Griz?

If LW3's friend wants to remain a virgin forever, he should definitely move to London. I'm a conventionally attractive straight woman who only managed four dates the entire three years I lived there. And I had to do all the work to get them. I can't imagine gay Londoners being less useless than straight Londoners at dating.

Maybe LW1 needs to look for partners who just aren’t all that into butt stuff or who like it and are happy to leave it off the menu (for a while/whatever). There’s plenty of fun to be had otherwise. If someone is lousy at buttfucking but amazing at blowjobs, then get a blowjob and give a blowjob and, to quote Dan, Yahtzee. Or have some good clean wholesome fun in the shower.

@3 slinky: Bravo! Spot on and well said. I second your advice to LW1.
And Yahtzees are always good. :)

LW1, that sounds sad. Arrogant males are a problem, so find some who aren’t. Be more discerning in who you get with, in future.
Not being a gay man I’m treading water here. Though we both have in common seeking out kind men.

@3,4: Oh my...

My roommates and I are all rarely ever home... and it's super rare that all of us are home at the same time. So we coined a term for it that we all shout out on the random occasion that it does happen: Yahtzee!

Maybe we should change it?

Wow, TMIW's letter made me sad. But it shows that it's not just women who find anal painful and don't want to be on the receiving end of it. I wonder if it's the gay hookup scene rather than the mechanics of anal that's leading to the phenomenon he's witnessing. I mean, plenty of women feel "used and abused" by men who ghost them after PIV or a blowjob in hookup culture. Perhaps TMIW should only fuck men he's actually dating and see if they show more consideration for his pleasure? I'm also wondering if he's been using his words and telling tops -- who may be assuming he's more experienced than he is, or intoxicated, or indeed just selfish assholes -- that he's inexperienced and they need to go slower and use more lube. It's sad that he's only experienced bottoming as painful. Ironically, perhaps topping -- the right way! -- might show him that it can be pleasurable for both.

Indeed, though, just because he's a gay man doesn't mean he has to have anal sex at all if it's not his thing.

BAREBEDS's friend may indeed be a straight chaser, or at a more basic level, he may just be afraid of getting hurt and sabotaging his own relationship opportunities by only pursuing people who are unavailable, which is not unique to any gender or orientation. What else can BAREBEDS do besides listen? Perhaps he could go to gay bars with his friend, as wingman; perhaps when Friend wants to talk, BAREBEDS could suggest he's seeking unavailable men on purpose and encourage him to self reflect on this possibility. But ultimately Friend is an adult and finding love, and finding something lovable in himself, is his own responsibility.
I'd also note that these guys must be about 20 and it is not unusual at all to not have had a relationship, or even a hookup, by this age. Particularly if you are gay, and have to deal with coming-out/identity issues in addition to the standard young person identity crisis. BAREBEDS should just keep doing what he's doing, unless Friend starts to get tedious by repeating (and discussing ad nauseam) the same mistakes over and over, in which case it might be time for some tough love.

Roseanne @2: Damn. Glad I'm a bi Londoner, I've never been short of dates.

@1 Griz, 1st comment on the 1st weekly Wednesday column on Jan 1st of a new decade! Congrats!

This is an auspicious occasion, Griz! According to timeanddate, the last time the 1st of a new decade fell on a Wednesday was before Dan was born, 1930, and the next will be 2070 when he'd be 106? Probably retired, or pushing up daisies. So your record will be unique!

LW1 TMIW reminds me of the old joke:

Patient: "Doc it hurst when I do this."

Doctor: "So don't do it."

PHONE, aka LW2
In addition to Dan’s reply I would also add that such anonymous environments may encourage people to air some more of their secret desires, taboo or not, as an added value boner. It may already be the case as it is, for all we know the older caller is a married to a woman with three kids closet case.

If his extra curricular talk bothers you ask him to stop. If he’s persisting, yet another possible added value, tell him you’re recording the conversation and will alert the police regardless of your intention to do so.

Both PHONE and Dan's answer are missing something.

Phone-sex party lines are for fantasy. And pedophile incest is a very popular fantasy.

For example, almost all of the most popular erotica listed at https://www.literotica.com/top/most-read-erotic-stories/ is incest, and plenty of the incest stories involve pedophililia.

Neither of which I'm interested in, so sorting on popularity there is useless for me.

Because I don't wanna read those stories. And PHONE doesn't wanna talk to that guy. That's really the whole story here.

I understand why PHONE might wonder if the guy's "disturbing comments" are real, after all he's hearing the guy's voice. But when you hear hoofbeats, think of horses not zebras.

Yes PHONE, go ahead and tell him "that his child-rape fantasies are a huge turnoff".

But as for telling him "you've thought about reporting him"...if you tell him that you better acknowledge this at the same time: you might simply be violating the joint fantasy space you met in together.

Because thoughts (fantasies) are not a crime, thoughts are not even ethically wrong. If you meet someone in a joint fantasy space and traumatize them WRT their fantasies, you might be the only one doing wrong, PHONE.

In other words if you say that shit Dan advised about thinking about reporting the guy, you better fucking well do so with a degree of apology. That would be cool, and it would keep you from being the abuser by following Dan's advice.

@12 p.s.
By
"if you tell him that you better acknowledge this at the same time" I meant acknowledge it TO HIM (that's what I means later by saying it "with a degree of apology").

Because however much one might feel a need to traumatize someone, one owes them an apology for doing so. In other words, do it as gently as possible.

One theme we've seen over the years is that revulsion is getting in the way of Dan seeing how popular incest/pedophilia fantasies are. (I share the revulsion.) This is an issue for a sex advice columnist.

I agree with CMD and Curious. Perhaps I'm naive, but my impression was that with PHONE's phone buddy, where there's smoke, there's probably just smoke. An added value boner, indeed. The problem is that it's killing PHONE's boner. So he just needs to say that such fantasies are a hard limit for him and that he's terminating the call immediately if the guy brings underage children or relatives into the conversation.

@11 CMD
"If he’s persisting, yet another possible added value"

Good point. I wouldn't be surprised if for the caller, freaking out PHONE is a feature not a bug.

Because while these fantasies are (to me astonishingly) common, someone wanting to freak someone out would know that hearing their voice would help them do so, so they'd have that reason to use a phone-sex party line.

And PHONE is clearly not consenting to being freaked out. But other callers might either consent to that, or to the (to me disturbing) fantasy content.

/Break/
Some months ago a commenter suggested that incest fantasy sprung from teenage desire for highly convenient and available sex. I've pondered that, and I can't say it seems to me to explain it.

I'm troubled by the "go to" presumption of internal homophobia targeted at gay men who are attracted to "masculine" guys.
I know that this was used conditionally by Dan on this occasion, but it is used all too frequently and, in my opinion, without due care by gay men about other gay men.

Men come in a spectrum of types, from the ones that are oozing testosterone to those of us that aren't; from camp, flamboyant and ebullient to those which are quiet, introverted and shy.
Some of this is influenced by genetics, some from development in utero and some by upbringing. Ongoing lifestyle also has its part to play.
To be attracted to a raw form of masculinity isn't a prejudice, it's a preference.

There is no reason this should be a failing simply because it doesn't match the tastes of those professing an opinion.
To illustrate this point, I note that Dan has often expressed an attraction to slightly femme characteristics in the guys he loves. Absolutely no reason for Dan not to like that - but his is a preference, not a preferred behaviour.
One could make comparison with male heterosexual leaders, lawmakers, pastors, etc. opining that they have no attraction to men - therefore see no reason why other men should need such a deviation from this "norm"; this is a logical fallacy.

The harsh reality is that there are often (but not always) defining differences between gay and straight men. Macho, athletic masculinity is much more common in straight men. It is commonly accompanied by subtle distinctions in brow, jaw, nose and hairline that are perceived almost subliminally. It is less frequent with gay men.
Bodybuilding and general fitness goes some way to enhancing a masculine appearance but it doesn't duplicate these telltale features.
Adding testosterone later in life doesn't necessarily achieve this, I've certainly got no problem with trans men but there is still a difference there despite impressive results for some guys.

Any gay man with good gaydar can pick up on the features that signal a guy is more likely to be gay. If there was an evolutionary mechanism at play we would inevitably be attracted to those features, but we are not all so moved.
Indeed an enduring ideal for gay men is the rugged, masculine appearance - along the lines of the knight in shining armour ready to sweep us off our feet.
It is true that to live in such a bubble sets us out for a life of disappointment, but I'll argue that isn't a self-hating prejudice at play any more than being attracted to very good looking people when we aren't so much ourselves.

Unless one is very attractive to the dating pool, one has to learn to compromise or remain alone.
I've done that. I've been in long term relationships with camp tops but always find my attraction returns to the masculine type. It is what attracts me, not some boiling self-hate that makes me reject femme, swishy, lisping suitors (these stereotypes are intentionally highlighted only because they don't attract me; I can still be respectful and friendly to people with those characteristics, I just don't feel the desire to be fucked by them).

The out, gay dating pool has a higher proportion of ... er ... gay characteristics on display (well ... duh) and if these don't interest you then you have quite a problem.
But, having lived a life of compromise, I can still confirm that a straight guy can turn my head in a way a gay man rarely does.

Even in porn there are many straight guys performing for gay men's entertainment.
This isn't supply generating demand. A large number of gay guys out there are interested in these subtle feature distinctions.

However male homosexual attraction came about &/or if it has any evolutionary component, many of us are destined not to find our ideal.
Does it mean we should give up trying? No. but I'd much prefer to be wanted for who I am rather than being the consolation prize for a disappointed gay man.

My point in all this ramble is: could we ease up on the "internalised homophobia" trope and keep it for the bible bashers who want to deny our rights and respect gay men who just love masculinity?

Perhaps we should instead caution lonely gay men from "misplaced androphilia".

I largely agree with most of Dan's advice to LW3. A college age guy who the LW describes as "attractive, charming, and confident" who can't find a date on a college campus or through Grindr is doing something wrong. Whether it is internal homophobia or something else, the guy is definitely doing something to block his own success. If he was truly an attractive charming confident gay guy, he should easily be able to find dates on an almost daily basis on any campus in the country. Something is standing in his way. Internalized homophobia is a likely candidate for that block, given that the LW specifically mentioned his gay friend pining after another straight friend. He could just be unreasonably picky, or not as confident as he projects, or has some hard-to-accommodate kink, but internalized homophobia seems like the most likely guess.

Truck @17, thanks for your thoughtful post. I guess this is the flip side to the frequent female lament of "why do the men I fancy all turn out to be gay?" No one alleges internalised heterophobia in these cases, they just note gay men's tendency toward better grooming.

Reverse @18, BAREBEDS never said his friend can't find a date, he said he's never had a relationship -- he "hasn't had anything significant happen" in college. Perhaps Friend is having hookups that he'd like to lead to relationships, but the guys he's meeting are flakes. Another possibility is that BAREBEDS may be kinkier than he wants to share with his straight classmates, or that while he looks for Mr Right he's banging Mr Married or something along those lines. I'm more inclined to go with Truck's "unfortunate taste" theory. This guy's only 20; if this pattern of falling for unavailable straight dudes continues for another decade, I'd be likelier to share your view.

Mr. Porn Star, please stop using the word "Patriarchy" as a negative when describing sex between MEN. We like "daddy." I certainly HOPE that gay male sex is patriarchal. Lord.

@18 being on a college campus doesn't tell us much. Could be UCLA with 41k students (at 2% gay guys - over 400 potential BFs a stone's throw away). And in the greater metro Los Angeles 18 million pop. (100,000+ potentials). Or could be a small 1,500 student liberal arts college where town is the college and nothin' else, 200 miles from nowhere (at 2%, that'd be 15 gay guys, conceivably none of them a good match).

@20 Betternoshedont
"using the word "Patriarchy" as a negative when describing sex between MEN"

He didn't. He mentioned patriarchy simply as cultural context, not in "describing sex" between anyone.

"I certainly HOPE that gay male sex is patriarchal."

You do? Why? Do you know what patriarchy means? Why would you want all gay male sex to involve someone being dominant? Aren't you OK with people being free to enjoy egalitarian sexual behavior?

"Lord."

Lord yourself.

Who's Mr Porn Star?

Rather, what's so hard about using his name?

@23 andros
"Who's Mr Porn Star?"

The guest expert Dan brought in in the first sentence of the reply to the first letter.

Interesting truck @17. From the outside it’s diffucult to understand male gay culture, past the clues. Most of which are stereotypes.. or for people like me still referring decades back when gay men went troppo, all out in their erotic behaviour. And as a straight woman my mouth just dropped. How could we be so different?
Things have very deeply changed since then as we all know thru tragedy in the form of a plague.
Horrifying times.
I get from different letters, that what is missing is the ‘ traditional feminine’ qualities of empathy, once gay men became more public and set up families etc. Obviously many gay men had/ have developed these qualities. Dan and Terry, for eg, because it’s difficult to rear children well without them.
I’d contend that many gay men are developing these qualities quicker than straight men, because there is no woman around to patch the emotional gaps.
I’ve met amazing empathetic men, and they weren’t push overs. Therapists and Buddhist Teachers. I tried for thirty years to help my husband develop it fully. He resisted, his patriarchal coldness and power was too hard to give up.
Empathy has nothing to do with bodily presentation, or testosterone. It’s learning to feel as the other feels. Like these tops don’t know how to do with LW1.

Those physical markers for gay men, Truck. That’s a new one for me. How did you get to this info, is it your personal research.
Thanks for posting, getting gay men to share deep insights, seems a difficult task. Men being secretive, which is not helpful. Because part of developing empathy comes from sharing feelings with others.

LW1, I agree with Fan, if you’re only looking in hook up culture, don’t expect partners to look after you. Same in the straight scene, slam bam thank you mam.
Do the yards and seek out a meaningful connection with men. You are still young, welcome to adulthood. The twenties can be a time to find out what’s what, then bring your head, can’t resist, the big one, into play.
Don’t keep letting these type of men, use you.

@6 jack chandelier: How about Bingo instead?
@9 delta35: Many thanks and Happy 2020! I could not resist jumping at the golden opportunity to be FIRDT on this particular day / week / month / year / decade. :)
@17 truck: I love your avatar.

Phone sex, it’s like some men rise from the gutter.
LW, if you get this man again, tell him that incest is the biggest taboo of all. That in every culture studied by anthropologists, that taboo is in place. That he has to stop these fantasies, find an appropriate distance from his step/ blood children, and grow the fuck up.

There's too much missing from the first letter. Do these selfish, vaguely sadistic tops not also give blow jobs? Is TMIW never getting any satisfaction from partnered sex? Can talking about mutual satisfaction and aftercare be part of the before-sex talk? Do these callous tops have anything else in common? Perhaps there are buzz words which could operate like red flags, warning TMIW away beforehand. Maybe try meeting men via friends who can vouch for their behavior or use a different site or app--perhaps one that is geared a bit more towards relationships than hookups (even if what TMIW is looking for is a hookup; he may just find men who care more about their partner's pleasure that way). Perhaps his own profile can make a fairly explicit statement that he only bottoms for considerate tops?

@17: Thank you, truck, for that very interesting perspective. It seems to be a variation on a somewhat common theme that transcends orientation: that the more conventionally attractive and adhering to sexual stereotypes of masculinity and femininity people are, the more frequently they seem to be selfish and self-centered, not only in the sexual arena. I theorize that they've become so accustomed to receiving worshipful adulation that they never learn to develop empathy or the need to be considerate partners. Of course, I'm generalizing. And if they pair up with each other--an A-list, drop-dead-gorgeous movie star or model with another such a one, then either their mutual selfishness cancels each others out, or they are forced to learn how to be more considerate partners, or they come to the realization that they're not the one holding all the cards and enjoy no special privileges so it's time to up their consideration game (again, in all areas, not just sex). It's that whole power imbalance thing.

@21: delta35, excellent point about the size of the college campus and its isolation vs. proximity to the big city. There are a lot of colleges that have substantially fewer than 1,500 students, some under a thousand. The pickings could well be very slim, indeed.

BiDanFan @7 Spot on about TMIW & @8: Lucky you. Keep on rocking the house in London and elsewhere!
@23 Andros: Ty Mitchell.
@26 LavaGirl: Agreed and seconded regarding TMIW's situation and our culture. My ex kept pushing me to do anal with him; I'm glad I didn't. I am certain that it would have hurt like hell despite any amount of lubrication, and he wouldn't have appreciated any effort I might have made had I consented.

@LavaGirl
Do you ever wonder if your (repeatedly alluded to over time) desire to teach has always served you well?

@26 you tell us that you "tried for thirty years to help my husband develop" something but that "his patriarchal coldness and power was too hard to give up". Over time IIRC you've also told us that your type is guys who that would tend to be like that. I'm sure I'm not telling you anything you don't know, including that setting out to change people is just asking for disappointment.

@30 you advise a LW to tell a caller to "find an appropriate distance from his step/ blood children" when we have no reason to think he has any children IRL. You tell the LW to

"tell him that incest is the biggest taboo of all. That in every culture studied by anthropologists, that taboo is in place. That he has to stop these fantasies"

If you read my @16 you'd know that incest appears to be one of the, if not the, most prevalent fantasies of all. (However abhorrent you and I and Dan all find this fantasy.)

As an observant and participant here you should know that people don't choose their kinks and fantasies. You should also know that very often people fantasize about things they would never in a million years want to do, in particular WRT incest.

Did you just want to ignore these facts so that you could have the caller instructed not to do something (that, importantly, we have no reason to think he wants to do IRL anyway)? Even though telling people not to have a fantasy is (like trying to change one's husband) most likely going to fail? And since fantasies occur in one's head and not in the real world (and thus cannot be wrong since they do not act upon the real world), why try for no reason to do something likely to fail?

Curious @22: Applause! Excellent take down of what seemed to me, too, a ridiculous post. Better @20, feel free to have whatever sort of sex you want. It's not working for TMIW.

Nocute @31, something else TMIW might want to do is practice using butt toys on himself. That might help him relax when with a partner. If anal is always painful for TMIW, it's possible the common denominator is him.

@34 cont, and then when he is with a partner, he can warm up using the familiar toys.

What curious? How is giving advice teaching.. if you have an issue with what I’ve said, specify and explain your complaint. Don’t start the yr off with snide asides, please.

Oh you’re referring to wisdom, curious. Yeah well, don’t read my posts if you don’t enjoy them.

@36 LavaGirl
I think my response to your @30 provided plenty of specifics.

Hey Grizelda, yes. How’s your Stardom going?
Cold there I guess. Keep warm.

Sorry curious, I haven’t read it. Must be me skipping your comments.

LG
@36 you replied to my @33 (about your @30) but you didn't read it?

@37 " don’t read my posts if you don’t enjoy them"
What does enjoyment have to do with it: I criticized your @30. And it needed doing, it deserved it.

@21 I'm being pedantic and it doesn't change your point substantially - I just noted that 2% of 41,000 is a little over 800, not 400, and 2% of 1500 is 30, not 15. Uhhh... not sure if I'm contributing to the conversation, sorry, I will desist.

LavaGirl, I hope that you are safe from the fires. Good god; the whole country seems to be aflame.

@39 LavaGirl: I wish I could send you and the entire continent of Australia some much needed rainfall to extinguish the deadly wildfires there. Sending much love--it is good to hear from you.
My recording artist friend is working on the master and CD copies of the North Cascades Community Orchestra Winter Concert. I should have some soon to distribute. I can't wait to hear the recording!

Who is going to score the very first Lucky @69 Award to 2020? I would prefer to have another commenter win this honor as I have already claimed FIRDT this week.
Tick..tick..tick...

@45: Aiiigghh! I need to drink more. Make that "...the very first Lucky @69 Award of 2020".

Exciting Grizelda, a recording of work you composed.
Yes nocute, it does feel like that, though where I am in the sub tropics we are ok. For now. We’ve had some rain this last week.
The Southern States, with the dry heat, and drought in many areas for years now
all across the country, beyond comprehension the horrors they are going thru.
The Victoria Premier is sending a navy ship up their cost because people can’t get out of some of the popular beach towns. Very very scary for many people.

@47: Horrible.

@47: LavaGirl: It's relief to hear that, despite the severity of the fires throughout Australia you and your family are all safe where you are. I cannot imagine the horror of having to evacuate burning neighborhoods, drought ravaged regions, and cities. Sending much love, and hope that all gets much better for Australia soon.

@47 LavaGirl; How's this for global warming irony? Whatcom County where I am is on flood watch with high wind warnings. I wish we could send you our extra rainfall to relieve your drought conditions.

I thought we'd all agreed that fantasies are fantasies and they don't need to be real? Call me old fashioned, but if I were interested in hurting kids in real life, I wouldn't be divulging it simply to anonymous men on gay sex party lines.

also, FWIW, feeling Used and Abused is a social construct in the modern fuck market - most of the time people are used for sex, the recipient doesn't realize it until weeks or months or years later.

@19 If the college guy is indeed shagging but not moving on to boyfriend material there are several things to consider e.g hygiene, out of shape, appearing desperate, small penis, being a bad lay...

@1 Griz - you have a true talent (star)

I totally didn't even consider the expert's explanation that LW1 might not even like butt stuff. I've experienced (too many) inconsiderate, or even sadistic (and not in a good way), men so I read the letter through that lense. Either way I think the best thing to do is find a considerate, steady hook-up/FWB. I also like @34 Bi's suggestion to explore anal toys on his own, which would allow him to figure out if he really does enjoy anal.

@17 truck - I agree the amount of focus on possible internalized homophobia was unnecessary. He didn't say his friend never had hook-ups, just nothing significant. It would've been nice if Dan could've given more practical advice - ask the friend questions about the hook-ups or short things he's had. Why didn't they work out? What is he into about these straight guys? Is it a scarcity issue or wanting what he can't have, and if so why? Next time he starts lamenting encourage him to do some self-reflection.

@33 curious I'd add that being taboo is a huge part of what makes something kinky for a lot of people. Another possibility: this guy might get off on (literally or figuratively) making people uncomfortable. Either way I don't think shaming him is going to be helpful.

Jodo @53: Or some combination of possibilities that have already been mentioned: he's very picky; guys his age are less into having relationships and more into one-night stands; slim pickings, etc. Honestly, the guy's 20. His lack of a significant relationship by this age does not seem unusual to me at all. Again I ask, are there apps other than Grindr where men can seek relationships, not (primarily) hookups? Friend could also try joining his university's LGBT+ clubs or other local queer-focused organisations like a gay men's chorus, the Pride planning committee, Meetup groups for gay men, etc. Put himself into situations where the majority of men around him aren't straight and see what happens.

@12 Curious2: Literotica has a strict policy against stories portraying sex with anyone under 18. Yes, there are a lot of incest stories, but all are at least nominally 18+.

@54 Kitten Whiskers
Yes, I think that must be a major factor in fueling the apparent huge popularity of incest fantasies. (Instead of for example the theory I dissed @16.)

@56 Whirled without end
Thanks for that. Yes nominally, probably younger by description but not stated specifically as younger.

Plus maybe I was thinking of some other sites, like asstr.org. But honestly maybe all sites do that because I guess a site would have major legal issues if it did anything else.

I imagine that's because (I have found that) lunatics like religious fundamentalists don't draw the proper enormous distinction between thoughts and acts. Of course the inability to do that is really disqualifying here in sex adviceland, which compelled me to speak up in this thread.

Finally, for the first time in 20 years, we're back in a decade with a simple name, the Twenties!

This time perhaps not Roaring and without flappers.

Greetings to all (or at least many) - I'd have posted sooner, but was only out of bed yesterday for about half an hour.

I closed out the decade watching Another Country, and watched it again with commentary yesterday morning. What jumped out this time was Mr Firth's reminding me of why I find it hard to trust leftists; I don't think they've lost the instinct that led Judd to make his first response to Bennett's revelation that he would never love women an expression of sympathy that he realized a moment later was patronizing and unforgivable. There's also a disdain for liberals we can't afford to emulate, from the scene when Judd has nothing but scorn for Barclay's attempt to rule their house humanly. That led right into Harcourt's almost taking Barclay for Bennett on his way to their meeting in the boat, and that subtle moment when Bennett watches Harcourt approaching and the boat rocks, which I incline to put down as Bennett's Moment of Truth, though it takes him a while to realize it.

For Ms Lava, there's also the edification of the Tutoie Moment, about which I can't really guess whether it will strike young viewers or just go over their heads. Being allowed a day out for his mother's wedding, Bennett invites Harcourt to dinner at the Crown Hotel. As they are in different houses, this requires some doing - looking out for Harcourt, arranging to pass him going in the opposite direction, and thrusting his note case into Harcourt's pocket in passing without saying a word. The TM comes shortly after Harcourt arrives, when Bennett reveals that his name is Guy. "I know; I found out. Mine's James." The significance (and attached difficulties) of that finding out may get missed in these times with the shifted emphasis from first names to preferred pronouns.

Ms Lava @27 - Please don't take it personally if we don't reveal as many deep insights as you'd like to see. To use an image Ms Cute will like, sooner or later you get to the equivalent of a barrier more solid than the black veil in Udolpho, which, Catherine Morland is convinced, hides Laurentina's skeleton. Most of our deepest insights are shared primarily with each other. We have nowhere near the need of straight or bi men to be understood by women. Also, and I suppose you've been on the receiving end of this yourself, probing interest, however beneficent at the source, can end up being used to hostile ends. It might be lovely to live in a world where all genders and orientations had full understandings of each other's psyches with no ill effects to anyone, but, if I could unlock a door and give full access to the gay psyche, I don't think I should do that. Too great a risk of outside regulation. Similarly, I think it vitally important that nobody ever discover a Cause, as that road leads to inevitable eradication.

@20 Thank you.

Regarding LW1’s problem, this is exactly why I strongly encourage ALL gay men to practice a little versatility. We all have our preferences of course, but I think one huge advantage we have over heterosexuals is that we can actually have first-hand experience of receiving the kind of attention we give to others. Getting blown helps me get better at giving head. Bottoming helps me become a better top. Personally I tend to suspect that if you’ve flat out refused to consider taking on one role or another, chances are you won’t be as much fun in bed as someone who has (again, if you’ve tried it with a few different guys and it just doesn’t work for you that’s fine, but the point is you’ve tried it and have some idea of what it’s like).

It sounds to me like a big part of the problem is that LW1 has been approached too aggressively in the past. Some of that does come from the culture: a lot of gay porn shows sex that’s basically an endurance death match between men (note: not the effing patriarchy at work; heck the bottoms in those hardcore gang bang pornos are often framed as the heroes). I tend to get off on sex that’s a bit more on the aggressive side myself and I absolutely respect and love a bottom or a top who can hang with me.

But the key word there is “respect” and a good partner can and does adjust his style of play to the man he’s with. If I were with LW1, I would try to do my best to “read” him and adjust to something he’d find more pleasurable. That kind of top is out there, you just need to find them (and actually I suggest finding a guy who likes fisting; experienced FF tops know you can’t just force it in)

But of course, this process is a heck of a lot easier if LW1 tells me up front what it is that he really likes to do. So use your words, LW1, and find yourself a top who’s willing to treat you the way you want to be treated.

@58 But I like flappers!

It may have been the champagne at work, but I actually had a desire to start doing the Charleston on the NYE dance floor the other night. Alas, I didn’t have the skill to actually do it and retained enough sense to refrain from trying.

@62: I like flappers, too. And the Charleston. I like the haircuts, too. The clothing styles are not particularly flattering for any woman with hips and an ass, and I hope no one brings back goldfish-swallowing, and that the decade doesn't end with a global depression, but otherwise, yeah: bring on the roaring twenties reboot!

Where are all these callous user, abuser tops who'll make me "shut up and take whatever they can get out of it" when I need one??

Now for the letters - L1 made me think almost right away of the late David Rees, who, to judge from his writing, was a more considerate top than LW1 has encountered. The letter also had a vintage feel of American authors whose peaks came in the seventies or eighties, when it seemed the top/bottom dichotomy took up more of the landscape, though it seems not to have faded entirely out of the picture. I will say, though, that I can hardly recall seeing any of that when I was socially active.

I think Ms Cute and Ms Fan are right that a lot is missing from the letter. I thought more, though, about LW himself. We have that LW is 29 and living in California. Urban/Rural? Red/Blue? How long has LW been out? Is he in a different tier of beauty than most of those who top him? Do his appearance and/or mannerisms fit a particular stereotype? It seems almost certain LW isn't using his words - is that because he wants his mind read, has just accepted that it's not a bottom's place to attempt to run the boink, has experienced being shut up or ignored by enough bad tops, or something else? How is he finding all these many partners? Does the range of orientation tilt in either direction?

I'm not sure how well California squares up with what I think is a carryover from some Mediterranean cultures that view a top as the Man and a bottom as the F**. Maybe where in California LW is might be of significance, though I might have thought that more likely to arise in New York City. And I wish I had a sense of whether LW is pursuing partners who all fit this type or they're what he attracts.

It's a bit saddening that LW seems to have bought into the association that MM must mean anal to the extent of blocking out everything else. I will question Mr Savage's selection of particular Guest Expert for this question, as someone who sometimes enjoys being topped as if he's scum really doesn't seem the best fit for this LW. Perhaps Mr Savage selects GEs with an eye largely on their socio-politics. I take exception to the way the GE blames gays for patriarchy (Ms Ods will appreciate the inexact phrasing both in the GE's last sentence in that paragraph and also in Mr Savage's description of the GE himself, in which it is not clear whether GE is a gay who appears in unspecified porn or an MM porn performer of unspecified orientation, though "gay gay porn star" sounds inelegant) and invites the inference we're all straight-chasers.

It is interesting that Mr Savage and GE lean subtly in a gay direction in the focus of their advice, almost as if they want to drop an indirect hint that LW might do well to fish in higher Kinsey waters. I have nothing to say against the advice of going for more versatile partners, perhaps trying topping himself, or even a frequent line of Mr Savage's to take anal off the menu completely for a period of time. I mostly just wish I had better cosmic vibrations about LW.

Ms Cute @63 - So you're Michelle Dockery's target audience; I salute you. The best part about Lady Mary's haircut was how pleased the stylist was finally to get a customer who could carry off the look well.

@66: Mr Ven, while I initially enjoyed "Downton Abbey," especially as it got a bit cheezier, I stopped watching somewhere in season 3, between the deaths of Sybil and Matthew, so I never saw Lady Mary as a flapper. And although Michelle Dockery does have the perfect hair/face/figure to pull off the hair and clothing style, unless Lady Mary lightened up significantly (seems unlikely), she will never have the joie de vivre I associate with true flappers. When I think of flappers, my ideal is Colleen Moore, in movies like "Why Be Good?" and "Flaming Youth." Look at the joyousnes of her dancing: https://images.app.goo.gl/gpZTuzoPcMRU2vKSA

I don’t need to know what goes on, Nr Venn, past what is needed to answer questions from gay men. Also, I’ve read novels written by gay men, heard from them, to get a general picture of the sexual behaviour that goes on. Emotionally, that’s where I’m in the dark. Because gay men like most straight men, disclose a quarter of what women disclose. Just have to read Dan’s threads, to see that.
Downton Abbey was a yawn, after a while. I’m with you nocute, that woman was so drab.
The idea was done much better in Gosford Park, the real abuse shown in English class society, to the servants.

Gosford Park is a great, great movie!

@66: question to ponder...is Lady Mary a timelord(timelady?) and if she was the first Mary, is Fleabag the fifth Mary?

Reading the first leader as a straight dude, I'm thinking that a bit too much emphasis is being placed on the physical aspects of topping. It sounds as though TMIW's issue here is the interpersonal dynamic-the sense of entitlement and lack of consideration and respect that he has experienced from the tops he has interacted with. I'm thinking some of those tops are not clear on the distinction between tops and bottoms, on the one and, and doms and subs on the other. If a top is assuming he is also the dom, and has not received consent from the bottom to be the dom, or an agreement from the bottom to be the sub, that should be a dealbreaker. It's not that different from a man who insists on nothing but missionary position sex with a woman assuming that his literal positionality in the sexual act entitles him to tie the woman up or put his hands around her throat. I'm thinking TMIW needs to have a serious conversation with whoever is his top from now on as to exactly what he is and is not signing up for in this. As is always the case with sex, this comes down to what goes on between the ears, not what goes on between the legs.

Last Letter: Dude, if you were a really good friend you'll let your gay roomie blow you... you know... just for the practice and all... ;)

@72: "Goofus says no to blowjob practice. Gallant lets his friend get all the practice he needs".

Ms Cute - Lily James' Rose had the flapper personality and inclination for that sort of wardrobe. Except for the Haircut, Lady Mary was a bit on the dreary side towards the end as the series wondered if she'd find a husband "worthy of her". Except for the Lady Edith Fan Club, the redeeming moments of the final season were not a great many: Edith's magazine's advice columnist, Miss Cassandra Jones, turned out to be the Dowager Countess' butler Spratt (another Gosford Park alumnus, a sort of non-villainous pre-Barrow, who was disappointed of his hope to dress Ivor Novello); Isobel carried away Lord Merton to rescue him from the clutches of his grasping daughter-in-law; Mary visited Barrow after his suicide attempt and they bonded over not knowing why they did such horrible things.

I'll agree with all the praise for Gosford Park; I haven't seen anything done by Ms Mirren or Ms Watson that I'd call better.

Ms Lava - We're happy to welcome tourists, and will gladly sell souvenirs and picture postcards, but researchers make us very skittish. Given history, I don't hold that to be a moral failing. Reveal too many of our emotions and we will literally be eradicated, or at the very least regulated into conduct not of our own choosing and highly unpleasant to us, however high-minded the motivations of the regulators. We haven't the numbers to be able to afford your description of womanly emotional openness, at least, not to outsiders.

Also, in a way, we live in times of such upheaval that trying to take a portrait of the gay psyche now would be like Ms Muse's cup of water from a swiftly moving river. Our emotions have to catch up from so many changes of conditions. It tears at me in a way nothing else can that I'll have to be dead long before there is any chance of a glorious society where nobody alive had experienced conversion therapy or been fired for being gay or matured thinking marriage a locked door to him. Those are the conversations I'd want desperately to hear, and of course it's impossible. Perhaps your granddaughter's grandson will know that time. I salute him.

L2 seems the perfect occasion on which to invoke LMB.

Sadly the roaring 20’s were not so roary in some other places. Much of Europe expressed distrust of the old system while yearning for “a strong man” who can fix it all.
It is worth checking out German films from that era: dark scenes, arrogant government officials, creepy characters, lies and betrayal.
A book written by the Frank Rich of those days was published shortly after the war, detailing images and plots. Here’s a link to a video discussing the book and the movies, as well as their aesthetic influence of some newer ones:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ndFysO2JunE

Much to my added value horror an ad for Donald Trump popped up when I first clicked this link, reminding me of that waiter in Twin Peaks who appeared on the stage all of a sudden to warn agent Cooper.
“It is happening again….”

@10 Delta35,

It's not just a joke. I'm dumb enough that I once seriously needed a doctor to explain that to me and benefitted from the explanation.

I had mild tendonitis in my right hand, almost certainly as a result of a law school locker with a sticky door and my solution to that problem of pounding it closed with the heel of my hand. So, when the pain persisted a while without full recovery, I saw a doctor about it and tried to explain the precise location and trigger for my pain:

Me: It's not really hurting right now, but it hurts pretty much when I do this. [DCP123 contorts hand and wrist into bizarre position while poking fingers in a peculiar direction.]

Dr.: OK. How often do you find the need to do that?

Me: [Starting to clue in and get embarrassed.] Umm. Not very often... really just to test to see if it still hurts.

Dr.: Why don't you try not doing that for a few weeks and see if it gets better?

That wasn't the only time I'd been feeling discomfort, but once I stopped going out of my way to inflame those tendons, the inflammation eased. Some ibuprofen may also have been used. I think a dentist may have had to explain the same thing to me once. He said something like: "Stop poking it with your tongue. I understand the temptation, but it doesn't help anything heal."

@Mr. Ven: I can't speak for the whole country, and obviously there will always be outliers and people who just hate. But I think that the day you're envisioning for LavaGirl's grandchildren is getting closer and the pace is picking up. The single biggest LGBT-hate group and proponent of conversion therapy is the Evangelical Church, and more and more young people are leaving it, in large part because of that intolerance and bigotry.

Young people, even many religious young people are far more accepting (at least in theory) of LGBT people than they were even 15 years ago.
I continue to hold out hope for a sea change in my lifetime. Of course, I can tend towards the Pollyanna-ish.

Well Mr Venn, @75. Given I’m so short on insight into the gay world, I just flipped the genders for LW1, and spoke to him as I would to a late twenties young woman. If men are using you, find other men.

The top/ bottom, that seems so fixed for gay men, that aspect of gay culture interests me. Because what does it say about attitudes if tops think they are king of the castle. No tops without bottoms. It’s the fixed attitude I wonder about. Where being a switch would seem to me to satisfy both.

@69 nocutename: WA-HOOOO!!!! Big congratulations on scoring this week's very first Lucky @69 Award of 2020 and a whole new decade! Savor the highly coveted glory. :)

I am just sick about the horrifying severity of the fires in Australia! Rain, rain, rain, please come down to Oceania and extinguish this massive life threatening apocalypse. LavaGirl, thank you for your updates--I'm glad to hear that you and your family are safe.

My first thought about L3 was that this is what seems a highly probable outcome for those of us who get overly assimilated. As Ms Fan points out, BF3 (regrettable that BF convers both boyfriend and best friend, but at least the difference is usually discernible) seems to have no gay social circle at all. Not many of us thrive in that particular soil. And Grindr is not a One Size Fits All solution. Note that LW3 calls BF3 "my gay friend", implying that BF3's the only G in the circle. This is the sort of thing that I read about on occasion throughout the last decade, perhaps a little longer. Especially in areas where contacts were easily available, young gays often reported not having any gay friends or even acquaintances. (Side note that the LWs seem on the more literate side this week.) This works out fine for some us, but fewer than most people think, and I would include Mr Savage, who thinks gays' friends should be mostly straights, among those people.

Reading Mr Savage's response, I was struck by [Because even if one of his straight crushes turns out to be just heteroflexible enough to let your roommate suck his dick, that guy isn't going to be interested in more than a few blowjobs and certainly won't be capable of loving him.], which reminded me of the letter about the straight-gay "service arrangement" which the straight LW found a nice bonding experience and didn't know what to do about it if it might still be going by the time he found a girlfriend. Mr Savage and a large portion of the commentariat seemed ready to assure LW that his gay friend would be perfectly happy to keep servicing him, probably let Hypothetical Girlfriend watch, and quite possibly even join in. I'm glad that Mr Savage realizes the limitations of such an arrangement for someone in search of a relationship.

One thing LW3 appears to be doing well is providing BF3 with a good and close S/G friendship of the sort that can enrich a gay life when done right. I sometimes think it's the modern version of the love that dare not speak it's name, particular in the form of the fiction described by Mr Fry in the courtroom scene of Wilde. (That reminds me that I really must get hold of The Happy Prince and see how Mr Everett's Oscar compares.) There is a knack - I eventually picked it up, which suggests it can't be that hard.

BF3's usual selections seem almost not sought for exactly the same purposes. If anything, one might be glad that the outright homophobic super-hetero DHs reveal themselves so quickly before one gets too invested in them as potential relationship material, though one might lament that can't fit a friendship mode. The straight metrosexual crushes (one of which I'd guess to be the sort that has recently thrown BF3 into his recent tizzy) seem of different material. I'd be disinclined to suspect BF3 of being a straight-chaser just on the basis of repeated crushes on metrosexuals. In a sort parallel to one of Ms Fan's observations, their superior grooming may be enough to make them seem genuinely available. That would also seem to be in large part an answer to Mr Savage's suspicions, unless metrosexuals have become a good deal more obviously straight than they were at their peak.

I'll agree with a sizable chunk of Mr Truck's post. There has been an increase lately in attaching a negative connotation to gay attraction to masculinity. I've seen this as emanating primarily from the "woke" crowd, but will allow that it is particularly galling when it comes from other gays in excess of what could be considered fair addressing of the (however real or perceived) masculine-favouring imbalance. My GayMRA acquaintances occasionally present at least moderately convincing cases that pressure is being applied to gays either to feminize ourselves or to go for more feminine men, though they usually overplay their hands by universalizing both the appeal of the masculine and its being the across-the-board preference.

What seems to me to save Mr Savage's conditional is that it's based on gayness rather than femininity. The two are not synonymous, nor is openly gay at all the same as obviously gay. I'll agree that an attraction to one type instead of another is easily either pushed onto others as a moral plus or seen as a ripe field for self-interrogation for socio-political convenience. To some extent, though, this is bridge versus chess. Mr Savage is playing chess with an open problem; Mr Truck is playing bridge and calculating percentages.

I'm afraid I would not ascribe the difference to bow/jaw/nose/hairline, though I'd rather like hairline. It would tie in to my theory that male professional golfers are much more anti-gay than their tennis-playing contemporaries because they generally have considerably worse hair. I've thought the difference to be largely in the eyes, and something else which I shan't reveal. One must keep some secrets. It certainly seems as if Mr Truck's attractions are the horse that just happens to be hitched to a usually straight cart and not the other way around.

Now, of course, we have no clue as to BF3's proclivities. Mr Truck invites the inference that he's a bottom, which may put a little more truth onto his side of the equation; I couldn't say with certainty. I do think that more neutral terms which would have conveyed the same meaning without carrying a sense of derision could have been chosen instead of femme, swishy and lisping. I accept the intent of the disclaimer, but it doesn't quite go the whole hog.

Porn is a bit too Humpty Dumpty for me to take on cold.

I'd say it's only the absolute straight-chaser who's destined not to find his ideal. It's a good deal harder for some than others. But I don't think we can say with certainty that this is BF3's plight. I'll stick with getting BF3 at least a more gay if not mostly gay circle; he's certainly fighting against the odds if he's comparing his fortunes to those of the Wainthropps. One other thing LW3 might do is ask himself why BF3 is the only gay in the circle; are the others perhaps One Good Gaying him?

The Roaring 20's---I do like flapper dresses and The Charleston.
The present globally disastrous political situation, however.........

Ms Cute @79 - I'd be as happy to be wrong as Toni Collette's Harriet Smith (a bold anti-type casting choice if ever there was one) was in admitting to Mr Weston her having believed that one loved but once. But I am thinking forward to the time when nobody living will have experienced particular prejudices that have so influenced our lives. Really, that may take another generation or two.

Eridan @64, your post may be tongue in cheek but it may shed light on TMIW's question. Why do the tops he's encountered "use and abuse" their bottoms? Possibly because the bottoms -they've- encountered, up until now, have wanted to be fucked that way. I once saw Dan himself give an eye opening interview where he said straight people could learn from gay men, who ask each other before sexual encounters, "What are you into?" It seems TMIW could learn from this as well, and tell his tops he likes gentle sex.

Venn @65, I love your phrase "run the boink." I disagree with your comment that the guest expert blames gays for patriarchy; he says "A lot of men are bad at attending to their partners' pleasure because we live in a fucked-up patriarchy." Would you yourself not blame patriarchy for this Mediterranean view that tops are manly and bottoms are not so, therefore less deserving of respect? Sounds pretty patriarchal to me, though "toxic masculinity" would probably have been a better catchphrase, because patriarchy refers to male dominance over women and there are no women in this equation, which may be why the word has triggered such dissent. And his reference to "the guys I wish would fuck me" implies that he is a porn star who is gay (or at least bi), not a het who stars in gay porn. Lastly, I think you're conflating LW1 and LW3; it was the latter who found himself falling for straight guys. There was no suggestion that TMIW's problem is that he seeks out closeted men who express internalised homophobia by "punishing" gay bottoms.

Alaskan @71, good point that either TMIW or his partners are confusing topping with domming.

Lava @81, I agree that this is interesting to me. As a queer woman, I don't often see this dynamic in vanilla FF sex. There are some pillow princesses but generally we like to both give and receive. Men have dicks and they have buttholes; why do so many of them want to restrict their sexual experience to just one or the other? (And why, so often, is the preference the butthole? This is completely the opposite to the female experience when having sex with men; their primary objective, with few exceptions, seems to be sticking their dick in. But gay men struggle to find tops. Seems strange to me too.)

Venn @83, I'll agree with your impression of metrosexuals as men whose grooming habits make them appear gay even though they are straight. (Haven't heard this term since the mid 00s; are college kids bringing it back?) This does seem different to Truck's unfortunate taste in men who appear straight, and are. Truck's post highlighted for me a difference between the obviously straight masculinity that he is drawn to and the obviously gay masculinity I see a lot; think Tom of Finland, bear culture, etc. There's plenty of masculinity in the gay world if one wants it, but it is a masculinity that must also project queerness, which perhaps is what is turning Truck off.

Ms Fan - As for L1, it was the sentence [Gay men aren't immune to these messages and even reward men who are loyal to straight-passing masculinity.] I didn't like. There is an implied "all" in the first part of the sentence (if we accept the messaging part as societally universal) that the GE doesn't remove from from the second part. Plenty of gays don't reward men who are loyal to straight-passing masculinity, and it is the GE's implication that we all do struck me as blaming us for patriarchy. I have no problem with attributing the Mediterranean belief that MM tops are still Men to toxic beliefs about masculinity. The other bit was less serious, but it is true that "gay porn star" is an inexact phrase. It occurred to me that removing a space (as was once done by some trans men) would allow a little specification - "gayporn star" and "gay pornstar" would clearly mean different things. (I'll also mention something Ms Cute may appreciate, that porn performers seem to be called stars even more often than fortunes like Mrs Elton's are numbered at ten thousand pounds.)

LW1 himself cited that his partners ranged in age, ethnicity and expressed orientation. Knowing a little more about that range of orientation and the shape of the distribution curve would seem helpful.

Outside of daytime dramas, which seem probably awash with metrosexuals (though I only get the odd peek on occasion when my stepmother has one on), the type does seem to have gone down in prominence. It sometimes feels as if the Overton window has been split into two and each half pushed in contrary directions. As BF3 seems to feel led on, the metrosexuals who raise his hopes must be appearing available or at least not contradicting his impression of their availability. I have a hard time visualizing how BF3 would get up the same sort of hope over an outright homophobic super-hetero DH, whom he might find attractive at first but who'd surely dispel his interest almost immediately.

This is not good. I guess coverage of our fires are off the front page and there’s war news.
Today though in my country, very scary conditions down south. Many people stranded and can’t get out. Fires are joining up over vast acres of land. Overwhelmingly tragic.

Trump is insane, and doing this is more proof. Dangerous times, for all of us.

I have sons, Mr Venn. One of whom, the youngest, went off to a music concert yesterday with mauve nail polish on. His favourite movie is ‘Call me by your name.’ Another son, an older one, when I was about to watch this movie, said that he wouldn’t watch it with me as it wasn’t appropriate. So I see, in my sons, very different attitudes to homosexuality. Or bi sexuality. This toxic fume of fear about men loving and having sex with each other, rumbles along even in the most relaxed families around these topics, as mine has been.

It only occurs to me when we get letters from gay men, or a son or another man exposes their fears, how oppressive it must have been all these years to be a homosexual man. That still, after marriage equality and the gains of these last decades, and the tragedies, that this fear is still so strong.
Finally got to say a word to this phobic son, while we were watching Daniel Day Lewis’ last movie. He plays a period dress maker, with an obvious bi sexual bent. At some point in the movie, he said, it wouldn’t be fair to marry..
Here I went into a little mini mid movie rave about how difficult it was back then for bi sexual men. A little too and fro happened between us. Then I left it.
I’ve learnt with my adult sons, that though they are open to my advice when down, once they have regained their strength, I take it much more carefully.
LW1, I just want to give him a hug. Poor kid.
All these men showing so little care.
LW2: yuk. Maybe give up getting phone sex
. Very disturbing.
Haven’t read the last one yet.

I don’t need to or want to know about my adult children’s sex lives. Even if any of them wanted to share with me. Which they don’t.
Their phobias, I can chip away at.

@42 I had that moment myself, but remembered on average half of the college population is male, and of those males we're guessing 2% is gay, so 1% of the total population is gay and male.

Ms Lava - Call Me By Your name is a very interesting choice. I didn't get to see it, as it never played in my area, but the author apparently is in the camp of wanting, for benevolent reasons, to do away with the concept of sexual orientation. There has been a camp of thought active in this sort of pursuit for at least twenty years or so. Some ideals of the proponents seem fairly lofty, but there seems little benefit beyond how straight-presenting people with some degree of flexibility would find it marginally easier to have incidental SS interactions with the official stigma removed. This is not something I'd find objectionable if it could be achieved without disaster to the L and the G, and it is an idea naturally popular with the non-binary crowd, but I don't need my crystal ball to foresee the inevitability of SS acceptance dwindling into a grudging tolerance and over-assimilation.

Good on you for a kind response to LW1.

Fred @94, yes, good point! But if you include bi men, does that bring it back up to 2%?
If you're talking millennials, Friend's dating pool, his odds would appear far better:
https://news.gallup.com/poll/234863/estimate-lgbt-population-rises.aspx
(Yes, Friend is a GenZer, but there doesn't seem to be data for them yet.)

It’s a wonderful movie, Mr Venn. Know nothing about the author, the movie is about gradual acceptance by a young man, of who he is. In a very beautiful locale.
Wherever you look, there is fear about male love for each other. What I find encouraging about my youngest son’s attitude, he’s just turned twenty two, is the casual way he accepts his own sexual fluidity, however it might express itself. He’s got a lovely gf, goes down to Brisbane often to stay with a bunch of his male friends. And it’s all just blah to him. No. Big. Deal.

Ms Fan - Thank you for pointing out one of the big problem in the statistical posts.

Ms Lava - Well, I'll wish him well, but retain the condition that his being able to live his most fulfilling life not come at anyone else's expence. "No Big Deal" is not a Universal Good.

?

Jesus Mr Venn. It Is no big deal when one relaxes and accepts all orientations. This boy of mine, has gradually accepted he is whatever and wherever on the orientation spectrum.
Congratulations, Muse. Mountain man coming your way. Or who ever your preference is.
Mr Venn, Freud and others posited early on that humans were to some degree, all bi sexual. Then some argument over who owned the idea, ha, and it got lost. Freud himself had very strong emotional connections with men. Where does orientation start? Is it only about who rubs genitals with who/m.
It would be better if all of us saw love between men as no big deal.
Check out the movie. The young actor in it a bit scrawny for me, though he’s loved by so many younger people.
Trust Mr Venn, that in some places, with some people, attitudes have shifted.

This whole platinum star story, is farcical. We all sit and grow inside a womb.
I’d also look to some men’s fear of women as being problematic in changing attitudes. Fine, don’t want to fuck us. No problem. To go giving each other stars around who came out of where from their mother’s body? What is that about.