GRIZ?

Ya know.. I waited around til like 6:45 and then decided fuck it, time to make dinner. Of course right then is when it went up.. Pretty boring week though, "Oh my god, I don't know how to tell this guy that I like him.. what do I do?!??!?!?" Ugh. Gag me please.

Yeah, women (lesbian or not), I’m going to go out on a limb and say that the VAST majority of men are going to have zero problems if you let them know you’re attracted to them. And, while I’m no longer in my prime dating years I don’t think things have changed so much that XY chromosome-carrying beings would be anything other than flattered and excited by a woman taking the lead for a change. I’ve always been quite confident and had/have no problem being the one to break the ice, but I find it especially refreshing (and mildly ego-boosting) when the lady makes the first move. Even more so when she’s confident enough to hit on me for sex, ‘cause in the majority of heteronormative situations that happens about as often as a Trump show of humility. Also, while there’s a chance he might bumble out a “Wait! I thought you were a lesbian!” It’s not going to be a “...so I could never consider slipping you the salami” moment, it’s far more likely to be an internal exclamation of “Jackpot!” ‘Cause no matter what your orientation, that shit rarely happens.

Of course COVET’s lesbian label plays a role, though I’d say that much of her anxiety of coming across as inappropriate, possibly ruining a friendship, creating an odd situation at the work place, or fear of being rejected are all common to many initiators under most circumstances. Having most of her relationships with women she may be also hesitant to initiate an OS casual relationship as a woman.

The way I see it she doesn’t have much to lose. It’s very likely that the man in question will not see her proposal as a threat, something that could be the issue if it came the other way. (More about it at the end of this post) He may be surprised, and he may not have an answer ready right there on the spot. She should allow him time to think about it when she makes the offer. It may be also easier for him to say no, possibly also yes, via text or email. In any case, I think he will be intrigued and flattered to some degree regardless..

As for flirting- emails, phone calls, pics and the like offer plenty of COVID-19 safe opportunities to bounce ideas and see what each of them likes or not and expects out of this. Sometimes those issues are better communicated while not sitting 6 feet away from each other on a public park bench.

I think Dan may have been a bit harsh on his blanket call for men to not even consider initiating anything with female acquaintances who may be on the queer/gay side of things. As stated before I’m aware of the possible different dynamics, but if the times they are indeed a changin’ then I’m sure there are men out there who are capable of bringing up a relationship proposal in a respectful manner, and women who are empowered to decide on their own and brush it aside casually if that’s how they want to proceed.

Well, the circumstances are close to optimal for L1's situation to work. And Mr Savage's general approach seems about right. He might not be interested in a pandemic partner (or night already have one he hasn't mentioned), and then LW1 may not have to commit herself.

I don't disagree with what was said in the conclusion of A1. What was omitted reminded me of how in Persuasion Mr Elliot's excuse for his marriage, that his wife had sought him, carried full weight with Sir Walter and was even something of an exoneration with Elizabeth.

It does seem as if CW1 will, if it happens, be assuming most of the risk, being far more likely to catch feelings while KW1 seems more likely to run out of desire. Whether in woke times it might be considerate for an advance from a more to a less marginalized party to include in welcoming a decline that the decliner will not be tagged a [blank]phobe I shall contemplate.

Bother - LW1, not KW1.

@1 WA-HOOOOOO!!!!! Griz scores FIRDT again! hee hee
Okay. In all fairness, this week's Lucky @69 honors must rightfully go to another commenter. :)
@2: At least you scored SECNOD honors this week, Jack. WA-HOOOO!!! Savor the glory among leading the comment thread. How was Newport Beach? :)

lotta nervous hand wringing in this week's letters. i mean, i was young and anxious once too. but still, not a good look. get over it l-dubs!!

Covid sex buddy, as the Dutch call them. Except the Dutch are in Holland, not the USA.
As you say, Dan, this pandemic is going to be around for a while. People have to find some way thru.
Go for it, COVET. The way to deal with your situation, Dan says go for it, and use those words he suggested. Perfect. Don’t lose your nerve though, as this man is taken aback.
Maybe then you could gently touch his elbow, saying, ‘ I’ll leave you to think about it? ‘ Or
Give him a minute, in silence, if you see a twinkle in his eyes. Hold your nerve.

Thank you @9 , @10.. for your thoughtful analysis.

Griz! Firdt honours two weeks in a row, you are truly on a streak of good luck. Hope that is spilling over into your personal life.

Jack @2, if men put anywhere near as much thought into their interactions with the opposite sex as COVET is doing, the world would be a much better place.

CMD @4, "I think Dan may have been a bit harsh on his blanket call for men to not even consider initiating anything with female acquaintances who may be on the queer/gay side of things." He absolutely was not. I was standing and applauding that paragraph because men need only a self-generated hint of interest from women, even gay-identified women, to make unwanted advances toward them. So many men see "I'm a lesbian" as a challenge, and Dan is influential. His last sentence was key -- if self-identified lesbians -are- going to make an exception for a man, that man will NOT be the man who hits on them, ignoring their lesbian identity. Thank you Dan!

(Nor are they likely to pick the men who rubbish their concerns, such as a few male commenters have already done. COVET is correct that there are some complicating factors here, and is wise to consider them before jumping into a situation that could cause her grief at work or encourage one straight guy -- and the friends he shares this with -- to think that all lesbians secretly like dick so they should go ahead and make their lesbian friends' lives a pain by inappropriately propositioning them.)

Also, good to know the answer to the mystery of who's picking the signoffs. Quite often, debate in these comments seizes on a LW's acronym as revealing something the letter does not mention, and I've argued that the LWs don't necessarily pick their signoffs so that "evidence" should be disregarded.

Yes Fan, COVET does have a few hurdles, and I had no clue how Dan would answer. How to deal with her situation stumped me and Dan sailed on thru.

@10, as Dan always says, he usually doesn't get letters from people with terrific sex lives. If it wasn't for all the anxiety and hand-wringing out there, I don't think his column (or this forum) would exist. Plus youth and anxiety don't necessarily correlate. But I do agree it would be ideal if we could all just "get over" our hangups. Maybe there's an app for that . . .

I sure would like to know in the instances where Dan made up a clever sign-off. I'm not bothered that he makes up half of them---although I had no idea, of course. But I do wish I could know, just so I could credit the OP correctly---or I could credit Dan, amirite?

I want to second DK @ 3 - in my experience it's a very pleasant surprise when a woman, especially one I thought was gay, expresses an interest in having sex with me. Has happened two times in my case, and in both cases I was pretty quick to get over the surprise and very happy to get into their pants. And while I can imagine situations that I would not have wanted to sleep with the woman, even in those cases it's still nice to be asked, IMHO, and not at all threatening or unpleasant. A little awkward, of course, to have to turn someone down, and het men generally probably have less experience of it so are less smooth/thoughtful than other groups, but I'd be surprised if COVET got an overtly negative response to a politely worded proposition

@16 bashe
I would like to know because it would be helpful to know which acronyms we can use to interpret the letter.

I've always been drawn to the "Hey, Four-Eyes! Wanna get laid?"-type. Maybe that's just me.

"Nubbins" reminds me of that scene in The Full Monty, where they are teasing Gerald about getting a stiffy from nature programs on tv.

BDF @ 13 (happy Bar-Mitzvah)
Yes, Dan is influential, he’s aware of it, and also aware of men often pushing the limit while being inconsiderate. He’s walking a fine line in this case and his blanket call is likely to be a good one considering all those factors.
And yet I see some nuances and real-life situations that could be an exception, though I’m aware that stating them will only give an excuse for those who want to see them as a green light while ignoring a bunch of red ones.

It bothers me that the default assumption anymore--about everything, but especially with regards to sex--is that people aren't capable of understanding nuance, so it's better to make a blanket rule which covers most cases and call it good.

I mean, I get it; I see the arguments for the attitude, and even make them myself, at times; but also, I feel like it's ruining society.

Ms Fan - Basically agreed with your assessment, and you have more credit in this area than most.
xxx
Mr Klicious/Mr Rational - I shall happily take another brick for my Great Wall of Separation between Gay and DS. Before I gave up all that sort of carry-on, it would have been almost as anxiety-inducing and disagreeable to receive an advance from a straight-identified man as it would to receive one from a woman. Despite my often accepting offers I didn't want because I didn't feel entitled to decline them, I can't think of any way I'd have gone through with it.

@myself @22: grump grump grump, "Kids today, with the music, and the clothes, and the lack of nuance..."

Slomopomo @ 20
“…about getting a stiffy from nature programs…”
Not sure how many of you got to watch the early 1970’s movie “The Hellstrom Chronicle” which details the life of insects and predicting their ability to adopt will outlive humans on this planet. I got to watch it on the big screen few years after it came out with my middle school classmates.

One of the segments included a black widow female spider seducing the male (who knows it’s going to be the end of his life if succumbing to seduction yet can’t help himself.)
The tight close up showed her hanging upside down on some surface, spreading her legs as she moved her body up and down, up and down, up and down. I was embarrassed, confused and thankfully managed to suppress my budding erection. It was a dark theatre, no one noticed, and while I seriously doubt I wasn’t the only one developing fond feelings for a spider no one mentioned it afterwards.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hellstrom_Chronicle
Sadly, the trailer does not include the segment I’m talking about:
https://vimeo.com/212824039

I imagine that those capable of understanding nuance themselves are generally among the most appreciative of the needed hard lines, even when they seem to lose a little by it. Is it a bad sign when "freedom from" X has to outweigh "freedom of" X? Perhaps.
xxx
As Mr Savage seems to be doubling down on the podcast in his determination to perpetuate an irregular pronunciation, I feel duty bound to state, not that he shouldn't, but that it is unfortunate that he should settle on a word used far less often even in advice than it is in bridge, especially as he blew the response to the LW who offered Blue Solidarity to the owner of a car whose license plate read NO TRUMP only to find that she'd offended a dedicated bridge player. If he's so desperate for a silent L, I suggest instead of vulnerable or any other word where an L is followed by an N (after all, nobody leaves the L out of Vilnius), he try a word in which an L is followed by an M, such as calm or film or perhaps even Wal-Mart. In fact, I rather wonder Mr Savage hasn't taken up bridge simply for the pleasure of opening the bidding One No Trump and using the various bidding conventions that employ the denomination. Indeed, in a rare act of solidarity, I'd even be willing to devise a bidding system in which One No Trump would be the most frequently made opening bid.

CMD @25: A few years ago at the start of fall, I separated my sheep into two groups with a fence between, in order to keep the ram from breeding some ewe lambs who were too young. I then watched as said too-young lambs would walk up to the fence in pairs or small groups, turn around, and waggle their tails back and forth, exposing themselves, right in front of the ram's nose (since of course he would press up against the fence to get a sniff). I have to admit the resemblance in posture and attitude to young teen girls who are dressed in too-short skirts wearing too much makeup for their age was undeniable. It also shed sudden light on the phrase "chasing tail."

Oh, and as a humorous post-script, I immediately had to move the lambs farther away, because shortly thereafter he began to ram the fence down to get to them. No shit. Those animals are aptly named.

Ciods @22, do you think nuance comes with age and experience? COVET is twenty something, and by the sound of her, still sorting out where she fits. I think she’s reading the situation as best she can, here asking Dan for pointers and guidance.
She is reading this man, sensing with her intuition that he’s not the sort to laugh in her face or any other adolescent response.

I’d like to acknowledge Dan, his good heart and his courage. Disaster all around, and on he goes focusing in and trying to help.
And he’s like a good dad to us, calming the vibe.
Here kids, find a way to fight over these questions.. . Love you Dan.

So I lost my virginity to a lesbian who wanted the occasional dick. Her and a her bi friend, who was in a relationship where the rule was no outside PIV. Quite the illuminating experience. I bring it up because of what followed however. We became lifelong friends, we moved in together as roommates. There was no relationship drama with the friend in a relationship, boundaries were respected. We did not have sex again, I didn't press for it and she didn't offer. I learned a lot and even meet my wife who moved in as well. She remains one of our best friends.

Drama isn't actually inevitable. I see a lot of comments on things like this both here and in other columns, but I've of sexual encounters, sex with friends, becoming roommates with ex sexual partners, etc does not always end in trouble. Like Dan has often said, you usually don't hear about the times where things went smoothly, or even great. You hear about when things flame out spectacularly.

CMD @21, the men who can correctly spot such nuances as you refer to are not the men who need that warning.

Happy @30, good point. There is proven history of things like this often NOT being awkward, and a 100% chance life will go on no matter how this pans out. (For 2020-adjusted values of "life will go on.")

It's funny that the expression "going Dutch" has a whole new meaning in these Covid-19 times.

@22: Forget understanding nuance; sometimes, people can't see or recognize nuance! Guilty as charged. I can't tell you how many times something has flown over my head--because, well, it flew over my head! LOL at myself.

@13 BiDanFan: Many thanks! Griz could indeed use a stroke or two of good fortune. I will be going in for a hysterectomy next Tuesday. I am certain I don't have any symptoms, but will also be COVID-19 tested pre-op. Because of my right shoulder pain, I have been going braless. Surprisingly, I have been experiencing a lot less back pain. Perhaps my saggy boobs are rejoicing---freed from their years of bondage.

Griz @35, best of luck! This has been a long time coming, I know you're overjoyed. Sending healing thoughts your way for a speedy recovery.

@36 BiDanFan: Thank you and bless you. For my birthday, five days before my procedure, I'm celebrating a "Carrie" (re 1976 film version) party. I'm all set to waste the prom. :)

Meanwhile........
FIFTY-SIX!!!!!!!!!! :)

@37: ....at least, officially as of 1:35 pm today, as my late mother would testify, rest her soul, and Dad's. :)

Happy birthday Griz!

@39 BiDanFan: Thank you and bless you. I've renamed my boobs after Sue Snell---the only girl from Stephen KIng's fictional 1974 Ewen High School who dared attempt atonement for the evil girls' locker room prank on Carrie White. Interesting that my boobs would be the only ones not causing excruciating reproductive body pain. Waste the prom, Carrie. Christine Whoregenson, Norma MAGA-Watson, and Helen Shyres ad nauseum are going DOWN. And Griz won't miss them. :)

Griz@40~ So, left one Sue and right one Snell?

Lava @28: Yes, to some extent I think an appreciation of nuance comes with age. For most young people, things seem pretty black and white. Or so I've observed (and I include my previous young self). Later on you start to have enough accumulated experience, both first- and nth-hand, that you realize there's complication underneath everything.

But there's a second factor, which is just how much you want to consider someone else's opinion or experience. A lot of people, irrespective of age, find a position they like and sit on it for all time, and are not only not interested in looking for nuance, but will actively avoid seeing it when it's put in front of them. In fact, I'd go out on a limb and say this describes most people.

So I suppose blanket rules are aimed at what I expect is the vast majority of people, and work for them. It's just--I have limited interest in those people, so blanket rules don't particularly interest or satisfy me.

Happy @30: Love your comment. It's nice to be reminded that sometimes people behave well and things work out. That's mostly been my experience, too; but reading a lot of SL, like reading a lot of the news, can leave you with the sample-set bias feeling that mostly everything sucks.

Not sure why this has come up for you with this letter, ciods? Or even what you mean by nuance.
Yes, it’s all more complicated underneath, and one does learn over time how to navigate and like a stone skip across the surface, when needed. Or go in hard when needed. Confidence comes with age, ability to take knock backs comes with age. In one’s twenties, one learns quickly.
Of course age doesn’t guarantee inner development, and some are wise at a young age.
Sometimes no nuance is required, and here maybe is one of those times. Ask the guy, with the easy energy that comes with Dan’s suggestion. ‘No big deal, trying times, you up for it? ‘
I get fascinated by Dan’s responses sometimes.
A gay man is talking, one with decades of reading stuff and saying stuff about sex and relationships. Not a heterosexual man.

What exactly is a pandemic casual thing? It’s a pandemic, nothing casual about it. It’s how a young woman thinks, and her social bubble involves social distancing. Getting physical now, has added trouble.

Lava, the question of nuance was related to Dan's caveat at the end of his respose that this letter shouldn't encourage men to think they can now hit on lesbians, and CMD's response @4. Just musing about it; you're right, that it's not all that relevant to the letter.

Happy birthday.. Grizelda, and big hugs and love for Tuesday next.
Thanks ciods, I get it now. Would Dan have said this is the genders were reversed? Told us women, that if a gay man wants to step out with a woman, occasionally, that will be his choice, and not to preempt. Hitting on known gay people is not an option for any of us.

And given Dan was challenged six comments in, ciods, there’s your answer.

Pays to check, four comments in.

@38 griz happy b-day

@COVET 1st letter I'm troubled by "my usual approach to flirting involves a lot of casual physical contact" - boundary violation! And HR will fire you if someone doesn't like it and it's in the workplace. The fact that she is a woman does not make it OK. If it's at a cruisy bar and you've made eye contact and smiled and moved across the room to talk, of course, and it's clearly welcome, that's different of course.

@many on nuance coming with age - maybe, maybe not. Just look at all those boomer Trump supporters and Republicans who are still 81% in favor of him and what passes for their brains can only attend to the "MAGA"-hat drivel that slobbers out of orange monster's asshole-pucker lips.

Ms Lava @46 - When I was socially active, it was rather different.

It reminds me of the film Barcelona, when a Spanish woman and a visiting US naval officer disagree about whether Americans were peculiarly prone to violence. When she instances the high number of Americans killed in shootings, his reply is, "Oh, shootings! That doesn't mean Americans are more violent than other people; we're just better shots." In my experience, the level of respect for the Kinsey Six among straight women and straight men is just about equal. That the problem of completely unwelcome advances is more a lesbian problem than a gay one is mostly because fewer women indulge in hitting on people. Factor in however much additional risk one sees in declining a male advance against a female one, although some men might be apprehensive about declining an advance from a multiply-marginalized woman.

As for Mr Savage, perhaps the better question might be what he'd suggest if the orientations were reversed. This is where things get least predictable for him.

Ms Ods - Which do you find worse, insufficient nuance or excessive nuance? As unpleasant as it can be to be lectured by some non-binary twentyish person that ALL sexuality is fluid, nobody's is EVER fixed, and ANY gay could turn out to have a Clive Durham-style conversion, it will be even worse when that way of thinking reaches the halls of power and bang go same-sexer rights along with the same-sexer identity. But toning it down a few notches, even if this doesn't constitute an existential threat, I'm still less crazy about encouraging any woman who likes the idea to think that every gay has his exception.

In cheerful news, they have uploaded Death by Persuasion (a Midsomer Murder set in a Jane Austen reenactment) to YouTube, which shall give me a pleasant evening.

I think Dan is hedging in his reply to COVET about straight dudes not hitting on lesbians. There's hitting on, and then there's HITTING ON. The latter should be avoided by everyone all the time.

I have gay friends who flirt with me. It's harmless and fun, and if I ever decide I want to experience whisker burn, well... I had lesbian housemates at university. There were lines, and we crossed them from time to time. No harm done.

Dan's advice is spot on: ask him if he’s interested in finding a COVID-19 sex buddy and take it from there, using words.

@delta @49:
"@many on nuance coming with age - maybe, maybe not. Just look at all those boomer Trump supporters and Republicans who are still 81% in favor of him and what passes for their brains can only attend to the "MAGA"-hat drivel that slobbers out of orange monster's asshole-pucker lips."

A nuanced view of the other side, certainly.

/ducks/
/grin/

@Venn @51: "Ms Ods - Which do you find worse, insufficient nuance or excessive nuance?"

Like Goldilocks, I like my nuance just right.

Just kidding. I'm in an odd mood, forgive me.
A more honest answer: It depends?
Like the Jesuits, I'm beginning to think the only truly ethical way to handle things is on a completely case-by-case basis. No generalizations. Of course, that makes it hard to make most statements, so I acknowledge that it's a limiting belief, especially to conversation here.

@41 DonnyKlicious: Or maybe the left one named Sue (Snell) and the right one named Frieda (Jason). IIRC they were the only girls from Ewen High School who were nice to Carrie White at all----in the film and in Stephen King's 1974 novel.
@46 LavaGirl and @49 delta35: Many thanks, big hugs, positrons, and VW beeps for the birthday wishes. It has been a wonderful day and beautiful top down driving weather (and Griz going braless---wheeee!!). :)

Okay--now this is official and numerically appropriate: FIFTY-SIX!!!!!!!

@griz
Happy Birthday, griz!

@38 "as of 1:35 pm today"

Wow, you're the only one I know who celebrates birthdays so precisely.

Griz @56: Congrats on the 56!

Lava @44, exactly. Not even hugging a friend is "casual" these days, it all requires negotiation and preparation and in most cases deciding it can't be risked. Unhappy times indeed.

Ciods @45, since when has relevance to the letter been a stipulation for the comments section? :)

Lava @46, I'm sure Dan would give the same advice to women -- don't hit on self-proclaimed gay men -- though Venn is right, women are much less likely to need such advice, because we understand how unpleasant it is to have our boundaries violated by those who don't respect them, and more simply we're not in the habit of making advances anyway. As for the question, which some of our straight men have hinted at, about whether homoflexibility is more common among lesbians than gay men, which anecdotally seems the case, I offer a reason. Easy sex. If a lesbian wants easy sex, a man is her best bet. If a gay man wants easy sex, a man is his best bet. He doesn't have to bend his preferences because he temporarily has few options among his preferred gender and a queue of his non-preferred one lining up at his door. Dick is cheap and plentiful, as we've learned in this column. Those lesbians with a higher sex drive are just behaving like straight men on a long sea voyage.

Delta @49, "I'm troubled by "my usual approach to flirting involves a lot of casual physical contact" - boundary violation!" Trolling? Clearly she is referring to your latter example, not confessing to molesting her colleagues at the workplace.

Venn @51, perhaps that's why there are minimum age requirements to hold office. Very few of these twentysomethings who have recently discovered themselves and now see those selves mirrored in everyone around them still hold those delusions by their 30s.

Fubar @52, I'd rephrase your confusing statement as "there's flirting and there's hitting on." The advantage of the flirt, presuming an orientation mismatch, is that the flirtee does not have a direct proposal to respond to; they can treat it as friendliness, knowing it will not lead to an uncomfortable situation (unless they themselves choose to progress the situation, as you say). Should a straight man flirt with a lesbian? I would still proceed with caution there, as unlike straight man/gay man flirting, there is potentially the physical intimidation factor. If the flirting is not obviously mutual, the straight man should refrain.

Ciods @54, I think it's fine to approach blanket statements with the implicit acknolwedgement that there are exceptions to all rules. That does not mean it's useless to recognise rules.

@53 ciods I used to have a nuanced view of (R) but today's (R) are so far right they jumped off a cliff and took us with them. Todays mainstream (D)s aren't actually left wing at all - they are neoliberal economic conservatives, social liberals but conservative on other stuff (drugs, sex work) - Clinton, Obama, Biden could have been moderate (R) decades ago.

@59 BiDanFan - agree flirting can be nice to receive the attention even if not interested, but only in situations where if unwanted it is very easy to end it. LW referred to physical contact as her "usual" and this being a coworker - even if they don't work in the same dept it's a sticky situation not at all like flirting at a bar / non-work social event.

Delta @60, and her letter recognises that her "usual" won't work in this situation, hence asking for advice with an alternative approach.

@60 I meant to say mainstream (D)s are social liberals on gay rights, racial equity and EXTREMELY socially conservative on everything else like drug de-criminalization, sex worker rights, wealth redistribution. Biden is against wealth taxes! Against Medicare for all! Only wants a slight increase in income tax. Hence, he is actually a closet moderate Republican. (D)s only seem "left wing" because the right has run the car off a cliff, taking us with them, Thelma and Louise style, except we didn't even get to blow the 20-something Brad Pitt.

COVET - Don't you have any single exes? Since serial monogamy is the safest way to date during covid, sex isn't so casual right now. But there are lots of Zoom dates. I'd say that it would be fine to ask him to be your covid buddy if you were honest that you prefer romances with women and it would just be a sex thing until one of your Zoom dates really worked out. But it does seem pretty weird to identify as lesbian while being monogamous with a man, it seems sort of dishonest toward the women you're trying to date.. Can't you at least embrace the term 'homoflexible' or try to date bi women? Although maybe you will get lucky and find another lesbian who has had to resort to a male covid buddy so she won't find it so strange..

HOOD - "would that reasonably be expected to prevent COVID-19 transmission?"
Only if you're monogamous with him. And wait a month before becoming monogamous with the next partner.

If it's easier for men to sleep with men, then why are most bi guys with women? Also, in my experience, men who identify as gay are often curious about women, I kissed one and had a threesome with another and I haven't known that many single gay men in my life.. I think men are more likely to accept any available sex because they strongly expect to get off during sex.. but maybe they are sexually braver than most women and often try things that are less likely to get them off?

Phi @63: "If it's easier for men to sleep with men, then why are most bi guys with women?" Because the world is set up to facilitate -relationships- between opposite sex partners (which is known as heteronormativity). Because male queerness is still stigmatised; because their parents want them to settle down and have a family with a nice woman; because men don't get pregnant, either accidentally or on purpose; because the women they date tend to want relationships while the men tend to want casual sex; because the bi men who are in relationships with men probably are less obvious to you as a woman since you're reading these men as gay. Et cetera.

@57 curious2: Actually I do celebrate my birthdays from 12 midnight to 12 midnight. I like to acknowledge 1:35 pm mid-day, too, because, according to my late mother (who certainly would know and remember), that was the time of day on a hot, sunny Thursday afternoon of July 30,1964 when I entered the world. I'm the youngest in my immediate family, and according to the U.S. Census Bureau, among the last of the Baby Boomers. :)

@58 fubar: Many thanks, hugs, positrons, and VW beeps! :)

Who will be this week's Lucky @69 winner? Tick...tick...tick...

BEZ @65, and that experience sticks in your mind despite being a long time ago because it was so out of the ordinary, right? I rest my case.

@66 griz
"Actually I do celebrate my birthdays from 12 midnight to 12 midnight."

Oh thank goodness, that way you get a whole day of birthday (like the rest of us)!

I was born too early in the morning for me to acknowledge it annually. (On Thanksgiving, so my mom wasn't cooking that year.)

"and if that woman is even remotely interested in fucking you, she will let you know"

While it's always a good idea to remind horny assholes with poor boundaries to respect boundaries, the entire point of this first letter is that this is generally untrue, and specifically untrue in this case. COVET is explicitly looking for any strategy that will allow her to NOT clearly and directly tell this guy she wants to have sex with him, instead seeking ways to flirt while COVID is making her usual method ill-advised. Research on both preferences and actual behavior (e.g. this article cites a number of different studies, including one conducted by the author, though I disagree on his claim that there is conclusive evidence that the behavioral difference is mostly the result of evolved brain structures rather than socialization; he'd need to show cross-cultural and trans-historical persistence of the difference, especially in social contexts that we wouldn't expect to precipitate the difference - https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-how-and-why-sex-differences/201104/why-dont-women-ask-men-out-first-dates ) indicates that, in different-sex pairings, the overwhelming majority of men and women expect men to make the risky initiative (a direct, unambiguous ask), and most women categorically refuse to do so, instead using proceptive signaling (flirting) to suggest openess to a risky initiative they leave up to a man to make. (This is part of why we see so many more "How do I ask someone of the same sex out?" questions from newly out bi or lesbian women than from newly out gay or bi men.)

Asking someone out (and taking a 'no' response graciously) is generally not harassment, so go ahead and ask women out if you're interested*; still don't hit on lesbians if you're a man, as the general purpose of the "lesbian" category is to identify women (or female people of any social gender identity) who are sexually interested only in women (or female people of any social gender identity). Lesbian women SHOULD be better at making risky initiatives than straight women, on average, because they will necessarily have to do so more, so I do agree with Dan it's best to let the tiny minority of the population composed of lesbian-identified women who want to have sex with men take the potential initiative in those cases, even if it means a lot of them won't hook up (unless/until they ovary-up).

@62: Yes, Biden is to Ronald Reagan's Right on most issues. He was when Reagan was President, too, so at least he's been consistent? His whole schtick has been "I'm the most Right-wing Democrat in the party" for his entire career, from opposing public welfare programs to opposing abortion rights to supporting racist segregation policies. Well, that and blatantly lying about his life.

*I support the aims of many anti-harassment campaigns, and I also think they will make little headway, as they haven't for decades, until campaigners can shift women's behavior to make perhaps as many as a tenfold increase in risky initiatives, on average, which would approach parity if men reduced risky initiatives by about half, on average. We shouldn't stop encouraging men to hit on fewer women in fewer contexts, we just need to put as much effort into encouraging women to hit on more men in more contexts so that we're trying to shift both elements of the social dynamic rather than focusing on one element in isolation.

@31: "the men who can correctly spot such nuances as you refer to are not the men who need that warning." Ironically, they're also the only ones likely to listen to it. Men acting in bad faith aren't going to be any more swayed by a hard line than nuance, and men acting in good faith are already doing their best, which means paying attention to nuance in social interactions (even if they don't necessarily read every situation right). That doesn't mean don't issue the warning, just temper your expectations of the effectiveness. :-P

I’ve got two birthdays.. I was born a day before celebration of armistice, my dad, a little drunk maybe or given his own dad was killed at twenty four during WW1, put my birthday down as a day later, when he registered me.
After, my mother, who obviously didn’t note the day too closely, found the baby tag I wore on my wrist in the hospital. I celebrate on my dad’s choice.

@63: "If it's easier for men to sleep with men, then why are most bi guys with women?"

Because statistics. There are as many as twenty times as many women who have sex with men as men who have sex with men, so while the average man-oriented man may be much more willing to have sex with a given man than the average man-oriented woman, there are a LOT more potential partners who are women.

It’s Dan’s job to throw out these warnings, and true John @71, being reminded of ettiquette and sensitivity around certain situations is welcoming for some.

I think the problem with nuance, being employed here, ciods point way back why we can’t give more room to it, is that a gay woman doesn’t put out, like a straight woman does. She chooses, same with a gay man, who to step out with.

Again, I’m aware why Dan wrote his blanket warning statement, though I wish the nuance camp would have been bigger and enjoy a broader base in this forum.
The times they are a changin’ is something I witnessed myself few years ago, after I started hanging out with a very diverse circle of fpeople, mostly younger than myself.
A woman some 20 years my junior whom I’ve known as a lesbian living with a primary partner and has a child or two, grabbed me during a party in what could have been described as a very inappropriate yet pleasantly surprising manner, assuming I’m gay- she’d seen me enfemme few times prior- and hinting as to what she has in mind for me.
We proceeded to my place, it was a one-time deal per her choice and respected as such, I ran into her partner in another social setting few weeks later and she casually mentioned that she’s glad we had a good time during what must have been our first conversation ever. No, I don’t think the children know nor care, both women come across as very good parents, we still see each other on occasion and everyone’s fine.

While I had some interesting experiences here and there I don’t consider myself to be on the wild side. The youngsters around me though, I’d put the cut-off line at around 40 yo or so, seem way more flexible than previous generations in terms of sexual and relations fluidity. This translates to alternating gender preferences, who initiates, and the ability to make decisions safely and respectfully. (That’s my impression from observing relationships evolve, end and multiply around me. As a rule, I don’t hit on anyone who seems more than 10 years younger than me, so I can’t claim to be speaking strictly from experience on that matter. I may hit on older folks every now and then.)

Dan may have felt an obligation to make his statement, though I’d still hope blanketeers and absolutists are willing to reconsider their positions and accept nuances.

CMD @77: Perhaps Dan made his statement knowing that those who appreciate nuance would see right through it.

@69 curious2: WA-HOOOOOOOOO!!!!! Major congratulations on scoring this week's Lucky @69 Award! Savor the much envied luscious numeric honors.
Wow---born on Thanksgiving Day. Your family had much to be thankful for, and it was probably a blessing that your mother didn't have to do any cooking that day. :)

@72 LavaGirl: Two birthdays? Lucky you. Prolong the occasion, I always say. :)

Mx Wanna - Yes; the Young did so little of the work that they don't hold things as dear. Thank you for not being a Result Merchant about your related encounter.

Who's going to win this week's Big Hunsky? Tick...tick...tick...

@49 delta35: I'm glad I'm a Boomer who wisely voted for Hillary Rodham Clinton. I have no regrets over my 2016 vote. Right now, Griz is enjoying another movie night, proudly wearing her black ITMFA tank top, braless, and feeling totally liberated. Take THAT, Trumpty Dumpty / Dencey Pencey Evil Empire, and MAGA peons!

Dan wrote, “ in other words COVET your heart is Lesbian but your pussy is bi.” Correction here Dan, because by using the ‘but’ you discount the importance of the LW being Lesbian /nocute can explain.
The line needs to read, “ Your heart is Lesbian and your pussy is bi.”

Did you see Grizelda where that smirking little maga hat wearing catholic kid, sued Washington Post and got a big pay out.
Thanks for keeping things chirpy. More hugs to help keep you strong for your op.

John @71, yes, that irony was not lost on me. The ones who need this advice most are the ones who don't think it applies to them...

John @73, yes, that too. Even if heteronormativity weren't a thing, most bisexuals would statistically end up dating the opposite sex because the opposite-sex dating pool is much larger than the same-sex one.

Fubar @78, so the straight men who understand nuance will understand the warning doesn't apply to them, and the straight men who don't understand nuance will think it doesn't apply to them. I guess that just leaves the queer women who are now not going to flood Dan's inbox with complaints that his advice to COVET may encourage straight men to hit on them. Anyway, as part of the target audience for that paragraph, I appreciated having the "see? Dan Savage says" to fall back on.

Lava @84, I see "but" as exactly the correct word to describe the contradiction that exists within COVET. I thought that was a great sentence. Well said, Dan.

Given the LW identifies as Lesbian, and occasionally her pussy is bi, Fan @86, Dan is lessening her self identity as a Lesbian by writing it like that.
My choice is still ‘and’
.”.. your heart is Lesbian and your pussy is bi. ” no part of COVET’s self expression is diminished. With ‘but’ it is.

BDF @86: Men who understand nuance, and understand that lesbian-identified women might conceivably enjoy some dick from time to time, should have no trouble understanding the last sentence of Dan's reply.

Ms Lava - My instinct would likely be a semicolon. I think it's more a difficulty of mixing a relatively clear definer with a much broader one. We don't really get a clear impression from the summary of the strong lean of LW1's TNP (I borrow from Mr Carvey's character Church Lady one of her favourite euphemisms, Tingling Naughty Parts), which is of considerable importance to the letter.

I'm thinking vocabulary needs rather more accommodation for rounders.

Bi@86 How are you part of the "target audience"? You're bisexual, not a lesbian, so aren't you by definition open to advances from all genders?

I've had occasional one-off sex with men in the past, and the reason was always that I was horny, and anonymous sex is infinitely easier to get from men. That doesn't mean I'm rounding, although I'm sure Venn would be more than delighted to toss me from the SS "team".

Could be, Mr Venn, that a semi colon would fit better. Long as the ‘but’ gets lost, and this woman is allowed to present as whole. She’s Lesbian, who occasionally will go with cock. One of my close friends fits this, although with her I’d include the word Very before occasionally.

Also it’s her head and heart which are Lesbian, the mind being our biggest sex organ. So she appears a little loose around the edges, who wasn’t in one’s twenties.
COVET, sweet as Dan’s response is, all pink cushions and so goes life words, I think you should leave it. Leave this nice young man for another day, to protect both your healths. Or, follow whatever rules are going re safe Covid sex, which Dan forgot to include in his response to you.

Hows it going over there, Fan? Haven’t heard from my son, they were heading to Cornwall first.. now I read half of England doing the same.

@85 LavaGirl: From what I can tell most smirking MAGAs use those pathetic caps to conceal otherwise glaring bald spots along with other signs of insecurity, like concerns over their penis sizes, their "unborn" eight month "babies" sired by Budweiser, and having butt cracks deeper than the Grand Canyon. Running amok in Wal*Marts everywhere with their misquoted "bibles" and their guns! Talk about Free-Dumb.

venn @ 81
“the Young did so little of the work that they don't hold things as dear”
I’m not sure how much of a trail blazing credit I deserve, yet very glad the youngsters have it easier and are not confined to strict lables and expectations while allowing additional nuances in the process.

Mx Wanna - Well. we always want our successors to have a better time of things. I was also thinking that very few of us who defeated conversion therapy went exploring afterwards, and that none of us are the worse for not having done so. I'll deny, though, that a complex sexuality is inherently superiour to one that complies with a strict label, and that living with extra nuance is necessarily a good thing for its practitioners (I shall not assume you invited such an inference, but it's not an unreasonable one to draw). I propose that a good many young people would prefer to concentrate their efforts, but just go along with what is expected, and that it is no better for them than it was when it was the other way around. Perhaps after the not-too-distant rollback of same-sexer rights, when we re-emerge we'll set things up better.
xxx
Ms Jibe - That rather depends on who gets to be Humpty Dumpty and define "rounders". I suppose someone might even be found who'd pin the scarlet R on me. I'd say the tough cases are the ones where people have a definite Exception. As for Team SS, that hasn't existed in practical terms for some time, not since the DS gained critical mass. I don't think our teams have to hate each other, but it's much easier to be cordial when we don't have to pretend to be pulling together.

@96 venn
"the not-too-distant rollback of same-sexer rights"

Aw, well I guess I won't keep trying to get you not to be so concerned, let alone to phrase that rollback as being a given. I can see how after the evil psychological brutality of conversion therapy, one is lucky to only to feel 'concerned'.

"a good many young people would prefer to concentrate their efforts, but just go along with what is expected"

Hmmm. So are you thinking (was CMD really saying @95) that "the youngsters...not confined to strict labels and expectations...allowing additional nuances in the process" aren't mostly /not/ defectors from your 'team'?

My sense is that what's being thrown off is primarily homophobic societal programming. I don't see how that reduces the membership on your team at all. What it does is lets people's minds freely choose to be SS or bi unencumbered so much by societal homophobia that would previously have indoctrinated them to be/identify as straight.

In other words, you're acting like the forces at play in what CMD is describing are malign, when in fact my sense is that they're the opposite.

Looking at it another way, if previously your SS 'team' consisted of people who threw off forces embedded in society that had results like were planned for your conversion therapy, what now would cause them to move the other direction? (The only forces that pop into my head could only be ones within SS communities; for example my lesbian GF told me about pressure not to be bi; what good does that do for her?)

.....And this week's Big Hunsky winner......

@97 p.s.
In case it was less than clear why I ended @97 with "what good does that do for her?", I was countering your

"a good many young people would prefer to concentrate their efforts, but just go along with what is expected"

Now maybe there are other forces at play I'm not thinking of (which might result in the new bi's among the youngs to come from your 'team'). But WRT the force that did pop into my head--possible pressure in a SS community not to be bi--while that can be argued to benefit the community (by means I hope you in particular given your history would oppose with every fiber of your being), it's the opposite of what someone in a SS community wanting to be bi "would prefer".

IS................!!!!!!

"Missed it by -that- much"

@99 &@100 curious2: WA-HOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!! Major congrats, curious2! I award you the highly coveted Big Hunsky glory as I already scored FIRDT honors two weeks in a row. I have landed on @100 by mistake---I meant to post "......IS......................!!!!!" as @99 for a lead-in.
Unless you, Dan, and everyone feel Griz worthy of double honors this week....I am going in for surgery on Tuesday and could certainly use the good fortune. Then you and I could call it a tied win on the Big Hunsky. :)

@102 griz
How about you share it with venn?
You're always deserving even when you're not having surgery (good luck), and I'd prefer the person I was debating with (venn) win it instead of me. A debate is all the reward this curious person could ask for at a given moment.

@103 curious2: Okay, it shall be granted.
@100 vennominon: WA-HOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!! Congratulations! At curious2's request I bequeath to you a sharing of this week's Big Hunsky numerical honors with Griz this week in a tie. Savor the riches and bask in the glory. :)

My feelings about my pending hysterectomy are mixed. I go in first tomorrow for COVID-19 testing pre-op. I am aware that this is major---my gynecologist is yanking out all the bad girls making my internal system a living hell for 43 years---uterus, ovaries, and Fallopian tubes.
I guess most people would worry more about me if I wasn't at least a LITTLE scared. And I am, a bit. But mostly I think it will be a tremendous relief to finally have my "Carrie" years behind me at long last (jesus---I'm 56 already! One would think my body's reproductive system would know when to stop---particularly in the current Err of Trump / Pence).

Venn @ 96
Yes, I acknowledge there’s plenty trendiness involved in some current nuance-infused environments. I’d still very much rather have it this way as opposed to the ridiculing, ostracizing, potentially violent one.

“Concentrating efforts” will find their way no matter what, after all they managed to surface under the harshest restrictions, and there’s nothing wrong with allowing some room for fine tuning and relatively safe trial and error option/s for those interested.

The rollback of same-sexers rights is not an imminent thing and we should all work together against it. Your own experience and path are acknowledged and highly appreciated, don’t them obscure the big picture.