qapla@98 wrote: "If I could get in his brain and hear unequivocally that he was equally attracted to both, truly, I would never think about it again."

Well, since that's not possible, what are your options? You can encourage him to find a therapist with LGBTQ experience and hope that provides clarity. You can take him at his word and enjoy the time you have together. You can sabotage your relationship by not believing him and constantly looking for clues he's miserable with you. Or you can end it and move on.

Re preferring anal -- is that just about his porn habits? If so, I'd leave it alone. I fantasize about anal 90% of the time, just because it's taboo and pushes my erotic buttons.

But if he's pushing anal on you more often than you'd like, that's a different question, which needs to be put in context of how much attention he gives to your sexual pleasure generally, and how balanced you feel things are.

We need to give BBB's girlfriend some credit. She knows that it's not easy peasy to get a woman in bed, but a man? A gay man? He'll be getting laid 5x a week or more. LOL

@83. venn. How did I respond to the guest expert? I wasn't influenced by him.

@85. slinky. Might a woman in the early stages of a relationship with a self-professed bi man worry she's a beard--a front or stopgap? Well, yes, sure--there are social and cultural pressures that conduce to that. What's happening here is the lw's gf not trusting him or the relationship--not getting over her prejudice when living, for a long while, a situation where the prejudice doesn't apply.

Of course you are right about men passing women between each other homosocially and straight men having sex with transwomen in denial of their (the guys') queerness.

/break/
Like Lava and Bi, I also thought the 'she'll come round in time' comment plucked out the air.

Two lorgnettes for Mr Browne.

Ms Fan - The point is that, barring evidence not yet presented, she wangled a favourable settlement out of him in 2018 and was completely happy leaving it at that. Not the sort of person I'd want anyone I liked to partner. Thank you, though, for agreeing that she at least deserves some portion of LW's ire.

@98. qapla. But you are asking for more vaginal sex?

No right or wrong, just want to point out different experiences, use of words and perceptions re mm relationships.
I think the phrases “power” and “been there for ages” used by Lava mean two, or more, men at it in an acceptable historic context, like ancient Greek and Roman cultures and our still present economic structure.
For me it also means high school bullies teasing the shy and assumed effeminate boys, nazi concentration camps, and disco music.
Tim Browne points to the possible abundance of opportunities for mm sex in Seattle speak, and yet we also have Russian thugs, African jails, and Idaho in general.

@103 and @107,

We have plenty of vaginal sex, he is not pressuring, a great partner and cares about my pleasure. I just know he vastly prefers anal and if he had his pick we’d be doing it several times a week, which is impossible for me with required prep, foreplay (he’s large) and exhaustion- we have a Small child.

Sporty, his self questioning and doubt is to an unhealthy degree. Full stop.

CMD, @108; Yes, external forces have prized and damned the erotic charge of male homosexuality. I’m talking as a straight cis woman, to a man whose gf is blocked in regard accepting his bi ness. That he sounds a resonably sensible and aware man, I thought I’d try to share how I experience male homosexual power.
That it can be so hated by many in the population attests to its power.

Lava @97, yes, I'm guessing he met a guy he fancies. Or he's been watching Witcher and realises he's missing that beefcake.
Re-reading his letter, BBB says the no-penis rule "was the only way she would be okay opening up," so it sounds like he was the one who proposed they open their relationship. If she were the one proposing it, his bargaining power would have been greater. Or maybe she did propose it, but had it in her mind the whole time that he couldn't use it as a means to satisfy his bi desires -- an asshole move, but we do have evidence she's an asshole. I agree BBB made a mistake by accepting this rule in the beginning; that means he'll also need to counter any "you were fine with this arrangement for a year" argument Ms BBB may make.

Qapla @98, thanks for your honesty. It sounds like your husband's insecurity about himself is contagious -- which makes perfect sense. I hope YOU have at least one trusted friend you can talk about this with, because keeping secrets and not being able to talk about difficult feelings is so, so damaging. Hugs.
And everything EricaP @103 said. If this self-questioning is constant and affects all areas of his life, therapy might be an easier sell.

Qapla @109: Glad he understands the physical limitations of anal and doesn't pressure you to do it more often than you're comfortable with.

Ms Slinky has brought up something that is not infrequently an element, but a bigger and more frequent element would be something that is closest to the analogy of being the only student in a class of twenty to get an A on a difficult test without cheating.

This adds a shade to the story then, Fan. If she wouldn’t open unless he accepted her rule, implying it was the LW who initiated to open the relationship.. then they were both manipulative.
These two are young, wherever in their twenties they are. Time to talk and take this seriously.
Not everybody is suited to being in an open relationship or have poly ones. No way would I welcome all that talk about feelings. Some people want monogamy. And that’s ok.
Don’t pressure people to do something, say as this LW might have done, a year ago. Then bitch about the rules others insisted on, at the time.
Both in this relationship have faltered here. Her for being so naive, thinking she could hold his homosexual attractions at bay, and him for compromising himself and letting a contract stand for a year, which denied part of who he is.

Wow qapla, difficult energies, and I’ve only read a couple of paragraphs.. I will read to the end. Hugs to you. Might be time to have that discussion, if you feel like a cover. He is torturing you along with himself, so in the privacy of your intimacy, stop the cycle.
Yes, a sex positive therapist after you two talk. Be his ally as he finds out who he is, and therapy to help him strengthen and own himself. This is not the ‘50s, gay men are out and proud.

Bi men have to follow suit. Out and Proud.

He feels shitty anyway, qapla, so talk with him.
The constant self doubt is a cancer and needs addressing. Not yours to wear either. And continuing like this serves no purpose except make both of you sick.
He may be gay as you fear, or he may be bi as he maintains. His porn habit does seem to back up his claim. Either way, he’s not finding an acceptance of his homosexual impulses. Hard one for men in this culture, we all see that.
Good luck. Qapla.

Ms Lava - I thought I'd posted a response to your #84 yesterday evening, but I must have closed the page instead.

I've avoided bringing the SS lens into the discussion so far because it doesn't seem a fair comparison when society still puts a thumb on the scale. In another way, SS circumstances have changed so drastically within our lifetimes that it feels as if one is often having a discussion now that really belongs in the future. It is not that long since bi men, especially in certain spheres of society, routinely ended MM relationships to pursue women. And it was an often-raised question how we should apportion the blame between, for example, a partner who expected one to understand he "had to" escort a woman to company functions and the society that did so much to push bi men so hard in the OS direction. Thankfully, a lot of things are now gone or at least greatly reduced. But it won't be until the discussion is being held by people who don't remember a time before any significant gain in SS rights and status that many of the day's conversations can be held without the Bad Old Days' wielding some influence.

Before continuing, I commend Ms Fan's views as being particularly pertinent as having basis in perspective from both sides, and thank you for avoiding the assumption that your not having read of something's being real meant that it wasn't. I can assure you that being left by a bi man for a woman was for a long time much the more common fear than being left by a bi man for another man, and that it is still in general almost certainly the more devastating fear of the two. It seems as if to some extent a little of that is almost inevitable. We quickly get used to being dumped for other men (having probably mostly done that same dumping ourselves) and learning to cope with a male partner's interest in men, which we can understand firsthand. But we are as out of our depths dealing with a partner's interest in women as Andy Roddick was when he played Gael Monfils at the French Open, a match entirely decided by Mr R's not really feeling how and where to hit the ball on a clay court.

Andy Roddick, was he the one who threw tantrums. Faded quickly?
Thank you Mr Venn, for that info. Given we don’t often hear from gay men, it’s helpful to have first hand accounts.
Bi phobia/ homo phobia, are still very much a thing. The cities might be a little better, outside, one is circumspect. How do men find that courage, against waves of self and other disapproval, to own their same sex attractions, and be comfortable doing something about it.

Ms Lava - Andy Roddick won the US Open in 2003 as a hard hitter with a big serve, but he didn't have a lot more to his game. He had a number of very close matches with Hr Federer, most of all the 2009 Wimbledon final that brought Hr Federer's slam count to 15, passing Mr Sampras. His temper wasn't that bad, and he got into the Hall of Fame with only one major title.

I often wonder what the discussion will be like when one of the parameters is that nobody living will ever have been fired for being a same-sexer, but of course I shan't be alive to hear it.

The backlash to our marriage equality Yes vote, is in the form of a religious freedom bill which sounds frightening. It hasn’t gone thru yet, they have the numbers to do it, though. Our PM is taking advice from his fundie church Leader. It’s like wtf happened. We are not known for having Leaders who bring their church to work.

qapla @109 - men with large cocks who "vastly prefer anal" are in a tough situation. They have two choices:

1) They can make that a price of admission and hold out for someone truly compatible -- someone who enjoys receiving a large cock up the ass several times a week. Given that such people are very rare, male or female, they will have to wait a long time or settle in other areas to find such a partner.

2) They can compromise, find someone who will occasionally accept a large cock up the ass, and use their imagination, porn, and maybe an anal fleshlight (it's a thing!) to make up the difference. (See https://sextoycollective.com/best-male-sex-toys/fleshlight-review/anal/)

What they shouldn't do is blame their partner or encourage their partner to feel guilty. Receiving frequent anal from a large cock is not a "standard" ask like a blowjob. It's a high level ask, like diaper fetishism. I'm just someone on the internet, but that's my opinion.

@100: WA-HOOOO!!!! A big Yaaaaay to LavaGirl who scores her sexy mountain man with this week'sBig Hunsky !! Savor the envied decadence. :)

@96 "But this column originates in Seattle, and although it has readers all over the world, the dialect in use here is Standard Written American English."

But this all started from language in a letter written in! Does it really make sense to set up Dominant Subculture English as a standard for all letter writters to be deemed wanting against?

"That's why people get all in a tuffle over misplaced modifiers, two-way adverbs, and all that jazz."

People mostly get invested in all this as a way of joining an ingroup and distinguishing an outgroup. It's not because one usage pattern is empirically more functional than another, though people will swear that's why (citation needed).

@109. qapla. I didn't mean to insinuate your husband was letting you down in some way--wasn't having the sex you wanted, or was knowingly perpetuating a situation in which you felt insecure.

I think he could address your insecurities; and you could say something very simple to him to make him address your insecurities. You say there would be reassurance in knowing he was attracted to men and women equally. I'm not sure you could have this, and maybe he isn't ... but it doesn't seem the point--the point is, rather, that you sometimes need affirmation he's attracted to you. I think you can ask for this, and ask for confirmation in a way that foregrounds your gender. 'Your liking PIA so much more than PIV plays into my insecurities you're fundamentally gay, and I'm deep cover for you'. I see no reason you can't say this. It's not biphobic (in context). You're in a het relationship; you can ask for a typically het form of sex. When people say to me, 'I want to feel you desire me as a woman' or 'I want to feel this is still gay male', I know it's time for me to get out of my sexual grooves and switch up roles. Like, in the first, it might be cunnilingus time!

From what you say, the reasons you don't ask for reassurance he desires you as a woman are 1) (the shallow reason) that it would upset and burden him, and play into his already strong insecurities, and 2) (the deep reason) that you suspect he's a fearful gay man who hasn't been able to come out fully because he craves social acceptance. The last is bad for you and undermining of your marriage. I think it's a fear you should face together. Even if you heard, for instance, that he likes PIA as a treat, because it isn't the typical way you have sex, it would do something to assuage your concern he greatly prefers a 'gay-themed' to a 'straight-themed' form of sex.

I should add that I think everything Lava has said on the topic of biphobic and facing insecurities as a couple seems to me bang-on.

@123 Mtn. Beaver
""the dialect in use here is Standard Written American English."
...Does it really make sense to set up Dominant Subculture English as a standard""

Standard written English isn't "Dominant Subculture", it's the common sub-language (and second language) when writing in English.

For a number of years about 30 years ago I spend the majority of my time in, and speaking the extremely different language of, a US subculture. Every day while I was at work I switched back to standard spoken and written English. Because it's what everyone in all subcultures speak, to communicate so as to be best understood.

Of course people are at liberty to communicate in a way that is not best understood. As are others to notice that they've so chosen.

Ms Lava - Yes, I've heard a bit about that, including a video in which the presenter went through an explanation of what would be allowed. It sounds to a large extent like a Freedom From Consequences bill. Best of luck on its not going through or a speedy overturn.

Lava @113, I disagree that either was manipulative if he proposed the open relationship and she said okay but opposite-sex partners only. That's called a negotiation. If what he really wanted was to be free to see men and women then he could have rejected her terms, and if they failed to reach an agreement they could have stayed monogamous.

It would have been manipulative if, for instance, he was missing men, and proposed opening their relationship primarily so that he could occasionally bang men, and if she knew this but then said okay but no men for you, thereby defeating the purpose. But I'm speculating now. Let's assume the negotiations were made in good faith but BBB ended up agreeing to terms he didn't like somehow. That happens, but now he has to fix it.

Venn @117, thank you. Perhaps that's it -- the magnitude of the fear depends on the likelihood that it will happen. Having been "dumped for a man" myself, I do understand the difference -- if a queer partner left me for a straight one, it feels like she's not only rejecting me, she's rejecting queerness, which is a far deeper betrayal. And not just that -- the sense that you were so terrible, in bed or otherwise, that you turned someone off your entire gender. Perhaps that's Ms BBB's worry, or perhaps she can simply see herself potentially leaving BBB for another man (but not a woman) so she projects that worry onto him.

RE: English and its logicalness.

We seem to have two streams of evolution going on. In one direction we have business English, which is pared-down and unambiguous. Logical constructions are preferred. It’s the form that is useful internationally and cross-culturally. It can be used well by people unstudied in English literature and doesn’t depend on cultural references, proverbs or expressions. I expect it to continue to simplify and standardize over time, while retaining variety and precision in tenses and vocabulary.

If I want to write something that will be interpreted as intended by someone reading English as a second, third or fourth language, or by someone with a different educational background from mine, this is the form I use. (It’s a form of English that is very close to my native speech, so I’m very comfortable with it and I have an unfair advantage in many contexts. That doesn’t make me better.)

Literary English, with its proverbs, expressions and poetry is not evolving any more, or not much. We are not continuing to build a canon of novels, plays and poetry that are universally read and that will continue to be referenced by English-language writers for generations to come. (Feel free to correct me!)

On the other hand, regional variations (West African Standard English is a thing) and local dialects are evolving and diversifying like mad. (I love subtitles. I wish I’d had subtitles for The Wire and I’m often glad I have subtitles for the BBC.) There’s text speak. Many people now use animated gifs to communicate feelings. We quote visual media in speech, writing and gesture. I don’t assume I can understand someone well just because we are each using some variety of english, and I am not more critical of my interlocutor for not using Business English well than of myself for not understanding their English well.

Way back when, someone pointed out that AAVE does not contain a passive voice. That means that you can’t say “Michael was shot during an altercation with police.” You have to say, “The police shot Michael.” This is not necessarily a bad thing.

Anyway, “all bi men are not secretly gay” is literary English. Most of us understood it perfectly well, many of us without even being irritated. “Not all bi men are secretly gay” is business English. All of us understand it without irritation.

I don’t hold Dan Savage to a standard of business English, and I don’t think he’s wrong for using literary English. Neither do I fault anyone for being most comfortable with business English—I am too.

Also:

Happy new year, everyone!

Ms Mountain - You could have used the Brodiean discussion between Sandy and Jenny when, after Jenny's encounter with a flasher, Sandy fixated on whether the policewoman who'd questioned Jenny had pronounced "nasty" as "nesty". "This gave rise to an extremely nasty feeling in Sandy, and put her off the idea of sex for months," would back you nicely.

I'd put it on a spectrum; some things seem more revealing than others. I was a little surprised this morning, when clicking through a collection of words with different US pronunciations, to see that "tour" was included on the list but not "tournament". Some pronunciation differences give me a glimmer into whether someone has, for instance, a pro-French or anti-French mind, though I suspect this would be stronger in the UK (in the US, one rarely hears, say, Rene pronounced to rhyme with Benny). More strongly, certain people go to some lengths to sound more or less educated than they are for various reasons. Mr Savage has even given me the interesting idea to wonder how often people's vocabulary choices match their wardrobes.

96, 123 What's a two-way adverb?

And would it be interested in the three-way?

Fichu @132,

I suspect they’re referring to a squinting modifier:
https://www.thoughtco.com/squinting-modifier-grammar-1692130

“The squinting modifier resides chiefly in college-level handbooks. The term is used as an adverb or phrase that stands between two sentence elements and can be taken to modify either what precedes or what follows.

“Let us look at an example sent to us from a correspondent in Korea:

“—The store that had a big sale recently went bankrupt.

“Here ‘recently’ can be interpreted as modifying either the preceding or following part. But the content of the sentence suggests it is a learner’s sentence; a native speaker would not be likely to convey the information in such a flat and unspecific manner.

“The examples of the squinting modifier shown in college handbooks are comparable to the one we have used here, and they seem pretty unlikely to occur in actual writing.”
—(Merriam-Webster's Concise Dictionary of English Usage, 2002)

I always get nervous when grammar is focused on, because I know I’m guilty of breaking somebody’s GR, grammar rules. I apologise for past sins and future ones. Though nocute has taught me new ones, which I use. So fine. Happy for short clear lessons.
Happy New Year, Alison. Good to see you.
/ I don’t know Fan, @128, to me manipulation has a broader meaning. Underhand, perhaps? Scared and dishonest, yes? She was scared and he dishonest.

RE The Merriam-Webster 2002 analysis of the squinting modifier problem:

It assumes that no “actual writing” in English is done by non-native speakers. This is either thoughtlessly mistaken or a cynical erasure.

Hey, there, Alison Cummins! It's been a long time and it's good to see you again!

LavaGirl @135:

“I always get nervous when grammar is focused on, because I know I’m guilty of breaking somebody’s GR, grammar rules.”

EXACTLY! And nervous people are not the best contributors.

“I apologise for past sins and future ones.”

There is no sin in using english that is different from someone else’s unless you are being deliberately obfuscatory. Which you aren’t. You haven’t sinned.

If you are genuine about wanting communication and exchange, you’ll listen and gladly clarify when asked. Which you do. You’re good.

Thanks everyone, you all right to degrees of course. My partner does give oral happily and willingly. I think sometimes I ignore the signs of his attraction to women to fuel my own insecurities. Or I talk myself out of strong signs being signs. Perhaps what I’m more afraid of is less than he’s gay and more that he’s bi but would rather be with a man, but settles on a woman because of the shame/societal aspects. I think a lot has to do with the lack of out-ness. He also gets off on secret kinking, so I know his days of discreet Grindr were hot for him in ways beyond just the dick.

Re Eric’s at 124- I think he mostly knows this. He is a little warped from porn, I think the size of dicks you see (seemingly plentifully when you think of the size of the porn and amateur porn archives online) make him think it is not quite as rare as I would think it is. Also since he likes a dick, we do a fair amount of pegging and he really can take a big dildo himself, and since he has a prostate and a sex drive he’s pretty much always willing!

But you are all right about needing to integrate a sex positive therapist for both our sakes. He’s smart enough to know I’m nervous even when I don’t outright express, I’m sure it comes through. Anyway, thanks again

Although I know what ciods meant and agree that the distinction between "not all bi men are gay" and "all bi men are not gay" (or whatever the specific wording is, because I'm too lazy to go back and read the original), I also know what Dan or whoever meant when/if they said, "all bi men are not gay," and I think that there is a realm of commonly-understood meaning.

I'm an English teacher, so people are always sending me, mostly via Facebook, but also more directly, little meme-type things that say things like, "I'm torn between the desire to have friends, and the need to correct your grammar," or "I'm silently judging your grammar," and I always wince. Because I think grammar snobs are the worst sort of snobs. And they get all judgmental so they can feel superior, when they understand perfectly well what the person meant to say.

There is a love of grammar for the elegance, the beauty of it: the rules, the balance, the rightness. To my mind, it's not that far from math, in that appreciation for the elegance of the correct proof or answer or theorem. I have that: I love parallel construction, for example. I believe ciods said she taught logic, so it stands to reason that she cares about precision in language, and I also appreciate that for the unambiguity and the beauty of it.

But there's also semantics--the meaning that is derived from the order and usage of the words, and that is very different. If the main reason for language is to communicate and to make sure that one's thoughts are understood by another, then most of the time that can be achieved with improper grammar. I can get all Mrs. Grundy about misplaced modifiers, but I know perfectly well what the person meant. And that's really what's most important (note: when I'm grading a student's paper, I am not going to let incorrect grammar or punctuation slide because part of what I'm teaching is the ability to write Standard English; I'm talking about more informal situations, like reading a "Savage Love" column, etc.).

It's kind of like getting one's panties in a twist if someone pronounces "a-s-k" as "axe," rather than as "ask." I know perfectly well that the person isn't talking about hatchets, and it's sheer snobbery to be snide about the pronunciation (which, according to linguists, is an earlier correct pronunciation, if you really need to abide by the rules to not get worked up over hearing that pronunciation). I know some very smart people who, owing to the culture in which they were reared, pronounce the word as "axe" and it would be snottiness of the highest order for me to look down my nose at them. I also don't want people to feel inhibited about expressing themselves.

quapla, I think that you're ahead of the game, in that you're so thoughtful about the different issues that are intertwined here. I hope you and your husband are able to come to a shared understanding of how attracted and committed to each other the two of you are and that the insecurities either fade away or are diminished through therapy and good communication.

I'm pulling for you!

I don’t let it phase me for too long, Alison. Writers are always breaking grammar rules, and given this is the internet, Street language is best. I get pissed about the you / you’re problem, a few others. If however I was trained in correct English/ Seattle/ whatever grammar, I’d be tearing my hair out, I’m sure. As long as I can get the meaning, grammar isn’t a focus.

I know that the reason I never say "I could care less" is that it would simply bug me, as a person who seeks order and logic. (Which by no means implies that I don't honor at least equally people who have different inclinations than those.)

However, I only know of one person here (ciods@93) who "taught logic many years", so when ciods says that she "can testify to" that such problematic logic (in sentences that still communicate perfectly well) "contribute[s] to misunderstandings of basic logic", I think that her point is about more than language.

As users of English we want understanding, but is that enough when someone's understood usage gets in the way of their using basic logic to /think/ properly?

I really wish I had the energy to contribute to this conversation. Descriptivism vs. prescriptivism is a favorite topic of mine. Maybe later.

I really wish we could set up a Patreon so that Calli could type for us instead of working retail over the holidays.

qapla, glad we could help. Take care and yes, confront your fear as you help him confront his.
/ it’s like dropping into an all night bar, coming here. Wake at 3am, come sauntering in, order a vodka anything, and join the gab fest.
Perfect and cheers.

“He is a little warped by porn”, qapla@ 139? He could help here by cutting back on porn which is warping him. This is not on you remember, this is his work to sort. A child is involved, I think I glimpsed in one of your posts? Well. He’s a father now. He needs to sort this.
Relax too, and enjoy the role play. Your fear will be restricting your enjoyment.

@139. qapla. Good luck to you, your husband--and child! It sounds as if you have a loving and equal relationship in many ways. You don't need to repress your insecurities.

The thing is qapla, your man is bi and he hungers for cock like you hunger for cock. Have you contemplated an occasional three way with a bi man? Him taking solo trips to a city every couple of months? Or, he continues to sublimate that part of himself. Parenthood does demand a lot of sublimation.
However, at some point your man is going to really want to express that part of himself, with live men, by the sound of him. How you adapt to that, there’s lots of examples out there. It’s not black and white, love and attraction. I think that’s what gay men have taught me. If you tap into the eroticism of sex, fears drop away.

I'm a little bothered by the prissiness of LIMP's language (i.e. pushing past the gates). I'd never heard of an anal sphincter referred in such a way.

I also believe that, rather than LIMP using a dildo on his wife, HE needs to observe his wife opening herself up and using fingers and then a dildo - so she can then entice him, as SHE is the one who opened "the gates" by herself and is inviting him in. Only then should he take the offered toy and proceed.

If LIMP is still apprehensive whether his dick will cooperate once he's comfortable using a toy, then taking Viagra as insurance will help.

Welcome back, Allison Cummins!

Good luck and all the best, qapla, to you and your family.

Happy 2020, everyone, and may Trumpty Dumpty, Dencey Pencey ad nauseum get beheaded, charbecued, fed to mutant sewer rats, and that the entire GOP Evil Empire becomes extinct.

Is anyone game for the Double Whammy (Lucky @69 + the Big Hunsky @100 = @169) since we're getting close? It'd be a great way to celebrate over New Year's drinks.
Tick...tick...tick....

Fichu @132, Alison gave a nice example. I haven't heard the term "squinting modifier," but that seems to be the same thing, so far as I can tell. My favorite example of a two-way adverb is the following: "People who eat those mushrooms often get sick." What the "often" is meant to be matched with matters rather a lot. Hence the recommendation to avoid that sort of construction.

I can definitely get annoying about grammar--it's my favorite form of snobbery. I like to pretend that most of the grammatical rules I care about (which are by no means all of them) exist for good reason, not least of which is reducing the cognitive load on the reader. Communication is hard enough--sometimes I think it's a miracle we ever manage it at all--and consistent guidelines assist in clear communication, so yes, I'm a fan. That said, I like to think I can turn it on and off as appropriate; I switch sub-dialects when speaking with different friend groups, and I have no problem parsing most people's speech/comments. I'm not immune from mistakes, nor do I expect others to be.

But in this case, the example that started this all off was about logic, not grammar. That's why I bothered to object. I can testify that many people honestly think that "all x are not y" means the same thing as "not all x are y," and that's a problem.

To get on a soapbox for a brief moment--and I know I sound over-the-top here, but I mean it sincerely--a large portion of prejudicial rhetoric and propaganda relies exactly on this sort of intentional mis-phrasing (and related logical fallacies). It's not good for us, as thoughtful individuals, to become indifferent and indiscriminate about it, as that translates over time to indiscriminate thinking. And it's not good for the country, either.

wave @ curious @143

Go for it ciods. This time of year, it’s much better to chat and teach than erupt into blues.
I couldn’t go near logic, and so many of those western men who wrote it seemed to go mad. Eastern logic loses me as well. It hurts my head to go there, so I don’t.

Okay, so I'm going to try to vomit up some words about words before I go to sleep.

My favorite analogy about dialects is that they're like different kinds of clothes. A T-shirt and jeans are perfectly good, acceptable, nothing-wrong-with-this-at-all clothes for most situations one encounters in life. Consider a T-shirt and jeans your main dialect that you're most comfortable with. There's nothing wrong with it, but you might not want to wear it to a job interview (depending on the job, of course). The dressier outfit you put on for a job interview or for work at certain types of places (like business casual) is like Standard English with a small bit of local dialect thrown in. A suit and tie or other formal outfit is like strict Standard English. Few people are the most comfortable in this type of outfit, and wearing it all the time might leave you a little overdressed. Maybe certain types of verse are like a black-tie getup here -- a tuxedo or a cocktail dress -- it's not what comes naturally, but certain people can find it fun to dress up really fancy once in a while. Every culture has their own set of fashion preferences and rules, and everyone has their own opinions about what clothes are best for what situations and what's acceptable or unacceptable, but that doesn't make one type of clothing better than any other. There are just different things needed for different situations and different cultures.

Of course, this is not a perfect analogy. If you pull too hard on the threads it will start to unravel -- what, for example, is being naked analogous to? What is the clothing equivalent to different languages? But I think it illustrates some things about language and dialects in a way that no other analogy I've come across does. My outfit in this forum is like wearing jeans and sneakers but with a nicer shirt. I'm careful about expressing myself, but I'm not overly concerned with everything looking perfect.

...

The question about double negatives is interesting because while they don't make sense in Standard English, they're regular constructions in many dialects (the construction "ain't got nothing" comes to mind). In some languages other than English, too, double negatives are not considered nonstandard or illogical -- they just emphasize the point ("No tengo nada" is perfectly standard in Spanish, from what I understand). Double negatives are not among my pet peeves (incidentally, at the top of that list is "I could care less" -- I often have to remind myself that nonstandard phrasing is acceptable, too), but I understand why some people find them annoying.

...

On the topic of dictionaries and usage guides, I like this quote from Kory Stamper, who is my lexicographical guru (she's the best; go buy her book), "If English is a swift moving river, then a dictionary is a cup of water scooped from that river: static, small, hopefully a good representative sample of that river, but not the river." ("not the river" should be italicized)

(https://korystamper.wordpress.com/2018/05/25/a-lexicographers-guide-to-real-words/)
(http://fiatlex.podbean.com/ -- great podcast, short-lived though it was)
(https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/530504/word-by-word-by-kory-stamper/?ref=PRHE46144D4DF00&aid=randohouseinc20897-20&linkid=PRHE46144D4DF00)

Alison, Ciods-- Thanks. I knew what misplaced modifiers were; I'd never heard of two-way adverbs or squinting adverbs.

I found all the examples enjoyably funny the way I find puns funny. There's a moment of recognition when I realized the ambiguity followed by a slight groaning inner chuckle. (Can SGIC become the new LOL?)

Lava @135, to me the word manipulation implies intent. Though from the perspective of the person who feels manipulated, this distinction might not be important. I think for them to solve this, they have to both go in presuming good faith on the other person's part, otherwise their conversation is likely to descend into accusations and blame, which won't help them move forward.

Qapla @139, I wondered if the anal sex was in one direction only. Yes, all buttholes are not created equal. Just because he can easily take a big dong doesn't mean you can. Good on you for doing this for/with him -- do you enjoy it too?
I think a lot of us have insecurities that cause us to wonder whether our partners are secretly settling for us. One of my partners, for instance, generally prefers big boobs. Would he rather be with someone who has big boobs, is he just paying lip service to being attracted to me? Sound familiar? His enthusiastic sexual response to me proves that he IS attracted to me, so perhaps that could serve as proof for you too? Even if he IS a Kinsey 4, more attracted to men than women, he's clearly attracted to you, and that's what matters. Hugs and good luck to you.

Lava @147, I took qapla's "warped by porn" to mean that he thinks his extra-large dick is average. I dated a man like that once (I would not let him near my asshole, ha!). Less porn would not help here; perhaps visits to an all male sauna would?

Lava @149, it didn't seem from Qapla's post that her husband wants a hall pass to have sex with men. Not all bisexuals etc. He may be satisfied with porn and fantasy, and not want to risk all the drama and/or STIs that come with an open relationship -- nor, indeed, may he want to grant Qapla the same freedom. I think their situation seems difficult enough without adding the challenge of her having to deal with his actually having sex with men.

Or should that be "not all buttholes are created equal"? :)

Ms Fan - Thank you for bringing up the Kinsey 4 possibility; I'd noted how the word "equally" had appeared in an early post of Ms Qapla's, but didn't think it my place to address the point.

I see that OS civil partnerships will be starting in the UK tomorrow. It got me to thinking that I never entirely found out what happened to people in my state who got a civil union, or even if CUs continued to exist or not (the gap was only two years). I don't think we have the element of choice over here that appears to be expanding in your country (and I'd have no reason to oppose the expansion). Mainly, though, it made me wonder about the campaign. The one photo I saw of campaigners invited the inference that the campaign was at least partly not a pleasant one. It could have been. They might have gotten someone like Elton John to appear with an OS couple and make the pitch that they should have the choice to opt for a CP instead of a marriage. But I'll admit that the sign requesting "Straight Equality" made me think that anyone who asked for straight equality deserved to get it.

Did you hear or read anything of the campaign? If so, how nice or nasty was it?

Venn @160, I admit that civil partnerships for OS couples has been overshadowed by far more important things in my consumption of the news. I don't have much of an opinion on it, and the only mitigating point I'd make in favour of the straight people who were whining that they didn't have access to the inferior marriage substitute grudgingly handed to the gays is that marriage in the UK has oddly strong religious overtones. I don't have time now to research the details, but one problematic issue is that Jews are restricted on where they can marry. So I can see why, for instance, a staunchly atheist OS couple would want some legal protection that did not involve any religious aspects. I don't doubt, though, that many of the campaigners were straight people who fail to see their privilege. At any rate, CP equality has shut them up now. Ha, we wish -- they've no doubt moved on to whining about which bathrooms trans people are using...

@Calli @156: I love your clothing analogy; I've used something like it before. My favorite thing about it, I think, is that it shows that the argument isn’t that SWE is always correct/appropriate (and a lot of prescriptivists can end up sounding like they think all other sub-dialects are "wrong"); wearing a suit to a house party is just as tone-deaf (to mix metaphors even further) as wearing sweats to a job interview.

And I do think the analogy stretches enough to justify some grammar guidelines, too—if you live where it’s really cold, it’s good to wear a hat outside. That’s not 100% arbitrary, it has practical use.

I should probably quit on that note. I know it. But once more into the breech!

@cocky @161: ' "All men are not predators" is unambiguous simply because such a construction is NEVER used in speech or in writing to mean "no men are predators." '

I would agree that it’s rare to find that exact pattern. But the essence of the construction IS used that way from time to time (meaning, the "correct" way, from the point of view of logic, rather than idiom). Consider examples like this:

"All Amish people don't use technology."
“Everyone in this room has nowhere else to go.”

I wish I had time to do a proper search so I could provide better examples. I’ll just say once more, because I’ve seen it many times when discussing these things with students (and yes, a classroom isn’t the same as the real world—but before you get too far into the semester, you can get pretty close to what they normally think) that when you ask people to explain specifically what a sentence like that means—having picked a sentence that isn’t about something they already know—you will get multiple answers. In other words, it is ambiguous.

So for many reasonable people the response to ambiguity is "figure it out from context." But I'm unreasonable, so my response is "phrase it such that the logical meaning matches what you actually mean the first time.” Unless you completely trust 100% of your audience to know what you mean. But the thing is, why bother with a sentence like “All bisexual men are not secretly gay” if you think everyone you’re talking to already knows exactly what you mean? The existence of the statement itself seems to imply the speaker/writer knows that some people aren’t too sure.

curious2 @145 Thank you for the thought, but it's not so bad. It beats sitting around doing nothing, and I only have a few days left anyway (my break isn't over until the end of January, but they only hire seasonal workers through January 5th). I'm just tired, and that's okay -- sometimes it's nice to feel busy.

Ms Muse - The rest of the point may hold, but I don't concede the swift moving river.

Your clothing analogy struck two notes. "Overdressed" seems to imply fault; would you call it rude to say "nuclear" if everyone else in the room were saying "nucular"? (Having listened to some of Ms Stamper's videos, I rather suspect she would.) The other is a bit less serious - what sort of sneakers? If they go with the outfit, they can look quite smart. Or they can look another way I may mention later.

I do quite like playing with multiple negatives, both odd and even numbers.

I certainly wouldn't go bulldozing with standardization, given how revealing so many differences are. I think your Ms Stamper errs when she "guarantees" that people know they aren't speaking standard English. How often dialect is "an invitation to intimacy" and how often it's "an attempt to trigger" I'll call open to interpretation. She seems vulnerable either to trolling or to some sort of manufacture that would end up like A Fairly Honourable Defeat or that Broadway musical about an invented teen suicide.

What struck me as the best thing your clothing analogy was the sense of spectrum. At or near the top, for instance, one might put Hyacinth Bucket's wanting her husband Richard to say, "It's only I!" as the sort of language she'd encourage at one of her Candlelight Suppers (served on her Royal Doulton with the hand-painted periwinkles). Then things grade down. It could be quite entertaining to see where a panel of people would rank various deviations. (Then again, in college I came up with a list of forty names with different spellings and had sixty friends and acquaintances spell them all, then compared all the spellings, and I found it absorbing at the time - perhaps still might.)

On reflection, I think my occasionally going off on Mr Savage's grammatical mannerisms is usually due to their striking me as downwardly pretentious signaling when he seems to be trying to present as "The One Good 7%er". If you recall the recent kerfuffle about Ms DeGeneres enjoying the company of Mr Bush fils during a baseball game, I didn't really develop any terribly strong feelings about it, but it did remind me of how, a couple of years or so ago, Mr Savage attended either a football or baseball game and had the intricacies of the sport explained to him by Ken Jennings. This got me to thinking about the pains Mr Savage takes to avoid being perceived as having Rich/Celebrity Class Solidarity. And likely he doesn't; I don't take enough interest in economics to pronounce on that one.

To tie this up with a neat bow, though, I can mention that Mr Jennings and Mr Savage were the two first examples to spring to mind for Sneaker Don'ts. Whenever I've seen Mr J's appearances on the newish quiz programme Best Ever Trivia Show, he's worn that recognizable make of Converse that goes best with jeans and t-shirts. Also, before you began posting, there was a photo or Mr Savage at his film festival and another one of his meeting with Ms Daniels in which he was wearing a pair of red high tops that might have matched his personality but certainly didn't go with his outfit.

BiDanFan @159 lol

BiDanFan @158 -- I did like your analysis here, especially the suggestion qapla's husband visit an all male sauna.

Ha! I missed Bi's 159. I add my laughter.
And yes, that's what it should be ;)

All buttholes are equal, but some buttholes are more equal than others.

written language is a derivative of spoken language. spoken language relies on real world, in the moment context to reduce/eliminate ambiguity. when translating from inherently natural spoken language into written language, people aren't reliably going to change or add words, commas etc. to solve for all potential ambiguity that would be handled naturally if the idea was expressed with spoken instead of written language.

in spoken language, grammar matters alot less. all of the contextual clues available in the moment handle most ambiguity concerns. additionally, in the conversational context, which defines the parameters of most spoken language in practice and is the context in which spoken language evolved, clarity is something that is worked towards in a back and forth between two people. so clarity in any individual statement has less inherent value, as each statement is part of a collective process of defining clarity. this also allows for other priorities to come to the fore, predominantly some personal style and flavor, or art even.

written language has to stand on its own much more so than spoken language. so yes, when purely solving for clarity, adherence to grammatical norms in written language is a valuable trait. but there is so much more to solve for in this life than clarity, and some may value the expression of style and flavor over it in any one statement. and in this context, a forum, which allows for back and forth, pressing for clarity over other priorities is not a neutral stance. it is a stance that argues for a particular set of values over another set of values.

Thanks again all, especially BDF at 158 (and 159, lol). Yes, the warped by porn goes sooo many directions. He knows he has a porn-worthy dick, but by the amount of dicks his size he sees, he thinks there are many like him, and by proxy, sees both men and women take such big dicks-- makes him think it ain't no thing for a large portion of the population. Also considering just how much porn is out there, he also probably has a warped sense of what % of the population would be into it, and then enthusiastic about taking a large dick. He watches a lot of amateur, which further fuels that "everyone is doing it" fire. Add that to the fact that he can enthusiastically take a large dick himself, and there are a lot of factors stacked against my argument that this is a rarer thing than he thinks (that's what happens when all your evidence is in porn!) WIth that said, he is very respectful of my limitations, but it drives me nuts that he thinks men/women with giant-butthole stretching capacity are apparently, a dime a dozen.

I* kind of* enjoy the pegging. I enjoy that he enjoys it. It really doesn't do much for me- even with feeldos and similar. I find it kind of exhausting, (he weighs 100 more pounds than me, so to really give it to him requires a lot of oompf!) I guess I would say I'm neutral on it. I enjoy his enjoyment and that's enough for me. I'm naturally a bit sub-ier so it requires a bit of alcohol and a lot of courage for me to act and talk the way I know he prefers in this situation (he's a true switch). Overall, we are probably pretty well suited to each other. He does show interest in my vagina and boobs, plenty of it, and your analysis BDF (the boob one)- if I applied it to my owns situation, would show me that he is in fact very attracted to me. It's mostly my own insecurities getting in the way.

He is not interested in hall passes, I would maybe be open to it at some indeterminate point in the future when we didn't have a small child. Right now I already feel like I'm only doing C level everything (work, wifing, parenting) because anyone (looking at you Sheryl Sandberg) who says you can have it all is full of shit. There aren't enough hours in the day to do everything the way you want to. So if he was getting to make time to step out when I'm barely getting time to shower, I'd be pissy and resentful. It would have to happen once kid is schoolaged--even then, he's never expressed interest. I think he would LOVE however, to have a third, male. I'd rather have a third male than female (lesbian stuff doesn't do anything for me but I like the idea of two dudes)--it would just have to be a true Bi guy, cause I know I would get CRAZY insecure if I felt like an extra in their fantasy. Most the "two dude" fantasy stuff I like is straight porn/more gang-bangy. He also likes the idea of group sex wtihout swinging ,but we live in a smaller town and I'm not sure I'm into that. Anyway. The most important part here is, my butthole is definitely not created equal with many a butthole seen in porn. Sometimes when he's fucking my ass with a "normal" sized dildo (5.5-6 inches and a bit thinner) I think, man, if some other person is unwilling to try anal when their partner has this size dick they're really a poor sport. Which isn't entirely fair, but damn, it is no big deal at that size!

And the party continues!
Fan @158; whichever porn he’s watching, it’s warping him. So cut back on it.
He may not be asking for a hall pass, he’s acting like he’d like one.That’s my interpretation. All his angst, and quapla feeling like a cover?
There are issues in this intimacy which are not being talked about, honestly. That’s how I read it and him being conflicted about wanting cock is one of them. Quapla asked for our honest responses, so I gave her mine.

Quapla, only you know the full story, we can only guess from what you’ve shared. Feeling like a cover is not healthy for anyone to ever feel in a love relationship. Talk with him, honestly.

Yes Fan, not all bisexuals... though you’re talking as a bi woman who is free to express all of yourself sexually. I see a difference of degree between the LW’s bi-ness, and quapla’s husband’s.
If a woman is fearful her man really wants cock, better to face that fear and trust his love for her and his family. Otherwise it tears at everyone’s self esteem.
Easy for me to say, sure, then I never said I could follow my own advice.

qapla @171 - when fucking Mr. P's ass I mix things up. Sometimes I use a strap-on, sometimes my Feeldoe, and sometimes a series of dildoes, using my hand and upper body strength to get more oompf. We also mix up whether he's on his knees or on his back with his thighs drawn up (we use a harness to help reduce strain).

See https://www.amazon.com/Spread-Open-Thigh-Harness-Hollow/dp/B014GDG0EG

Or sometimes I stand next to the bed to get more leverage for pounding him with dildoes (by hand).

If he's able to support his own weight while squatting, you could also lie on your back and have him lower himself onto your cock and fuck himself at whatever speed he enjoys.

We also mix up whether it's a 5 minute quickie or a 45 minute scene with a lot of variation.

One other thing to try is scheduling -- maybe the first weekend of the month he fucks your ass and the next two you fuck his, and the last weekend centers on whatever you personally most enjoy.

That way you could relax in between and have whatever sex is easy for both of you (whether that's PIV, or mutual masturbation, or whatever).

Like nocutename @141, I'm pulling for you!

adding I missed @141 before-- thank you :) <3 and thanks Erica. I'm guessing you enjoy it more than I do maybe? Anything contributed to that? We have tried a variety of positions, but even with him on top I feel squished or uncomfortable. I love that harness you linked to though, I'm going to try that. He'll also be thrilled I brought home anything new for him on my own accord. Maybe I also need to ask him to stop thrusting back into me, when I'm pushing against him pushing into me, I have to work twice and hard and I wear out much, much faster. Scheduling might also be a good idea.

oh -- I was too lazy to get off the couch earlier and check what we actually own, so that Amazon link is to a similar product.

The one we use is actually made by the Sport Fucker brand, and is marketed as a "travel sling": https://www.665leather.com/sport-fucker-travel-sling.html

As for enjoyment, I mostly enjoy giving him pleasure, but the whole process does get me excited (so my orgasm shows up quickly and reliably when I grab my vibrator).

I'll note that recently I figured out I can grind against his heel when I'm standing by the bed and he's on all fours, so that's been a delightful discovery. ;)

Overall we have enough scenes focused on my pleasure to keep me feeling very appreciative of his efforts and wanting to please him in return.

@159 LOL! BiDanFan for the WIN.
@169 Fichu: WA-HOOOO!!!! Major congrats on scoring this week's Double Whammy Award: (Lucky @69 + @100 Big Hunsky = @169). Savor the much envied SL glory. :)

Is anyone game for a Double Hunsky should we reach the magic number?

Just in time for New Year's!! WA-HOOO!!!!

@162 BiDanFan: I know Christmas was last week, but I responded to your comment @93 about the Whos and the Grinch. There's nothing like the classics!

Qapla @171, thanks for your elaboration on how porn has warped your husband's view of what is normal/typical. Sounds like you have an uphill battle to convince him that YOU are typical in NOT wanting a huge dick in your butt -- the majority of women don't want a dick in their butt at all, and it's a shame you have to remind him of this so often. I'm agreeing now with Lava, cut back on the porn, particularly the anal porn.

As for pegging larger dudes, I have some experience with this. My best tip is to have him lie on his back and raise his legs up over your shoulders. That's a much more comfortable position.

I'm glad to hear he's not interested in hall passes, and I guess the trade-off there is that he wants you to fulfill his guy-sex needs and his gal-sex needs. And a 5.5-6 inch dick is a big deal when your butt is a stranger to anything being inserted into it, when the owner of the dick doesn't know what they're doing and shoves it in with no preamble. Anyone is forgiven for being a "poor sport" if this is their experience. Or if they just don't want to. Anal is extra credit and should never be expected -- anyone, male or female, is entitled to take this off their menu completely, and if it's very important to the other person it just means you're not compatible and should move on. Anyway, I hope that once your child is older you can benefit from a wonderful MMF/MFM threesome or a few!

EricaP @175, great stuff. :)

Qapla @176, yes, if he's on his back you're in charge and you set the pace. That harness looks great! Also, what about a thigh harness? Where you'd only need to move one leg rather that your whole body? Good luck with it all!

Less than two hours EST, till we hit the big 2020.
To all you lot of tricksters pranksters and kinksters, Happy New Year.

Ms Fan - That's a positive sign through the negative inference that you didn't see anything disturbing. I'm mainly just glad it didn't happen that way over here (though I never did find out what my friend's daughter did; she'd had a civil union and by the next time I saw my friend marriage had been in place for a while and my friend couldn't remember whether they'd gotten married or not, or received any notification of their CU's being "upgraded"). I think I recall having heard of grumblings in states with SS domestic partnerships, but those DPs were never intended to be anything close to marriage. And of course, over here Mr Yiannopoulos was only too happy to be Grand Marshall at the Straight Pride march in Boston. The organizers basically admitted that they just wanted to inconvenience the city for a day.

Good luck to the Qaplas (and the Hortons while we're at it; it's interesting finding one or two common threads in the comments on those differing situations).

Ms Lava - Enjoy your early start on 2020. I wished I could send you some of the freezing rain we had yesterday. And of course your Open is only a few weeks away. I've seen that Mrs Court is complaining about how the 50th anniversary of her Grand Slam will be celebrated less enthusiastically than the 50th anniversary of Mr Laver's second GS was throughout 2019. It may be awkward for your lesbian feminists if they're torn over the balance between gender inequality and distancing from homophobia. I'm especially looking forward to the US Open, recalling the honours recently bestowed on Mr Laver. How to honour Mrs Court in a venue renamed after Mrs King is a question worthy of high-level diplomacy. I'd suggest the two of them play an exhibition match to start the evening session of the second Thursday, when the scheduling hits a traditional bump.

Venn @160 / @182: Coincidentally, someone has just posted a "looking back" item on Facebook that included this link:
http://equallove.org.uk/2010/12/heterosexual-couple-denied-a-civil-partnership/?fbclid=IwAR1M0Fus8X2mHuwNtuNLTwVvp2VNEQiPlinqIcCoI2HX7RuKAUOwpEuoEcc
It turns out that one of this couple's reasons for challenging the ban on OS civil partnerships was... that SS people were denied marriage! The other reason was that traditional marriage is patriarchal. Hope that sheds light on your question. By the by, the couple quoted in the article are now married, for whatever that's worth.

Personally I wish the government respected separation from religion and had nothing to do with marriage, that everyone just got civil partnered. And they were welcome to hold a completely legally-irrelevant marriage ceremony in a church if that floated their boat.

While this seemed to me the most viable political strategy a few decades ago, I see that winning SS equality made it not the way to go. It seems the masses have clung with even greater tenacity to religion than to their insistence on oppressing SS people, thank goodness!

@47 BiDanFan
"I would go with an approach of presuming bisexual implies biromantic unless otherwise specified."

Sounds good.

But really my point was that it's unhelpful to only have one umbrella term, because:

How statistically valid is that presumption? Is it even correct a majority of the time? For bi men? If 'yes' then I withdraw my concern.

/Break/

I couldn't get particularly excited about, let alone moved to join in with, the discussion about forms of English.

But it was a joy to see Alison C's comments. (What a wonderful writer!)
One that I found interesting was @138, regarding that one reason being nervous about a focus on grammar is a problem because "nervous people are not the best contributors".

The time or two I did join in, I looked a little closer at my writing because the discussion was /about/ writing. (I also looked at something I had posted in another discussion, and wished my argument's logic had more fully solid.)

I'm not complaining, I'm just noting that I relate to being more self-conscious about writing in a debate about writing. I'm bringing it up because I noticed a couple people surprised me by writing exponentially worse (so bad I found it horrifying) than I'd ever seen them write before, I think because they were writing (about writing in a manner intended) to impress.

(The following is just for those few people; almost all of you are excellent writers. Usually including those couple people.)

One of the most important things in good writing is clarity. If instead one compromises clarity by going out of one's way to appear smart, one cripples one's writing. The more one compromises clarity by using wording that's awkward or stilted or inapt, the worse the writing becomes. (This is not a functionally irrelevant distinction: the majority of people including me aren't gonna read poor writing.)

If a simple, universally well-known wording is equally clear and precise as a more complicated and/or lesser-known wording, the simple, well-known wording is better. Writing is not a puzzle you present to the reader for them to enjoy spending time solving. (It's gonna be pretty rare that I [and I imagine most readers] care enough about what most people have to say to spend my time investigating what they meant.) /You/ tell the reader what you want them to hear, don't send them on a treasure hunt.

For example, nocutename's writing is spectacularly clear. It is impressive not just for that but because it makes no attempt to go out of it's way to impress by appearing smart. And /that/ makes it the most smart, because it could not be more clear if the all the gods were her editors.

I can say the same thing about Alison. However it was not optimal for her to write "AAVE"@129. As much as I was revelling in @129, I [and I bet most readers] couldn't be bothered to look "AAVE" up. If the majority of readers don't know something, define it for the reader when you use it.

(Now one of our regular characters says they imagine doing that would be condescending even when that person writes things almost no one understands. That's not writing, that's masturbating. But here of all places of course I honor their wish to do so.)

Of course I am /not/ saying you can't freely use words most people understand.

Particularly inept is jargon. Even readers with above-average vocabularies shouldn't be expected to know words whose usage is by a particular group or profession. Just because you're in one of those doesn't mean it isn't poor writing to communicate with jargon outside them.

Not sure how much enthusiasm will come for the Open, this time, Mr Venn. Serious fires down south with more lives lost, and no rain forecast. Somber new year for my country.

LavaGirl, best wishes on the firefighting, may you breathe fresh air too!

@180 BiDanFan: I can certainly concur about not wanting a dick inserted up my butt, regardless of its size.
@181 LavaGirl: Happy 2020, Lava, and the fires go out soon so that you can breathe more freely into the new year.

Happy New Year, Dan the Man and everybody!! Big hugs, positrons, and VW beeps to all, and to all a good night.

LavaGirl - so sorry to see the images of devastation. Hoping the rain comes soon.

@LavaGirl: I pray for you and your family and for the people of Australia. I just read the updates on the wildfires! I hope you can get more rain, that relief will come soon to your region, and the devastation will end. The images I saw are frightening--very much like in California. I hope you and your family are okay. Sending big hugs, positrons, and VW beeps your way.

OPENS - depends if gf broke up with the ex immediately after cheating with OPENS. If so, I don't think that OPENS gf cheated, except maybe before the two times she broke up with him. So, I think he should feel free to break up with her to pursue his burgeoning romantic interest(s), and if they are broken up does she need to know the details? Maybe the new thing will fade and he can easily get back together long distance with current gf. I don't see why they want to try for a monogamous marriage.

Curious @185, the term for the phenomenon whereby any post talking about spelling or grammar will inevitably contain spelling or grammatical errors no matter how closely you proofread it before posting is "Muphry's Law," which I kind of love.

Happy New Year everyone.

curious2 @185,

Thank you for the feedback!

AAVE is African-American vernacular English.

@193 Alison
Thanks I did look up AAVE before rapping your fingers for it.

Please know that I only chose your fingers because I had planned to include that issue in my rant, and your abbreviation was at top of mind because your writing style is such a joy.

(As is nocutename's; her writing is such a joy it feels supernatural to me. I'm on the verge of constructing a little shrine in my apartment to nocutename's writing style.)

And because I /loved/ learning @129
"that AAVE does not contain a passive voice...that you can’t say “Michael was shot during an altercation with police.” You have to say, “The police shot Michael.” This is not necessarily a bad thing."

That is /such/ a glorious thing! What would it mean to kill passive voice in the English language? How would one more 'actively' say something like "Michael died"? "Death took Michael"? (Er, "Michael's life ceased"?)

Thank you Erica and Fan. Where I am has been ok ish. A few fires quickly put out. And we had some rain between Xmas and new year.
South in NSW , Victoria and South Australia, as you see, frightening out of control fires. So many places have had drought for years, so everything is tinder dry.

You too curious, thanks.. Didn’t read back far enough. Again, very little smoke haze where I am. Christchurch in NZ has copped it, across the ocean, smoke haze from our fires.

Strange thing to be doing, curious.
Nocute is an English Professor and..the writer of erotic fiction.

Nearly there Grizelda, do you want to take it out?
Whenever I see nocute’s picture, I’m reminded of my late eldest son. He loved that book. Where The Wild Things Are.
Glad xmas/ new year is thru, again. Always a good time for reflection, for feelings to be given their due.
Then the new year, have to start to smarten up.

@197 LavaGirl
"Strange thing to be doing, curious."

What? You mean my @194 that "I'm on the verge of constructing a little shrine in my apartment to nocutename's writing style". That was intended to be humor with hyperbole, since I had already praised her writing @185.

"Nocute is.....the writer of erotic fiction."

Cool!

... Did I steal it?

Did I steal it?

That's weird.

@200-201-202

No prob, CalliopeMuse, you not only stole it (the only non-crime anywhere), you padded it with insurance!

Happy New Year, everyone. My night was day and then my day night. What a confusing time!