BONDAGE: If it is fine that he's not feeling it (you), let it be fine - no extra explanation/apology needed. Is it a bit rude to let you buy the gear and then back out, but it sounds like you'll get the use out of them eventually, just not with this guy. Overall, a relatively low cost to get out a situation. It is, at the end of the day, a numbers game.
ETIQUETTE: I'd probably go one step at a time and build up. Presumably you've already fucked her while she's tied up a blindfolded. Next time you're playing with a third, have her do the tied-up-and-blindfolded routine while you're present and the third is a known party. Then perhaps do some role play where she's blindfolded but you're the Special Guest Star ("unbeknownst to her").
CUCK needs a bull who is a switch. One who understands both aspects of the needs of her husband and her needs to be the Domme, and able to respond to and enjoy the complex dynamics of their relationship.
CUCK's situation parallels it's, although they are much further along than we are. My wife is NOT interested in being dominated at all. Any "bull" (we're uncomfortable with that term) would need to be submissive. So... Write your own script!
The safest and least icky way I can imagine to realize this would be to find another couple just like us, essentially, and "take turns" cuckolding one-another. One submissive husband would visit the other couple and do as he's told And vice versa a few days later.
Still awful tricky. Who goes first? What does the uninvolved wife do while her husband is off with the other couple? How do they all establish trust to go through with this in the first place?
We're not really ready to do this IRL yet, but maybe someday!
Dang, no edit? First line should read: "CUCK's situation parallels ours..."
Question from a sidelines observer, is it really unusual for a BDSM hookup to meet and decide nah, I'm not feeling 100% confident in having this particular stranger off the Internet bind and gag me? Seems like that would be a thing that happens.
You know it strikes me that perhaps BONDAGE's first impression was of a guy staggering under kilometers of rope and duct tape, for forty bucks of hardware. Possibly came on a bit hard. Possibly I don't appreciate Manhattan hardware store markups...
I am a big believer in pheromones--in subconscious forces that make or break attraction which can't be predicted by photographs, no matter how current. I've gone on several first--and last--dates with someone who sounded great on paper and whose photos were cute and current. And still, in person the chemistry just wasn't there.
I hope the lw saved the receipt for the bondage stuff or can resell it or get use out of it later. That part is indeed a drag.
I've been into the BDSM scene since I was uh decidedly not old enough to be in and if my hook-up came in with $40 worth of rope and duct-tape from Home Depot I would reconsider. You're that into bondage and don't have your own gear, LW?
Could be that the guy chickened out once the bondage encounter started to be a reality. It's a big thing to let someone tie you up, and it's really fucking hot to think about and plan and talk about. But then when reality hits and the total stranger you just chatted with online is in the flesh in front of you with a bunch of hardware, well that little part of your brain that can sometimes override your horniness might chime in with a "WTF are you doing" so you turn tail. Seconding Mtn Beaver here.
As for the other, I had a friend with a stranger attack fantasy and she's an experienced kinkster and into BDSM. One of her bfs did exactly this- had a guy she'd expressed interest in show up at her house with his key, lets himself in while wearing a mask- it was just seconds of panic on her part, screaming and attempts at self defense before he was able to clear it up and reveal who he was. She told me it was the most terrifying experience of her life, there was laughter afterwards, no sex, lots of adrenaline. Part of any fantasy is the willingness to play along. For example, even if the gf went along with it in total surprise, she would know it was a set-up (obvivously not a real stranger just randomly up her stairs) and she would know that she could just ask the guy who he is. But she'll convince herself otherwise as a part of the fantasy- and if it's a guy she's played with before, chances are she could guess if she wanted to. So since this is all fantasy anyway, I agree that it's better to plan it ahead of time- but leave enough details open that the element of surprise will still genuinely be there. Get a short list of people she'd be willing to fuck (sex workers? Then she could have a legit stranger on her own terms. People you've played with before?) Then she wouldn't know who exactly it is. Get a general range of times that would be good. Then mix it up enough so she could be surprised when it actually happens.
@Tomlinson- why would you need to find another couple? There is no shortage of men out there who enjoy dominate women and who are down for an NSA hookup. The trick will be finding someone who doesn't mind you watching- that will definitely narrow your choices, but I still think that pool would be bigger than the pool of partnered men down for the same situation with wives who want to do something similar when it's their turn.
Sometimes people just don't click. I think it's strange that BONDAGE is obsessing over this. Maybe this somewhat clingy personality came through once he arrived??
For LW 1, what are you going to tell your bull about this just being GGG for you? I mean, "I don't really want to fuck you, but my husband wants to watch me fuck someone, so..." wouldn't exactly be something that would have me running to your door. Still, I suppose some guys might be into it.
Dan, you forgot the most important point in ETIQUETTE's question: the safeword! Even after they discuss every detail, if ETIQUETTE springs a VSGS on his wife at a time when, say, she has her period or is otherwise completely not up for sex, she needs to be able to indicate that the scene should stop without using words like "no! stop!" which are part of the fantasy.
What CUCK and her husband want seems very specific, but certainly not impossible to find. They should vet their bulls thoroughly. And maybe, at least at first, Mr CUCK should not "really" be tied up, just in case the scene goes wrong and he needs to step in and intervene.
I like Sporty's suggestion for ETIQUETTE: First time, he ties up his wife and blindfolds her and plays the role of VSGS himself. If that works well, bring in an actual "stranger."
Bumhole @10: BONDAGE does seem to be overthinking this. I get that he wasted his time and that's annoying, but why not shrug it off and conclude the guy just flaked? Move on.
For a woman who is a self-identified dominant, CUCK doesn’t seem to understand submissive men very well; she’s really that lost in understanding the needs of a partner into being cuckolded? As for whether the scene that works for her, sex with a submissive man, works to satisfy her cuckold partner, that is an open question. But unless she is only interested in sex with power imbalances, she might have better success, and less complications with this scene, by keeping the sex vanilla. This way the kink dimension is only in the cuckolding, and not also in the actual sex that is taking place.
As for BONDAGE, I think the issue was either (i) his photos did not match his presentation or (ii) his kinky partner saw him as an amateur when he showed up with rope from a hardware store. That is not BDSM equipment, and this guy might have made a totally reasonable assumption that someone without good quality rope is not an experienced rope bunny, and he was not interested in taking the risk of playing alone with a novice stranger.
Great advice from everyone above about ETIQUETTE’s scene. The important point for them to know is that she may not know her own reaction until she has explored this kink a bit, and baby steps, along with explicit and detailed conversation about what she wants, is a good idea.
Is CUCK really into the scene she moots? Her partner sitting caged and in lingerie watching her fuck another man? It's very specific.... Not only does her tone summon no enthusiasm for it, she (or the couple) would be looking for someone of confirmed tastes to 'guest star'. Also, she says that she's 'willing' to have a threesome, not that she throws herself into threesomes with lusty abandon. She's 'into' being GGG, but, as it reads to me, more as an intellectualized position or an obligation.
Traffic @11 raises relevant points.
It’s not inconceivable to me that her partner is the kinkster (with accelerating kinks as he progresses into middle age) and that she's the passenger.
BONDAGE, take the receipt for the rope and tape back to the store, get your $40 back and consider it closure. There are lots of guys for you to date in NYC. Bondage or no, casual or no, scene or no, daddy dynamic or none. Lots.
Why doesn't BONDAGE have his own gear? The guy was traveling, but he was at home. Why did he need to go to the hardware store?
I'd bail if a date showed up with duct tape, too. That shit is hell on body hair.
ETIQUETTE's partner should ask her whether her fantasy is just a fantasy. Sportlandia's suggestion, then, is good--blindfolding first, then the knock on the door and an absence, maybe coming back with e.g. cologne on.
Actually, though, of the LWs ... the rope guy's rope skills struck me as ropey; CUCK came over as an ordinarily assertive woman in bed, intelligently open-minded, with a relatively new partner in her mid-40s ... the person with the varsity-level kink, the emotional investment, the curiosity and the appetite for it, is very probably ETIQUETTE's wife (and him, too, a certain way).
Maybe Dan edited out some important detail, but to me BONDAGE's letter read like ~he~ was into being tied up, and the guy from San Francisco was a visiting bondage top who didn't have any of his gear due to travelling light. Why is Dan and everyone else assuming it was the other way round?
If we assume that the LW is the bottom, his letter makes a lot more sense. People who bottom exclusively often don't have their own "gear", so it makes sense he had to stock up at a hardware store. And as Mtn. Beaver observes @5, an experienced bondage top would surely be prepared for the distinct possibility that a prospective bottom you've just met for the first time would not feel comfortable to proceed with the scene, for whatever reason? Happens all the time, and often has bugger all to do with looks. Whereas it makes sense that a would-be bottom (especially an older bottom) would feel self-conscious and obsess over his looks and photos after being rejected in this scenario.
If a new date somehow gleaned I was into waterplay, and turned up from Bed, Bath and Beyond with a decidedly 'beyond' watering can ... then my heart would go out to them! Wet! And hot!
I wonder if it will kill it for CUCK's SO if the bull is submissive too. I'm not sure it's a given that the SO will still be (as) into it, in which case I recommend he consider this the price-of-admission for it to work for CUCK.
I think @ETIQUETTE is one of those letters where the LW shoulda been able to figure out for himself "you need to ask her what she wants" (that someone needs to be told that is generally kinda lame). But still a good letter; the scenario is hot, and the "bonus pro tip" and many Comments are helpful.
@19/Lost Margarita: We all agree on who was the D and who was the s, it’s just our experience rope bunnies also acquire good quality rope, and no knowledgeable and experienced rope bunny would consent to being tied up with hardware store rope.
What's with all these cis women writing in to Dan who feel the need to announce that they're cis at the beginning of the letter, when the fact is completely irrelevant? Why not also announce their ethnicity, their religion, and their job title? The only explanation I can think of is that they think "cis woman" is their gender and that trans women are a different gender, rather than that "woman" is their gender and being cis is just a fact about them which may or may not be pertinent to a given situation.
"We all agree on who was the D and who was the s".
Do we? Are we reading the same column and comments?
Dan: "[SF guy] had to make a snap decision when you arrived with that bag of rope and duct tape: Did he feel comfortable letting this stranger render him helpless?"
Mtn. Beaver @5: "is it really unusual for a BDSM hookup to meet and decide nah, I'm not feeling 100% confident in having this particular stranger off the Internet bind and gag me?"
EmmaLiz @9: "Could be that the guy chickened out once the bondage encounter started to be a reality. It's a big thing to let someone tie you up"
MalevolentAl @17: "I'd bail if a date showed up with duct tape, too. That shit is hell on body hair."
These responses seem to imply that the SF guy was the bottom, and must've bailed because he didn't feel safe letting a stranger off the internet tie him up, or because the prospect of being tied up suddenly felt too real and scary to him, or because he didn't feel like having his body hair ripped out with duct tape. Unless you're referring to yourself as the royal we? ;)
"it’s just our experience rope bunnies also acquire good quality rope, and no knowledgeable and experienced rope bunny would consent to being tied up with hardware store rope."
Would you say that your bondage experience mostly comes from the 'mainstream' het/pan rope community, rather than the gay leather/SM/bondage scene? I could be way off base here, but your repeated use of the term "rope bunny" suggests that that may be the case (I've never once heard gay men into bondage refer to male bottoms as "rope bunnies" - pigs, yes, or just bottoms, but never bunnies). If my assumption is correct, it's worth bearing in mind that there are some significant (sub)cultural differences between the two rope communities. From what I've observed, there's A LOT more fuss about expensive 6mm single-ply loose lay JBO-free handmade quality jute or hemp rope in the het/pan scene (and on Fetlife), than there is in the gay scene (and on Recon). It's possible that BONDAGE's date just didn't feel comfortable playing without his tried and tested gear, but I very much doubt that turning up with hardware store rope and duct tape made BONDAGE look like he lacked rope bottoming experience.
The attempt is obviously simply to disavow the legitimacy of the assumption being that one is cis unless stated otherwise. Undermining this assumption seeks to undermine trans prejudice by undermining the normalization of being cis.
Lost Margarita, Personally I have no bondage experience and it did not occur to me that the LW might not be the dom. In that situation, I think it would remove the risk of physical/sexual assault if that was a concern, but not necessarily the sudden realization that a thing you are fantasizing about is about to become reality and it might not be that fun in real life. The dude sees the rope, duct tape, and thinks to himself- am I really going to tie this guy up- and bails. Because the letter doesn't say the guy was into BDSM himself right? Just that the LW is. So it might've seemed a good idea in fantasy and not so sexy in real life. The only reason I'm speculating is because of the feeling of last minute jitters when you do arrange a hookup or when are about to go through with something new with someone you don't know- there's always a moment when I'd think to myself "am I really going to do this?" and my senses are on high alert- feels sort of like right before you jump off a bridge or something. Excitement is adrenaline, and it can fuel turning tail and running as easily as going all in for it. But this may not happen as much to men? Or maybe this is some weirdo personal thing that I'm projecting? But I always assumed this is why people sometimes don't show up for the things they arrange.
Spoopy I assume it's because they are writing Dan about sex and relationships and there are differences between cis and trans people in that regard that could affect their health and their sex life. Everything between what junk they have to what hormones they are on, etc. Did you catch the article this week about the trans man and the difficulties he's had with his gyn- they did not catch until much later that T was causing some of his reproductive organs to atrophy causing some unpleasant symptoms. Likewise with cis women and all the biology, hormones, reproductive health that goes along with that. A woman looking for a third is a very broad category with all sorts of considerations (what junk you have matters to finding the third, how old you are, what reproductive organs you have matters in terms of pregnancy possibilities, sex drive, menopause, ease of finding a third, etc). Seems pretty relevant to a lot of it.
Harriet re: Bed Bath and Beyond gear, ha ha, I would find that endearing as well. A lot of it is about perspective, making the choice to find something hapless and over-eager or corny as charming can make all the difference sometimes. A little generosity goes a long way. When I was a teen, I had a guy ask me to say a really stupid corny thing and I dished about it with the girls later and really made fun of the guy which was a terrible thing to do but I was still young and thought this was a good way to get attention and seem cool (they didn't know who the guy was at least). Anyway, one of the girls I was trying to impress was cooler and older and more experienced than me and she said point blank, "haven't you ever been really hot for something and then someone did it for you?" and I said yes. "How did you feel?" Pretty damn good. "What if they made fun of you for it instead?" Yikes. I've thought about that for decades. If dude showed up with a stupid fucking watering can for that reason, I'd fake it hot until I made it hot. But I don't know enough about BDSM to know for sure, but someone with rope and duct tape from Home Depot sounds sort of novice? I don't know if I'd go through that with a stranger- there are all sorts of additional concerns when you start tying people up, regardless of who it is. If he's the top, does he have the experience to be safe? And if he's the bottom, would he feel safe? And they don't know each other and clearly haven't spent much time discussing it, so there's more to be concerned about than just the potentially endearing over the top effort.
Thank you @19. I think the LW is the bottom. I also assume that if the local guy (in NYC) were the top, he would have gear readily available at home. Further, as you say, a traveling top may not have his gear with him. I assume that the discussion leading up the meeting included the local guy's stopping at Home Depot and picking up what he did. With all of the pictures the LW mentions, surely the type of rope is not an issue. I assume that these pictures show duct tape in use.
The bottom line for the LW is just to let it go. Assuming that those pictures you mention are of you and what you are into, you do click with some guys. That you didn't click with with this particular guy just goes to show that you can't know until you meet.
@5, While it certainly happens, I don't think it common for guys who actually meet not to play, but it is all too common for guys not to show up (because they were only using the negotiation as wank material).
"Or maybe this is some weirdo personal thing that I'm projecting? But I always assumed this is why people sometimes don't show up for the things they arrange."
No I think the jitters are a real and common thing :) I also think some people are quite happy to string others along and have no intention of showing up and going through with whatever hook-up or BDSM scene they were discussing online. The validation and adrenalin rush of some stranger wanting them enough to arrange a meeting is enough for them. They are habitual time-wasters.
What the LW is describing is a bit different though, as they did meet, but his date rejected him after "30 seconds of small talk". Which, you know - shit happens, and strangers off the internet don't owe you anything, least of all sex and bondage, yadda yadda, but I can kinda sympathise with the LW here. It feels more personal than if the guy just didn't show up. He cruised the LW, asked for his picture, invited him to his hotel to play (not to some neutral public space to chat and see how it goes), presumably told him he didn't have any bondage gear and was OK with the LW bringing his own - and then took one look at the LW and said he just wasn't feeling it, goodbye. I doubt the LW even got a chance to bust out his Home Depot rope and duct tape in 30 seconds, so that entire sentence seems like a bit of a red herring. Unless he was wearing a MAGA cap or somesuch, he probably didn't get a chance to say or do anything particularly off-putting.
So, I'm not surprised the LW is feeling bummed and insecure about it and still trying to figure out why (was it my picture? did I smell? what's wrong with me? etc.). My guess is that it's either, as Dan said, his pictures are not as representative as he thinks, or the guy had something else going on that we don't know about (maybe he had a better offer and decided to spend the evening elsewhere?). In any case, I think Dan's advice is spot on. I hope the LW gets some closure.
Ah you're right. 30 seconds isn't enough time for him to reveal his purchases. He probably included that info as evidence that he was invested in this hookup, and I've taken it as a red herring- thinking it had something to do with the rejection.
@24/Lost Margarita: I would say my experiences have led me to meet a large number of the best riggers in New York and a few top riggers from San Francisco and Europe. That includes gay, lesbian, and queer gendered riggers and subs.
As for the term rope bunny, that seems to be fair common across genders and sexual orientations, so far as I’ve seen.
If you haven’t engaged in rope bondage at a high level or watched those who do, you are off base. People into bondage don’t use hardware store bought rope. That’s Bondage 101. It would be something people would look out for at a party, as would people looking to do suspensions with something other than carabiners meant for rock climbing.
CUCKs problem seems pretty simple "You aren't good enough slave, so I got another slave and you are going to watch me fuck them" It's not like NSA femdoms are not in demand.
Dans advice about the ravishment scenario is reasonable, but it skates around the fact that some submissives really react negatively to the legalistic establishment of boundaries and getting buy in on everything. They want to feel out of control and like their partner is dangerous, overpowering and unpredictable on the fantasy level. Being a nice guy/gal and asking permission is the opposite of that and an instant arousal killer. Springing this kind of thing out of the blue is risky though because you have no idea how horny and into the fantasy the other person is right now. So it becomes a very delicate game of tiny subtle hints that now is a good time, and an ironclad expectation that the sub will safeword if they are actually not into it and the dom will respect that. Really can't work without established trust in the couple but even then it is tough to pull off.
@26. EmmaLiz. Yes. My point was that the LW is perhaps a BDSM novice if he's buying Home Depot rope but also, yes (!), that shouldn't or needn't have stood in the way of his getting it on with SF guy. I know very little about BDSM, am not into D/s or much roleplay at all, but even I know that the rope is specialist.
Actually none of the scenarios are hot to me personally--but doesn't that make me a better person to think about them (so long as I'm un-judgmental?) ... I'll think what's reasonable and not be clouded by erotic investment. Shibari, however, is out-the-window hot, with mirrors, and a mixed crowd of all ages, genders, sexualities and experiences.
@31. drjones. How is the femDomming NSA when her hapless SO is perched on the bedroom armchair in chastity restraints and a Victoria's Secret threepiece?
@25 please ignore above, hit post too early.
A lot of trans people, myself included, want to be presumed cis. I want to be able to say "I'm a man" without people assuming I'm trans because I didn't specify that I'm a cis man. I'm not ashamed of being trans but I don't want that to be a factor in every single encounter; I want to be seen as a man first and foremost. Cis people are 99% of the population, so numerically, being cis is the norm. Constantly identifying themselves as such would be like people constantly identifying themselves like "Hi, I'm Carol and I don't have IBS." It forces the minority of the population of whom this isn't true to either lie or reveal private information about themselves in a first encounter.
How can I disagree with spoopy here?
@25 I articulated what allies are TRYING to do...but I see you're totally right it could come off as prejudiced for people who aren't in a minority that's discriminated against to rush to say that that they aren't what haters hate. OTOH, since most people aren't PC enough to (with good intentions) do that, discriminated-against people aren't under the slightest pressure to highlight the opportunity for haters to hate THEM.
Such a great point. WRT "cis" I'd kinda like to do whatever most trans people wish for allies to do (which is what?). I do think that discriminated-against people deserve the right to dictate such language norms (like that the N word can never be spoken by others, and deciding upon and changing as they wish what others should say instead).
SublimeAfterglow @30, your comment gave me a right chuckle. Way to go with the hierarchical rope elitism and celebrity worship (another common feature of the het rope world).
I've been tying people for 6 years, suspending for around 4. As I'm based in the UK, I haven't hung out with "the best riggers in New York", though I recall about a year ago there was a whole avalanche of consent violation accusations against many "top riggers", event organisers and rope teachers in your scene, so perhaps that's a good thing. I don't put much stock in rope pedigree, but just for context, I took suspension classes with people like Kazami Ranki, Pedro, Barkas, Gorgone, Soptik, Felix Ruckert, Kristina Marlen, FredHatt and Anna Bones, etc. - perhaps you've heard of some of them? Is that enough bondage kudos for an online argument, or would you like to see my portfolio?
My point is, that a statement like "no knowledgeable and experienced rope bunny would consent to being tied up with hardware store rope" is pretty funny, as is the suggestion that that must surely be why the LW's date didn't want to tie him. I don't tie with hardware store rope, but if I was travelling sans rope gear, and saw some pictures of a rope bottom I wanted to hook up with, and they said "hey, I don't own any rope, but I can pick some up on the way"? And they were cool and experienced and we both wanted to scene together? Damn right, I'd tie them with hardware store rope. I wouldn't suspend them or wrestle or do anything crazy with that rope, but yeah, I'd be up for doing a fun floor scene of some description. One of the hottest bondage scenes I've done involved mine and my partner's clothes and not much else. You don't need rated climbing gear and rope from a reputable bondage supplier for every single scene - not when you understand how bondage works and what the specific risks are.
@35, spoopy. Yes, I can see your point. And for males, cis or trans, issues haven’t come up so much publicly. As a cis woman, a lot of trans women are very vocal about what they want and don’t quite get that cis women have wombs. We bleed every month. Sometimes grow babies. Have weird mood swings and changing sexual attractions around that time each month when we bleed. These are the parameters of cis women’s lives. And trans women have other issues they must face in their experiences of life. Yes we are all under the same umbrella of being women.
Personally, if a man was trans, and any sort of romantic energy was happening, I’d want to know upfront. My attraction is to cis men. Doesn’t mean a trans man is not a man, because I am attracted to cis men.
Given what I’ve read on these threads, lots of people are specifically attracted to trans women or men. So it goes both ways. It’s just, there are biological differences even if there are not psychological ones.
Back to the Etiquette letter - I'm imaging all the ways "surprising" her with that scenario could go wrong. Definitely not something you want to spring on her. @1 had some good suggestions.
I can’t see why it needs to be such an issue spoopy, at least between aware people. Yes out in the transphobic world keep your own counsel.
We all got to be proud of ourselves, and go yeah that’s right this is me. I’m a sixty six just a few months shy of sixty fucking seven yr old woman. My periods finally stopped in my late fifties. So tell you the truth, I no longer know what gender I am. You are the one who sees a less than in being labelled trans. Others don’t, not if they are awake and aware.
@23 I think you're on to something. It literally doesn't matter if the woman in question is a cis woman or a trans woman.
I think the real answer is it's the lingo of these spaces. It's virtue-signalling (in this case, non-pejorative virtue signalling). It's no different than the greetings some religious folks will give you; or yoga practitioners, etc. lots of subcultures have specific greetings, and over the last few years, gender-issues advocates have started to bleed into the mainstream.
@42 Sportlandia "It's virtue-signalling"
I looked up this term:
"Virtue Signalling refers to the public expression of an opinion on a given topic primarily for the purpose of displaying one’s moral superiority before a large audience to solicit their approval."
However the actual intended purpose of saying one is 'cis' is to support a minority which is subjected to prejudice (as I elaborated upon @25).
So what I think Sportlandia is doing @42 is 'asshole-signalling" (that is, displaying that he is an asshole).
Yes curious2, me thinks some woman has done him wrong recently. He’s baiting all over the place.
I've been calling things "vice signaling" since anti-SJWs decided to increase their use of the F word with the intention of triggering snowflakes. It seems currently to be most in fashion among members of minority demographics out to convince their new right-wing wannabe-besties that they aren't PC. I do wish I could keep people from falling into playing the One Good Gay game.
I'm glad LW1 is in her forties, and the couple is presumably unmarried. Were she younger and they married, he might request (in Donald Stimpson's term) that they "go the whole hog", which would make her being cis relevant. The point about wanting to pass is a perfectly valid reminder that the Alphabet Soup is not a monolith (and should separate).
I'm inclined to agree with Ms Cute about L2. Mr Savage was doing fairly well on that answer until the conclusion.
@43 "virtue-signalling" existed long before it became an insult. it's something that happens in the world and we all do it. Even so, I went out of my to indicate that I didn't mean it in the more modern sense, but I can see that your desire to insult someone else so you could feel morally superior is bigger than your reading comprehension.
@43 also, " the actual intended purpose of saying one is 'cis' is to support a minority which is subjected to prejudice" - that might as well be dictionary definition virtue signalling. What is your problem with that?
@43 So what I think Sportlandia is doing @42 is 'asshole-signalling" (that is, displaying that he is an asshole).
Pot, meet kettle.
@49, sorry, that first sentence was a quote from @43. I forgot the quotation marks.
I certainly didn't mean to plagiarize such a fine piece of insightful writing.
I went so far as to find the definition of the term you used. I will not also find for you the claimed alternate definition of the term you used that you claim makes you look like less of an asshole. You're welcome to do your communicating all by yourself; I am smart enough I'm sure I COULD assist you, but I'm also very busy.
By the definition I cited @43, your answer is already in my @43.
I'm just now catching up on this week's Savage Love comments.
Nice job, ETIQUETTE, on your clever sign off name!
@12 BiDanFan: Thank you for mentioning the importance of a safe word for ETIQUETTE. I'm surprised Dan didn't suggest it in his response to the LW.
Lost Margarita, your posts are inspiring. I know nothing of bondage, the thought of trusting strangers to tie me up brings on the shivers.
And I agree I can empathise with this LW, how come after thirty seconds the guy bailed. Rude to not even chat for a little while. Thems the breaks LW, and chalk it up to one of the pitfalls of strangers as bondage partners.
Haven't had time to catch up on everything.
Margarita @19: I've re-read the letter and there doesn't seem to be anything in it that reveals which of the two men is the Dom. I am not sure whether it matters. A Dom can just as easily decide that there's something about a prospective sub that doesn't feel right to them, and say thanks but no thanks. Subs as well as Doms are capable of violating a partner's boundaries. Sometimes the simplest answer is the right answer and there just wasn't the in-person chemistry Mr San Francisco wanted.
Spoopy @35: Interesting perspective, but someone choosing to identify themself as cis does not require you to identify yourself as a trans man. Just say man if that feels right to you.
Stating that one is cisgender when that fact is not relevant is hardly the only common instance of including not-strictly-necessary labels. I often see LWs state something like "I'm a bi woman in a monogamous relationship with a man." The bisexuality isn't relevant. But as a bisexual I don't feel offended that they included it. People can include whatever information they like about themselves, be that their gender, age, sexual orientation, etc. Whether relevant or not, I don't see that it does any harm.
The world is in a sad state when signalling virtue, such as openly supporting trans folks, is seen as a negative thing. War is peace, freedom is slavery, being offended is worse than being offensive. If only Al Gore could have foreseen this development when he was inventing the internet. (Ha ha.)
@35. Spoopy. First, as a throat-clearer, trans women are women and trans men are men. Now ... as a FTM trans person, not only are you a man, you almost certainly come over as, 'pass' as, in the old argot, a man relatively straightforwardly. As someone whose inclinations are MTF, I've no hope of doing that ... to the extent that I would never call myself 'trans'; I'd call myself bigendered and genderqueer. Six foot three stooping--am I going to pass as a woman!? In the case of men, your gender, it may be quite right for a man to introduce himself in writing as 'a man', but this wasn't the usage you were taking exception to. You were jibbing at a 'cis woman' so describing herself; and as a marginal or debatable or political or occasional woman, I have to say that I'm delighted she's done so. She is not contesting the right of trans women to be women. She is saying there are greater varieties of womanhood than the AFAB cis woman.
@46. Venn. What is 'going the whole hog?' Putting on a strap-on? We don't know whether the couple do that, or whether she would like it. Or is it something else? Surely you can't think it's transitioning?
No one has ever supposed the alphabet soup is a monolith. It’s a political coalition.
Harriet @56: How on earth do you know how well Spoopy "passes"? I would encourage you to watch Queer Eye, episode 4 of series 2. Skyler obviously does not pass as a cis man, both from his appearance and particularly his voice. Your comment is patronising. I'm sure Spoopy has experienced his fair share of difficulty along his journey, and no doubt there are people in his life who have made things worse for him. Can we just stop with the "you're so lucky" comments towards people whose shoes we haven't walked a mile in?
@curious2 I know its difficult for you, but when someone signals a virtue, they're virtue signaling. I don't give a fuck what Know Your Meme says. That shit also says the OK sign a kkk sign, which means you're definitely in the kkk. Have I got it right?
As I asked @51, point me to a definition (a reputable external one, the essence of communication is that you may not define your own words) . Until then I'm sticking with thinking you're an asshole idiot.
p.s. "...someone signals a virtue..." is loaded bullshit you shouldn't let people know infects your head.
@60 p.p.s. "I'm sticking with thinking" this based upon the definition I found, which you say is 'only' the current definition.
@11: Men who are into fucking women who aren't into fucking them are so common that we're currently in the midst of yet another cultural campaign to try to deal with their tendency to act on those desires and sexually assault women. That said, since (unethical) dominance seems to be part of the draw there, finding a SUBMISSIVE man like that is probably more difficult. Also, one probably doesn't want to actively try to invite someone with a greater than average likelihood to rape/assault one into one's bed.
@19: Good catch, I agree that others were making the opposite assumption.
@25, 35, 37, 39, 41, 55, 56: One of the travails of existing in a culture with institutional prejudices and bigotries is that there often is no universally 'correct' thing to do, because various traumatized/marginalized people will react to anything that potentially invokes their (our) trauma/marginalization in ways specific to their (our) personal histories. So some people will interpret the noted practice as anti-transphobic, while others interpret it as transphobic. Personally, I like the disruptive effect on default assumptions that labeling what is otherwise an assumed default (cis) provokes, and that's informed by my view as a genderqueer person who thinks having normative social gender categories AT ALL is marginalizing and harmful, which puts me at odds with both cis and trans people who are very invested in maintaining the social gender categories with which they identify. The only actual win condition is to not have a transphobic society (and people won't even necessaeily agree what that looks like, even just in terms of how gender works in that society), and any actions taken in the context if a transphobic society may function as transphobic for some people in some circumstances. It's rather like how there's really no ethical consumption under capitalism, only choices about the degree of harm done to different people and populations, and for general practices, we often can't accurately predict the degree and direction of harm or account for every possibility.
There is no central committee for non-normative gender expression and identity to mandate rules ot even determine majoritarian preference. David Valentine's "Transgender: Ethnographyof a Category" is a little dated now, but it still does a good job of illustrating how unstable and contested gender and sexuality categories are among people who (in some contexts) consider themselves some variety of trans. Particular communities and subcultures will tend to establish local norms, which serve to establish and bound the group (I agree with Sportlandia on this point, though I would call it tribal signaling rather than virtue signaling when its function is to establish group identity without necessarily making a moral assertion; I also read the comment @42 as neutral and descriptive, not assholery/baiting); often these can't be generalized. One should be careful of anyone insisting that there's universal agreement about any best practice among the members of any marginalized group, or that zir personal preference is THE way to do things. Really, the best anyone can do is pay attention to norms for whatever space one is in, try to be mindful of the likely impacts of one's actions on others, and actively try to not be an asshole, working to make amends and avoid future harm if one fucks up.
@60 it's English, Dumbfuck. Signalling a Virtue IS Virtue Signalling. It's called a "cognate". And in any case, your definition is meaningless since, at the time, I specifically mentioned I wasn't using that common meaning of the work. Like fuck, how much more obvious to I have to make it, or are you just committed to being an ignorant piece of shit?
Whatever. This thread loses it, every week.
Of course nobody has to self identify any info up front. This is a thread where people ask for help. The more info given, the better Dan and us lot.. can help. Nobody walks round the streets going ‘oh hi, I’m a cis woman.’
Gotta say I really dig the contrast between comment @62 and comment @63. It's like a snapshot of Every Online Discussion Forum, Ever.
Point taken John @62, re Sportlandia not baiting on @42. He sure has been firing on a few other threads. I don’t mind honest points shared re gender politics. When he joins others as just another male baiting responses from women, he’s looking to join the list of easily ignored.
Congrats in advance to this week's Lucky @69 winner!
And this week's lucky recipient is.............!!!
@64 LavaGirl, I have to agree... people are not just asking for help and advice, but asking for help or advice about sex. And the cis vs. trans aspect is usually relevant. In fact, the realization that trans men are not precisely the same as cis men was a breakthrough for me in coming to better understand my own trans kid.
@58. Bi. Spoopy's objection is that a norm of someone identifying themselves as 'cis' or 'trans' would 'force the minority of the population of whom this isn't true to ... reveal private information about themselves in a first encounter'. I take from this that, supposing he were not put on the spot (or supposing, perhaps, that he were not the object of heightened scrutiny in an atmosphere where people's gender was under investigation) that he would come over on a first encounter as cis male.
By contrast, I'm going to get funny looks however I dress and present myself.
It's a given, a cliche, that trans men can acculturate, take to, their adopted gender, or found or properly (re)assigned gender, more readily than trans women. Someone not apprised of this is just not party to, or not keeping up with, the debates. It's not exactly that there's a hierarchy of trans men being higher than trans women, because both want to be part of some other gender category than 'trans' (in most cases), and issues of relative cachet and symbolic legitimacy get embroiled with the wider issues of gender politics addressed by feminism.
There is a whole other set of issues about the greater difficulty, sometimes the greater cost, of phalloplasty as against vaginoplasty, which include whether the number of trans men choosing not to have 'bottom surgery' skew the figures to underrepresent those transitioning FTM. Historically the ratio has been something like 5:2 in favor of trans women (on early 2010s figures), though in the last year of better-kept statistics (one might think) it's been something like 6:5 in the US.
What's off about spoopy's remark is that he's querying a woman calling herself 'cis', not a man. It's strange to me he knows so little of the politics. As there are fewer male than female feminists, fewer gender-politics-sensitized guys than women, there will be fewer men introducing themselves in writing as 'cis male'. (And, perhaps, there will be some very sensitized cismen understanding trans men's concern and going for _ male). Personally, I would be delighted if more gay men described themselves as 'gay cis male'.
@69 fubar: Congrats on scoring our highly coveted Lucky @69 Award this week! May good fortune smile upon you in a bountiful abundance soon.
1) You have a point.
2) I'll bet you're a barrel of fun at parties.
@62. John Horstman. You have the same position as me--which is not surprising; it's the intellectual GQ position: that saying 'cis' or 'trans' has a salutary effect in disrupting default gender presumptions.
M?? Harriet - I'll give you a preliminary clue. Consider why Anne Boleyn was more harshly reviled than Katharine of Aragon.
Many of those on the right with power are quite delighted to treat all non-S letters as exactly alike. Even the neutral people don't care enough to work out the differences as a rule.
Of course you want us to identify ourselves. If I were in a joking mood, I'd suggest it would be so that you would know which of us to send to the camps where they'd be forced to service women in order to be ready to repeat the performance with the T and the GQ, but it might give you ideas, and therefore I shan't. Officially I shall accept the reason stated.
As for Going the Whole Hog (from Patrick Hamilton's novel Mr Stimpson and Mr Gorse; the novel has a Rumpole connection, being part of Mr Hamilton's Gorse Trilogy that was adapted and filmed for television as The Charmer. It happened that The Charmer was filming at just the time of the season of Rumpole that introduced Mizz Liz Probert. Accordingly, Abigail McKern, who had been considered for the role of Mizz Liz opposite her father in the title role, had to decline, and the first season saw the character played by Samantha Bond), my apologies for thinking that the ultimate extremity would be easily determined in this context. However, for those who are striving to eliminate gender and at least homosexuality from the world, I can see how one might have gotten out of the way of thinking that would recognize the pinnacle of cuckoldry to be raising another man's biological child. In fact, I'm rather surprised the question hasn't arisen in the column yet; people must be more heavily invested in consent than is immediately apparent.
Not sure what you said there Mr Venn, you can rest assured no women will be forced to couple with gay men. Or vice versa. You do get a bit scary sometimes.
Gender is what you make it. Some want zero self definitions, go for it. It’s so fraught with words and fear and yet we all have our experiences in the body we have. However you want to label those experiences, doesn’t change that we have ‘em.
Hope things are going well with your child fubar@69; and congratulations for scoring the magic no.
Gender roles, cultural expectations have changed so much in my life time. From the pretty set rules of the fifties till now. My take has always been work with what you’ve got. If some outside force is imposing how one should be, just flick them. Design one’s own expression of who one is in this body.... it still ages, it still dies.
We are all 100% humans, and from there, anything can happen.
@74 vennominon: I'm not sure what you said there, either, vennominon. Would you please further clarify your statements?
@75 LavaGirl: "...you can rest assured that no women will be forced to couple with gay men." I'm not so sure about that, either. To be fair I only skimmed briefly through what vennominon (@74) said, but I have this true story to tell. An old college friend of mine with gay preferences secretly had plotted for me to marry him against my will. Towards the end of his life he contacted my father behind my back, buttering my dad up, bonding and confiding, somehow believing that that was all that was necessary to win my hand in holy matrimony (as if), and that he was the Answer to My Prayers (!?). There was no mutual spark or deep, death-do-us-part love between us--we never even had sex--ever. There was just his weird idealization of me, spiraling out of control late in his life. He even offered my parents what was in his savings (as what, a dowry? A bill of sale?). His underhanded plan, out of sheer desperation to get off the hook from being condemned as a childless bachelor, was to acquire a legal wife who would then produce him a truckload of children--all to look good in the eyes of his mother, siblings, and clergymen.
Another theory in assessing my friend's bizarre behavior was that by age 40 his health had sadly plummeted from alcohol abuse and a poor diet, and possibly he was hoping to have someone to take care of him. I'm surprised that in his zeal he didn't steal a car and drag me off by my hair in the middle of the night. Sadly, he died in his sleep of natural causes several months later.
Oh, my friends, Griz could tell you stories that might even curl bestselling novelist Stephen King's hair.......
Ms Grizelda - Yes, outliers exist. But people are starting to pretend that it does not run massively the other way in general.
Ms Lava - It's the logical conclusion of the first premise of Mr Savage's anti-"transphobic" line, as well as that of the gender warriors. There have been people for some time deriding all monosexuality as bigoted. And the line of what's being called "transphobic" seems to be in constant motion, as if it were on a drive for a touchdown in the Super Bowl. Now much of this is obviously a good thing. And I don't blame anyone who likes the idea of one's personal preferences happening to be the social norm. If P implies Q, Q implies R, and each letter irrevocably implies the next, then really P implies Zed.
@74. Venn. Raising another man's biological child! Forgive me, but I don't think that occurred to anyone but yourself as the epitome of cuckoldry. The LW is in her mid-40s and suggests, if we read in between the lines, that her relationship with the subby guy is new or new-ish. I had no sense that they would be starting to raise children together.
Possibly she has a child / children already from an earlier relationship, but their co-parenting, of his share of her kids' upbringing, in no way enters into their scenes or fantasy life.
On the LGQBT...... politics (again), I see no need for each element of the alphabet soup, or cheese string, to be named as part of the alternative group to the straights. None. (The identification helps in offering dignity and a sense of public belonging to minorities, but as the codeword for a subculture it could be internal to the queer ensemble; or e.g. an asexual person could just say to a straight 'I'm ace', without feeling the need to explain why an ace is queer/LGQBTetc.). I would be perfectly happy with two broad categories, 'the people' and 'those particular people, the cishets'.
Hang on there brother, Mr Venn, how is it the logical conclusion? You jumped a few steps there in validating your conclusion. What is Dan’s first premise and which gender warriors.
Anyway, you and The Wanker talk amongst yourselves.
@78. The socially operative distinction is not the 'monosexuals' (uptight straights & Gold Star homosexuals of both genders) on one side, and 'plurisexuals' (the bi, pan and variously queer), on the other. This basically misstates the character of homophobic prejudice. Second, I think it's a fantasy, on the part of the longest-standing sexual minority, gay men, of being accepted.
@80. LavaGirl. I thought you were very much in the mainstream of progressive thought when you said that cis and trans women were all 'under the umbrella of women'.
Damn, everyone's tetchy this week.
I have never heard the term "virtue signalling" used in anything other than a derogatory context. It's used to derail whatever someone has said by intimating that the motivation behind their good deeds is simply to pat themselves on the back online, thus discrediting them as an actual person who cares about the cause they're verbally supporting. The same people who use this term also call people "social justice warriors" and mean that negatively, as if supporting social justice is a bad thing.
Harriet @70: I think you've missed Spoopy's point, which makes more sense the more I think about it. If every cis person decides to show support for trans rights by identifying themselves as a "cis man" or "cis woman," then someone who identifies themselves as just a "man" or "woman" is outing themselves as either transgender or transphobic! So unless it does matter to a specific situation, perhaps including "cis" may indeed do more harm than good.
LaDeDa Harriet. You are so constraining and proscriptive in your gender perspectives
Be who you wanna wanna be, as the Mamas and Pappas said, and leave room for others to do the same.
Not sure I follow Fan.
And this is a specific situation as in someone is writing in to Dan, sharing about themselves.. using words they want to use to self describe.. and asking for help. That spoopy took offence is not the fault of the LW, who was just sharing their story.
Harriet, a man raising another man's child was literally the definition of cuckoldry for years and years before it took on its modern meaning to just be the husband of an unfaithful wife. As a kink of course, it is play. The word comes from birds who are tricked into nesting another species' eggs. Also the idea of being a cuckold- of being unwittingly screwed over and then going along with it, taking the consequences and being played the fool- is what's behind the conservative use of the word "cuck". And yes, plenty of MRA types obsess constantly over men unknowingly raising other men's children- it's part of the competition in their marketplace competitive view of sexuality. It does happen, though not nearly so often as these guys claim it does.
And yes, as Venn says, this is not what's going on here- the couple is not married and the woman is not of an age that has a high risk of pregnancy, but these considerations are part of why it could hypothetically matter if the woman was cis or trans, aside from the more obvious reason: what junk she has will affect how she finds the third. I don't think that Venn was seriously considering that a couple would be interested in this more classic understanding of cuckoldry- I took it more as a joke but you never know with Venn and I don't follow most of his cultural references.
Re: the wider conversation with using "cis"- mostly I don't have an opinion on this topic and will use "cis" when it's the norm in communities and not when it isn't just to be polite. Sometimes in specific conversations it's relevant for clarity's sake. As for generalizations, it actually matters in some cases if you are talking about sex (as we are here and as LWs are with Dan) and if you are talking about medical issues. Like I said, if this were a cooking forum or a TV fandom or any other thing, it would be weird for women to write in saying "I'm a cis woman and I'm looking for a good pulled pork recipe" but if you are a het couple looking for a male third, then yes it is often relevant if you are cis or trans- how you go about finding the third and how you approach the situation.
@83. Bi. Of course it matters to a specific situation! Of course the situation matters! A cis man in a context where there are people who are walking the walk as GQ, or who would seem to have a big emotional and intellectual investment in there being more than two genders, and who wants to express his support for these people, will announce himself as a 'cis man'. A cis man, say, dating a woman, or dropping into a singles bar, in a context of heterosexual presumption, wouldn't need to flag up being 'cis' in the same way.
Surely, but surely, surely, somewhere ... at a munch, or having coffee with friends and acquaintances, or in a nightclub, you've heard this before ... a femme man, or NB, or residually male-looking trans woman bemoaning how much easier it is for born-females to transition...? Saying that the category 'trans' is needed because all reassigning people don't get to be cis? Not so easily?
You're posing your 'now-I-come-to-think-of-it' further reflections and an episode of Queer Eye (I'm in a non-English speaking country) against the experience of tens of thousands of cross-dressers/people-skewing-to-femme/femme nonbinaries/FTMs.
@86. Emma. Yes, I had forgotten 'cuckoldry' in that sense (raising another man's children). That's not a kink, though. Eroticizing parenting roles and styles would not be a legitimate kink. I agree with Fan over TYTF--or at least with her tone. At least she didn't tell him to bail on his family because his nose/dick/gut was leading him elsewhere.
Harriet, obviously it's not a kink. What the fuck are you even talking about? It's a joke. Someone brought up why it would matter for LWs to say if they are cis or trans. Venn mentioned that it would be relevant if they were referring to cuckolding in the classic sense. You didn't get the joke (and apparently didn't get that it was even a joke), you asked, and I explained it to you- albeit side stepping Venn's cultural references that I do not follow. No one said that was a legitimate kink, geesh. You argue about things until you forget why you ever brought them up in the first place.
Lava @85: I don't think anyone was arguing that anything is anyone's "fault," or were they? I'm not following all of the back-and-forth sniping nor do I want to. I'm going back to Spoopy's original point, which is, that the practice of identifying oneself as cis in situations where this is not relevant could have an unintentional side effect of othering people who are trans, because they would not be self-identifying as "cis," and thus this defeats the purpose of normalising trans men and women as just "men" and "women."
Obviously there are some situations when self-identifying as cis is relevant. Obviously there are situations where the needs and experiences of cis women as different from those of trans women. Is CUCK's situation one of them? I don't see why; reading the letter and picturing her as transgender would not change the situation one bit, other than they'd need to find a "bull" who was OK with her being transgender, which is more or less a given. It would be the same if she were, say, disabled, or morbidly obese, but there's no need for her to specify that she is able bodied and average weight. Harriet, can you honestly read CUCK's letter, substitute "trans" for "cis", and tell me how the question or the advice would substantively differ?
I don't want to get sucked into this morass and I don't really understand what you're ranting about, though you're clearly coming from a place of pain. Yes, I've heard -- and agree -- that IN GENERAL trans men pass more easily than trans women do. That does not mean that SPOOPY IN PARTICULAR passes, while you do not. That's what was patronising.
I'm sorry you can't watch Queer Eye. It's a really uplifting series and you seem like you could do with some cheering up.
CUCK’s acronym bugs me a bit because CUCK is the wife in the scenario, not the cuck, but whatever. Here are my answers:
1) Being GGG means acting enthusiastic, but you don’t have to actually be enthusiastic. If your partner wanted you to diaper him and you’re feeling GGG, then you do with a smile and a sexy attitude, not with a sneer. Can you get excited about his excitement? Then you’re good to go.
2) I would look on AdultFriendFinder, on OKCupid, and on Fetlife. I would not rule people out simply because they have experience as a bull; you need to explain what you’re looking for and listen to them, to see if you might be compatible.
3) That’s not uncommon. Men willing to fuck you with your husband present will probably be okay with him wearing whatever he wants. The bigger issue is likely to be whether your SO will suck the bull’s dick. Some will expect that; others will be okay with it; others will want to make sure that’s not going to happen.
4) If you prefer someone “dominant in public but submissive to me in the bedroom,” then consider if you can envision the sex with your husband there as being “in public.” Since you’re being GGG anyway, it might make the scene hotter for your SO if you can let the other man be aggressive in front of him. That doesn’t mean you have to submit to the bull; you could be two primal lustful creatures having sex in front of your SO. And, then, since you’ve picked your new bull to be submissive to you, you could also have fun sessions just the two of you, where your SO never hears how submissive the bull acts, in private, when it’s just you and the bull.
correcting my post @91 -- Twice I said "husband" when I meant SO. Apologies!
@90, Fan..Whether this letter needed the writer to clarify their cisness or not is irrelevant. And really none of anybody’s business. They wanted to and who is to say how responses may have varied if she labeled herself trans.
Sounded to me like spoopy was trying to find someone to pin something on, or make feel guilty because he feels left out of something, or less than. Wouldn’t it be better for him to stop policing others word choices, as he did here, and work on his own self acceptance.
Cont: and these are word choices used by the LW to describe herself. Here we are demanding the right to self label as we want. So that right is conditional. ... lots of ordinary citizens get up in arms at those self describing as non binary. Their sense of self gets offended.
And I find it a bit of a mind fuck when a trans person says please don’t identify as cis because it makes me feel other than talks of passing. Passing what? Passing as a cis male. And what does a cis male look like? every variety of maleness that can be thought of. There is no pass, because there is no standard.
Lots of trans people are hot, and it’s because they work their transness, they don’t let definitions spoil their life. The fact of transphobes is what the real fear is. And trans men may very well ‘pass’ better than some trans women, they also don’t have the same fear of murder. Cis women don’t go round murdering trans men.
Who's up for a HUnsky?
Late into the comment thread, but also congratulations, ETIQUETTE, for so clever an acronym (and thank you, EricaP @91, for providing the proper term--the word was agonizingly on the tip of my tongue).
@89. EmmaLiz. Wasn't Venn talking about CUCK, CUCK the correspondent? There was a reason it mattered she was a cis woman, and this was that she could bear the bull's children and have Mr CUCK bring them up? (This was his rather dark fantasy). It's clear this was a 'joke', rather than a serious suggestion. (Alternatively) it could be that either of us have lost the thread.
@90. Bi. 'Ranting'? How am I ranting? I am saying nothing about CUCK's letter. My recent comments have only been about the propriety, the queer-friendliness, the trans-friendliness, of cis women introducing themselves in public context as 'cis'. I've been approving of this in those terms. I can't get how you see me as pained. Pained at not passing more successfully, yes--as either male or female--but not more pained than I've been throughout my life. Discomfited. Whatever. I've lived with it. I've seen some of the latest Queer Eye. It's heartwarming but too formulaic for me to watch much of.
Sorry, Dan and commenters-- I just couldn't help myself. Griz's pursuit of music scoring and orchestration in the film and television industry is a tough nut to crack and an uphill climb. I needed something to celebrate during my job search.
Congrats on the hunsky, Grizelda!
I wanted to echo the recommendation that finding a submissive bull to fuck while husband is cross dressed and in chastity may be overcomplicating things, and narrowing the pool. I agree that the cuckolding, bondage and cross-dressing are kinky enough that she should be able to have perfectly vanilla sex with the bull and it will still be plenty kinky.
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.