too long at all! They are concisely written.

Ms Luck - Well done on being able to take positives from something non-permanent.

I’m glad things are going well for you and you are moving forward. I was mortified to learn that you went to another country to meet someone you’ve never met in person in order to have sex with, let alone 30 years older when you are 20 at most, who also paid for your trip and very likely had some expectations as a result.
I’m relieved he wasn’t a violent creep, and that you’re likely to carry this as a positive experience for the rest of your life.

Think globally, act locally, have fun and be safe.

@Harriet: I literally had no gendered thought about geese or you or people or sexual orientation whatsoever. I wanted to use the adage "what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander," then thought I remembered you having taken mild umbrage here in the past with having been either inadvertently or deliberately misgendered and wanted you to know I was trying to respect your identity. We seem often to misunderstand each other, and I didn't want you to think I was factoring your sexual orientation or gender identity or expression into that old idiom, which I wasn't trying to use in a gendered or sexualized way.

And yet, I failed.

I was trying to say, "if you accuse me of doing something and then turn right around and do the same thing, I will call you on it." And the "you" in that wasn't you, specifically. The "you" could have been anyone, cis, trans, or non-binary; straight, bi, lesbian, gay, pan. We're talking geese.

@Harriet (#146): Dagnabit: this part got eaten before I sent it:

You say that to me it's much clearer that the lw wants to break up with her older illicit boyfriend, whereas you see her as being more confused.

I absolutely see her as confused. For one thing, that's why she wrote the letter! People who are sure of what they want to do rarely write advice columnists asking for advice!
Additionally, @75, I wrote this lengthy imaginary projection of what I think might be going through her head:

"She also describes the relationship as "confusing," and I wonder if it's because it maybe started as a more commodified relationship (the sugar thing), and now he says he loves her. There is every possibility I'm reading too much into that and that she also loves him or that this has never been a commodified relationship. But here's how I can see "confusing": "What is this relationship to me," she wonders. "This guy lives in another country; he's much older; he's married; I know he's not going to leave his wife for me. But he says he loves me! I don't know if I love him, but I look up to him and I feel like he introduced me to this important and meaningful side of my life--my kinky sexuality. Maybe I should end things. But if I end things, I'll have to get a job and it sure is nice to get the financial help. And he's just such a big part of my life. But I feel like this is wrong--I know I shouldn't be having an affair with a married man; I know his marriage could end and people would be hurt if this affair were discovered, and I don't want to be a party to that. But how can I leave? He's meant so much to me." And on and on. She's 20 years old; yes she's confused. Would she feel less confused if he didn't say he loved her? Probably, if this began as a commodified relationship. But even without the sugar thing, she is likely to be confused and conflicted."

Indeed, TMI herself (gr8luck) said @140: "it's something I see as a positive experience, even though I recognize it's not one that can last forever. Thanks again to everyone. I hope you continue to voice your thoughts because it's been incredibly helpful in determining my next steps with my future, and shedding light on a situation that otherwise was confined to the echo chamber of worries in my head."

I was trying to indicate that "echo chamber."

I was offering advice, not all that different from Dan's, of what I think she could do to shift this relationship from what it currently is into something else because it seemed clear she is conflicted about cutting it off entirely.

Since TMI is now here, perhaps we should be so courteous as to let her give her own opinion about her affair. If she wants to, of course.

Esperantisto @138 -- I see keeping it a secret affair (rather than polyamory) as similar to encouraging her to date "vanilla boys" -- good ways to keep gr8luck/TMI from finding community in the BDSM scene for several years while he groomed her into seeing kink the way he wanted her to.

D/s is not inherently abusive, but it easily lends itself to manipulation and abuse, especially when the sub is inexperienced and isolated. What did he tell her about negotiation, for instance? How much of their sexual adventures were about his pleasure rather than hers? (The phrase "you derive all your pleasure from giving me pleasure" can be true and hot, but can also be a manipulative line. Depends on the circumstances.)

Esperantisto @151 - Yes, absolutely.

gr8luck @140 - thank you for writing in, and welcome! If you haven't yet explored Fetlife and your local scene (via munches, classes, and other events), I encourage you to do so. And if you're up for explaining more about how you view your relationship with your dom, you have an audience here. :)

EricaP @152: I didn't read "encouraging her to date vanilla boys" as "encouraging her to date boys who were vanilla, reserving her kinky side for him" -- which would raise a red flag -- but as him encouraging her to date guys closer to her own age, which she did, but they turned out to be vanilla and therefore unsatisfying. TMI/gr8luck may be able to clarify, and also shed light on the theory of whether her lover is a sugar daddy.

TMI/ gr8luck- some more elderly advice I should have implemented in my own life:
You are not obligated to disclose the relationship you had with that man with any future lovers. If you do then I’d advise you to tell them about it before a major commitment ceremony or the equivalent takes place. People have different experiences and triggers; reactions may vary and may take time to clarify. If you disclose after marriage or the equivalent it may come across as if you were intentionally hiding something all along.

My personal experience also tells me that an itch, whatever itch it may be, is not likely to go away once you’re getting married, having children, etc. It also tells me that an itch or two or three can also grow on you in unexpected positive ways.

Lastly, if and when you have children attempt to build such relationships that will invite them to communicate with you on all matters of life.

Since I'm so late into this week's installment of Savage Love and unfortunately have little to add, I will try again on Tuesday's next SL edition. I have enjoyed some excellent reads and comment threads here, coming back from out of town on business seeking employment in the film & TV industry.
XO,
griz

@127. Venn. I'm not trying to erase anything but it's always encouraging when people think again.

@150. Nocute. Over the goose, gander and don't forget the apple sauce, I did not misunderstand you at all! I was saying that I am quite happy for you to address me as a man, as what used to be understood as a casual-Fridays transvestite, if you wish. Doesn't everyone wish for their comments to be received and evaluated on their merits, not as a reflection of their psychosocial gender-category? That's all I'd want.

I now see TMI has entered the thread and apologise for responding to two people without taking account of her statement (I think one of the comments didn't initially send and overlapped with hers).

@140. All the best with everything, gr8tluck.

Griz @155: Hope your trip was productive and look forward to your comments on next week's thread!

@152, 153: I interpreted that the same way as BiDanFan did. Maybe gr8luck will decide to clarify more, but it is interesting to me how many different ways a simple phrase can be interpreted. I wonder how many people write to Dan, and get his advice based on a misinterpretation of their intended meaning.

@TMI - If you stop texting him, can I have his number?

M?? Harriet - You do have an almost enviable capacity for having all cakes and eating them as well, or at least making a decent stab at it. It might be wise of you to take your winnings soon, though.

@162. Venn. What do you mean, 'take my winnings?' In life? Not post any more?

Thank you for writing in gr8luck, glad to hear you have a good relationship with your parents.
And thank you too Erica for chiming in. Giving us perspective from an experienced female sub.

@153: Fan and nocute @160. I took it the way Erica did. He encourages her to date vanilla boys so no other.. younger, available, virile... men can replace him. Yes. Another red flag.
Why would he encourage her to look for another to satisfy her kink, someone she could play with in the flesh, have real sex with often. She’s seen him for three weeks out of three years, others could offer her a lot more, and he knows it.

“ I date vanilla boys, with his full support, while we continue to text daily.” No mention of dipping her toes in a local kink community, with his support.

@163 Harriet_by_the_Bulrushes (re: @162 vennominon's comment): This is just a guess, but have you scored a bunch of Lucky @69 wins lately with multiple posts close to @69? That is generally frowned upon in the SL comment threads. For the record, if I have posted more than once and am close to @69, I'll back off to give others an equal chance of hitting the lucky number. If you have been a frequent @69 winner lately, someone else needs to take the crowning glory next week.

@159 BiDanFan: Thanks, Bi. I guess I couldn't help myself upon latest comments to jump back into the fray before Tuesday.
Anyone game for hitting the Two Hunsky?

Hey! Do I get a two-fer for scoring both a hunsky AND a 69?

Of course Grizelda, you must take all of it. Good thinking Batman.
Yes. It continues....

Gladys @161: Wait, what? There are billions of men in the world -- huge numbers of them dominant -- and you want a 50-year-old cheating ephebophile's number? Please get some therapy for your non-existent self-esteem.

Lava @166: Maybe there is no local kink community. Maybe that's one big reason why she's looking forward to moving to the big city.

Griz @169: Congrats on the double-trouble magic hunsky-plus-sixty-nine!

True Fan. Then get online and check out other Doms. As Erica suggested, if she’s not on fetlife, then do so. Doesn’t even have to say much, check the site out.
Start weaning herself from this man by something like this, if no kink community around, and start to go a whole day neither sending texts nor reading his.
He’ll start to insist on some reason, blustering in that self important and seductive way some Eurooean men have. At some point she’d have to come clean with her confusion re going forward.
Obviously this man has been important to her.
I still content Fan that by the wording of the letter, the encouragement from the suarve man, is for her to date vanilla guys.
Kinky people are hidden everywhere, why has she not come across one?

@167. Griz. Not sure that was what Venn meant.... He may think I want to have my cake and eat it with being gay and occasionally grouping in a mixed setting, or in claiming female status politically on occasion while not being all-out trans (being more bigendered). I guess I'm unhappy with identarians of any sort. Well--he'll either come out and say what he meant with 'take your winnings' or not.

BDF- Gladys is a troll

M?? Harriet - It just occurred to me that the assembled company might just as well predict your identity du jour by resorting to roulette - sometimes red, sometimes black, sometimes odd, sometimes even, and occasionally the green nought. You've come out ahead so far, I'd say, but I have a definite sense that the run of the table is about to turn. Too many nice wins turn into losses when the player stays in too long, although you are right that it's better to play longer when in luck than when out of it. It's a combination of maxims from Poirot and the bridge writer S.J. Simon.

I don't want to think that people should have to limit themselves with labels, but it certainly becomes frustrating at times when anything is open. Harriet has repeatedly called himself a gay man who has never been in a relationship with women and who has had very little sexual experience with women (and I think only in the presence of other men?) and who, when pressed, has repeatedly said he only identifies as a woman in the sense of what we used to call very occasional drag, and yet the open bigender label means he gets to speak with authority as a woman when it suits the discussion. Also I still use "he" because every time he has been asked over the months (that I'm aware of) he has responded that he is a man almost all of the time who nearly exclusively has relationships with men and also calls himself gay (you can't be a gay woman if you nearly exclusively fuck men so when he says he's gay I assume that means he's a man) though I've offered to use different pronouns if he prefers them and have been told it doesn't matter much to him which we use. So the reluctance of others to use "he, him" has confused me and made me consider if my resentment that femme gay men get to speak with authority on the experience of cis straight women is a form of bigotry in my old age, and to be honest I'm not entirely sure though I don't at all feel that way in anything that other gender fluid penis-havers here say. So I dunno. It's been interesting to follow this conversation though I probably shouldn't butt in here at the end too much.

Also it troubles me how easily some posters has dismissed the fact that this older man is flying around the world to cheat on his wife at the risk of blowing up his family. Of all the reasons that this affair is (or could easily become) toxic in all sorts of ways to all sorts of people, including the LW, that one should merit quite a bit more attention.

Let's not make it about the genitalia is like saying I don't see color. I'd love if our genitalia were not an issue in life, but it turns out that my experiences of puberty and sex and flirting and menopause as well as my rights to bodily autonomy and my experiences of health care and my risks- social and medical and cultural- all have quite a bit to do with my genitalia. As do these relationships- the middle aged woman who has birthed children to a man who now, in his old age, flies around the world fucking teenage girls behind her back and then tells them how he loves them and gives them permission to date vanilla boys, etc.

I didn't get the sense that the LW was harmed by the experience. She wrote in (thank you) and I still don't have that sense. She sounds mature- and she's asking all the right questions which makes me think she will walk away from this with memories and experiences that help her in life. And she probably had a great time with this dude.

That doesn't mean the dude isn't a fucking creep cheating piece of shit who probably has nothing good for this young woman's future if she were to carry on with him under the impression that she loves him or has some loyalty to him, and YES- both the harm this man is doing to his wife AND the potential harm he could do to this young woman's future (if she were a less self-possessed and smart person willing to take advice) are both very gendered and specific to the genitalia of the people involved. Sure it would be nice if this weren't so, but that is a complete denial of my own experiences and those of just about every other woman I know.

EL- reading your latest posts I realize I may have misquoted you earlier. (If academia folks wouldn’t treat every other post as a potential dissertation then ESLians may have a slightly better chance following what they’re saying…-))

As much as I see the potential for LW I think she took a huge risk by meeting someone who has clear advantage over her in every possible way. I hope she was at least smart enough to leave a note with a trusted friend containing the other person’s contact info, “Please open it if you don’t hear from me within 10 days.”

TMI’s chosen alias on this thread, “great luck,” is very telling indeed. After all she could have ended up in an Austrian basement, chained next to the dude’s daughter. (Based on a real life story.)

@170 LavaGirl: Many thanks! I'm ready for some celebration.
@171 BiDanFan: Hee hee! I accept!
@173 Harriet_by_the_Bulrushes: I was curious about vennominon's comment, too. Like you say, I guess we'll have to wait and see if he clarifies or not.

Yes EL, genitals sure matter when we’re talking about abortions.
Lots of attempts at cis women erasure bubbling around in the world.

@173 Harriet_by_the_Bulrushes: I didn't see vennominon's response @175 and my comment @180 to your question when I last posted until just now. I stand corrected--it has nothing at all to do with the Lucky @69 game.

SO----who's game for that Two Hunsky?

Doing my share

I will also do my part, whilst biting my tongue.

Not reached your quota of years then sangu, with your tongue biting?

@CMD

It's a weird thing because it is true that women are at risk in some situations in a way that men are less likely to be, though of course plenty of young men are likewise taken advantage of and can end up in some freak's basement, etc. Look at Dan's thoughtful and emotional article from a couple weeks ago about serial killers and hookup culture, etc. I'm sensitive to it because I've been on the receiving end of so many " you should be aware of the risks you are taking, young lady" conversations from so many probably well-meaning people, men and women. As if I have not considered my risks. As if I do not take the precautions I see are necessary. But I do want to live my life and enjoy my youth, and there is just no perfectly safe way to do such a thing- do smart adventuresome young men who wish to fly to other countries solo for youthful indiscretions and soul-searchings and passionate affairs have the same handwringing well-intended folks telling them to be careful or be aware of predators or any of that?

At the same time, there are predators out there, no doubt, and this man might be one of them though it seems he's a lesser category - his choice of sub seems smart, has a mind of her own, he's not done her any harm, she was legal age before they did anything, etc. If she's going into it knowing what she's about, then he can't really fuck her over in any way- but that's a hard line to walk.

So I'm a little conflicted. From the LW's point of view, it has the potential of being a good experience. From the boyfriend's point of view, it's creep city. I'm that age- college aged kids seem like snot nosed children to me. And there's the fact that we know the boyfriend is a lying piece of shit because he's risking blowing up his family and he's clearly NOT having campsite rule chats with his young sub or he wouldn't be filling her head with "I love yous" leading her to even have those ideas about him leaving her wife (which she's smart enough to acknowledge as foolish). AND yes, as many people note and you do not dispute- this is gendered. Aside from the issues of biology and reproduction, it is different between gay men for two other reasons- the younger will one day grow up and become an elder. The role model aspect is just not there between men and women- the woman still deals with issues around patriarchy outside of the relationship and this will go on for her entire life. She never gets to step out of the relationship and be just one of the guys, she never gets to age into the role of her elder lover.

So I see all the red flags, but I also see what is problematic with telling young women that if they fly around the world and have exciting affairs with mysterious strangers that they could end up locked in someone's basement. The trick is to actually understand what the world is about and what your various risks are in it and to have a realistic view of your experiences and the people around you and then to make your own decisions accordingly. That does not always mean prioritizing your safety- for many of us that is just a slow death.

This young woman seems to me to be working it out- it's an unfortunate part of growing up- and so far no harm has been done to her. That doesn't mean that the dude is well-meaning or unselfish.

So I said the least alarming thing about the relationship is her age- she's 17 when they started talking which is legal almost everywhere (probably including where one or both of them live) and she was legal the world over before anything happened. And as she's mature, I don't see what difference it would've made if she was 18 or 22 or 24- the age discrepancy is basically the same and in no cases is she a child or under his supervision in some way (he's not her boss, mentor, teacher, preacher, dad's friend, etc). The alarming things about the situation are the marriage, the fact that she even considers him leaving his wife, her own confusion, his proclamations of love, etc.

She needs to get out and let it be what it is- positive and negative together with real passionate memories and real growth and a benefit to her sexual instruction- while also taking a lesson from it. She could do much better. When you haven't seen much of the world, any hill can look like a mountain.

Ha ha---I LOVE it!! We're gonna hit Two Hunsky yet! Congrats in advance to the lucky winner.

Emma @176: Harriet identified as a feminine gay man when that was the closest label available. In this decade, a lot more labels have become available that could more accurately describe who he is. Homoflexible? Gender fluid? Both of these labels make sense to me. If Harriet were younger, he might have adopted a "they" pronoun. Like me, he's probably so used to his original pronoun that he sees no need to change it. Harriet, I hope I haven't mischaracterised you. This visceral inability to understand nuances of non-binary experiences of gender has been termed "cis privilege" or worse, bigotry, but from Emma's post it seems obvious it's just a fundamental inability to understand that not everyone experiences themself as either fully male or fully female. Our genitals are only part of the story. Like Harriet (projection alert!), I was assigned a certain gender yet conform to at least as many "stereotypically male" traits as "stereotypically female" ones, making me feel that "woman" was not an accurate label for me, any more than "white" would be an accurate label for someone of mixed race. Harriet has experienced the world from the perspective of a gay man, but has also experienced the world from the perspective of a person who is perceived as female, has "stereotypically female" interests and characteristics, and has some degree of sexual attraction to both genders. I don't find that confusing. People are complex; why shouldn't identities, for some, be complex?

Lava @181: What "cis woman erasure"? Can you give me an example of any cis woman being told that she is not a woman? "Attempts," you say, I think you mean misunderstandings. Recognising that there are more gender nuances than "male" or "female" does not erase anyone who identifies as 100% female.

EmmaLiz @186: Great, thoughtful analysis. The world IS riskier for women, and to not acknowledge that is naive, not misogynistic.

Dadddy @189: You are the misogynist. You also can't read if you see Emma's post as "stripping her of agency and questioning her ability to make her own decisions."

@175. Venn. But there's no game predicting my identity du jour. It isn't about me; it isn't really about any of the commentators. My identity is fairly stable: I am a genderqueer or bigendered man, not trans in being, or living as, a woman (a trans woman has made a bigger commitment to it, has put herself more on the line, than I have). Nevertheless if 999 people out of 1,000 would fit into a window of unproblematically being classifiable as 'female' or 'male' to a stranger at first glance, all my life I've been the one who wouldn't.

That's gender dealt with. In terms of sexuality, I would be about 30% of the way down the Kinsey scale (I can never remember which side is which) from Liberace to Mike Pence.

I comment because I feel I've learned a lot in life and want to be part of a group helping others (younger people especially) out. I'm on the downslope of my career--with projects now that entail my mentoring younger professionals to do things (to me) unconscionably slowly. If I've 'become the story' ... hmm, perhaps I'll persist and explain myself? Desist? Come back with a cis female persona? The last would rather defeat the point of writing in my own GQ person?

@176. EmmaLiz. I have never said that my identification with women, or as a woman, is limited to my wearing drag occasionally. It goes deeper than that; my identification as a woman goes deeper than my identification as a man. (It would have to, for any GQ self-conception to be sustainable). Identification is deeper than clothes. It’s about gender roles, patterns of behavior, attraction to certain cultures or gendered objects (toys in childhood; artworks, textiles, consumer goods etc. as an adult), interests, feeling that one is part of a certain group and not another. It takes in how one imagines, imaginatively experiences, sex, too. Surely you know all this?

In terms of sexuality, I'm not sure it's incumbent on me to say how many times I've been alone in a room fucking, or being fucked by, a woman. It’s happened. I've had female FWBs. All these women have been queer. I've never dated a woman exclusively or in any expectation that we would be seen as a heterosexual couple and go on (possibly) to procreate.

You're saying something, I think, that I very much agree with: that one's gender is not a matter of personal will or choice. A man cannot say he's a woman and want his words to weigh as much as a woman's, who's in fact been subject to gender-based forms of prejudice all her life. That's politically off. It’s wishful of him, callow--appropriative.

@193. Bi. Thank you for your support and characterization. Due to a prevailing distaste for gender indeterminacy, in society at large, at prep and public school (on two continents) and then (in different ways) on the mid-late 80s scene, throughout my formative periods I made efforts to 'man up'--to look like the imposing fellow I should have been capable of projecting as, given my frame. My androgyny, appearance-wise, is nothing like sylph-like; this is another form of acceptably nonnormative normativity I've dreamt of having. This would explain why I wouldn't think it open to me to be fully trans, to call myself a woman and nothing else, now. Re the advice, people may just be saying they won't take it from Widow Twanky--I'm used to it.

@199; Fan. I’m talking about those people who attempt to impose their concepts of gender on others. You want examples? Read these threads.

And you put words into my mouth, Fan. I never mentioned gender nuances and I have no idea what you mean by 100% female. I’m talking about experiences cis women have. My perception of myself is not about percentages. I sense lots of male bits to how I’ve lived my life, if one used some strick traditional definitions. I’ve mixed and matched as it’s suited me while living in a cis woman’s body, and all the biological joys that has brought.

Nearly there Grizelda! Just a few more comments.

M?? Harriet - I get some of that, too. I've been threatened for being in the "wrong" rest room. This year, I've been referred to as "she" about once a month; It appears that you get a good deal more.

Now I might occasionally post "as someone who has undergone experiences typical to X" but not "as X itself". You've posted as W/X/Y/Z in turn when you're really Q. And people have taken you seriously AS at least W - and that matters.

Now, if you hadn't posted things that constituted an attack on gay AS A GAY yourself, which people accepted and which gave it more weight, I could just sit back and admire your performance if I chose, as it has a good deal of skill in it. I have some fondness for devising terminology, and could perhaps even enjoy assisting you in the construction of a vocabulary if you weren't so clearly disinclined. Post as yourself (which I appreciate may be trickier) and I'll have no problem with you, just perhaps with what you say.

Now the times may also be making things worse. If we were not forced by the straightriarchy to share one box and one so-called-unified voice, I'm sure we could get along much better. That is why I've been pushing an amicable divorce for the Alphabet Soup. Who knows; perhaps you can conquer the entire LVBT after the G is gone? I might even wish you luck.

Lava @194: I think it's pretty obvious that I do read these threads, yet I haven't seen anyone denying anyone's cis-ness. And where did I put words into your mouth? -I- mentioned gender nuances, in my reply to EmmaLiz. What I mean by "100% female" is cis female, not non-binary, not transgender. What, again, do YOU mean by "erasure" of cis women? Who is denying that the vast majority of women are cis women? It's great that you can comfortably identify as a cis woman while recognising that this does not mean one has to conform to every gender stereotype, but there are people who don't conform to gender stereotypes and don't believe themselves to be female, or male. Has anyone ever denied that you were a woman or tried to call you "they"? I'm struggling to understand what you mean by erasure.

Closing in on that double-hunsky, and well off topic as it goes!

And the TWO HUNSKY winner is....

ME-snicker!

Daddy @ 187
I thought the comment made by Gladys @ 161 was rude and purposefully outrageous. Moralist commenters come here to preach, get ejected, open another account until exposed again, open another account, etc.
Gladys’ history fits very nicely into this category: recently opened account, two comments, one cannot see their previous comments.
Feel free to share if you know something I don’t.

Telling cis women that they can’t think for themselves, can’t know their own life situation and be trusted to decide to abort a pregnancy. And this attitude is growing stronger again, Fan. Pence has clearly said he wants abortion to be criminalised again. Trans women telling cis women not to talk about periods in their presence because they don’t have them. Cis women told not to say vagina instead call it their middle hole.
Our experiences get demeaned further when the men who rape are protected unless ten or more women can say he did it. And even then they are doubted. Cis women lie don’t you know. All The Time.

Keeeerist. There isn't a war against cis women - at least, not from the trans community. Where are these things being said? Can you provide proof? If a trans man wants to refer to his vagina as a middle hole, that's his right. He isn't demanding that you refer to your bits the same way. And if he is, well then he's a loony and is an outlier. Yes, womens' rights are being trampled on, but by the same people as usual. Being trans has nothing to do with it.

Women jumped on this site and said it sangu, and no I can’t give you the exact thread. What’s with all the you must prove it.. . You think I’m
lying?