@88 Hah. I did indeed masturbate to Magenta's exposed nipple. But then, I pretty much jerked off to anything back then. I was (am) a big John Waters fan too.

Marty @103, the nipples were Columbia's!

I actually had the exact same experience of watching the musical porn version of Alice in Wonderland and wanting to find more like it. Wikipedia actually has an article on The Golden Age of Porn with a list of movies, which is a great place to start. I haven't watched all of them, but I'm partial to Candy Stripers and Barbara Broadcast myself.

Acacia@105
Excellent reply to Likes to Watch. I hope she is is reading the comments. This article has lots of good suggestions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Age_of_Porn

Martyvega~ Waxing the Dolphin to a briefly exposed nipple in a movie...you're a cheap date!

Although Rocky Horror isn’t strictly porn, it may be closer to the Alice in Wonderland adaptation than you might think. Read this from the Wikipedia article:

After premiering in a longer version, three minutes were edited from the film, and it was rated R by the MPAA, and released theatrically by General National, a company formed by producers Jason Williams and William Osco, due to other distributors being unwilling to distribute a sex film.[1] The film grossed over $90 million at the box office.[4] Osco later re-edited the film as a hardcore pornographic film, incorporating explicit sex that was not part of the film's original production.[1]

It would appear that the Alice in Wonderland musical is just an R rated film at heart if it could be changed back and forth with the addition and subtraction of so little material. It probably, however, would not something the letter writer hadn’t heard of already.

@Griz 98: The teenaged me who snuck into the theater to see RHPS definitely thought it was porn.

In a way, I think "non-porn" '70's movies were more daringly sexually explicit/erotic than those made in the last 20-30 years. So, while not showing hard-core action, I think one could argue many bordered on porn in spirit if not literally in the flesh.

Not even arty films, like Lolita, The Last Tango in Paris, but in campy things like Kentucky Fried, there were so many complex, non conforming to cultural expectations sexual situations/themes/concepts that no modern movie maker even would ever consider to whilst at the same time packing some modern release with socially conforming (ho-hum) nudity and sex in order to sell it.

Mind you, I watched these movies as a single digit aged kid back in the day, so maybe my memory has colored my recollection, but they definitely influenced my sexual development. I would assume others' too.

Also, I would argue that some '70's/'80's movies, while again, not explicitly porn were extraordinarily erotic visually. Although a little squicky, remember the furor of The Blue Lagoon? Visually stunning, uncomfortably erotic. Or, those silly Mickey Rourke movies of the '80's, 9 1/2 Weeks and Wild Orchid - lol crappy movies, but as a teen, I certainly jacked off to them more than once.

Bowie - that beautiful person is erotic by definition for some, no need even for nudity. I may have erred showing my kid The Labyrinth during an impressionable time, lol. He certainly captured her erotic imagination to the point that his particular gender-nonconformity definitely has become her type.

So, what is porn, besides hydraulics? I say, what makes you hot, triggers your sexual imagination. So, for Griz (& others) Rocky IS porn.

Waxing the dolphin, Donny@107? Guess a penis does look a bit like a dolphin. Rocky Horror sure implies porn. What a movie, though not sure I’ve clocked up as many viewings as you Marty @109, I’ve watched my DVD copy many times. Even with Susan Sarandon in it / still waiting on her army of revolutionaries to arrive.

I wonder if “waxing the dolphin” gained traction after a NASA-hired dolphin trainer who had to deal with a stubborn and intelligent male student who could only focus after being masturbated. (And apparently committed suicide once the funding stopped forced their imminent separation.)
Here is one of the least sensational account what happened, yet very descriptive as to the training program and why humans and dolphins acted as they did.
https://www.ststworld.com/margaret-howe-lovatt/

Another movie you should never watch is “Dressed to Kill.” Billed as an “erotic thriller” when it came out in 1980 or so, it got some praise for acknowledging mid-aged women’s sexuality. Yet like in many other stories of all forms that woman eventually pays with her life for out of wedding sex. Other clichés include the good heart underneath it all so easily saved prostitute and cementing the common knowledge that trans women are essentially psychotic murderers. (I grew up with those images and they are still hurtful to this day, though admittedly I still adore the amazing white silk brief that Angie Dickenson lost during the taxi ride.

John Waters- during the late 80’s I watched all of his 70’s movies while reading a book in which he details how he did them. I never found them “sexy” in terms of erections and such yet loved the vibe and how unique it all came through despite the tackiness and the extremely low budget. I didn’t mind his depiction of any of his characters, including crossdressers and trans women. I think that beyond the shock value he actually comes from a loving, understanding positions while still making fun of the characters. (And a special recognition goes to Divine, one of the most dedicated people ever seen on film.)
Waters and myself departed after “Cecil B. Demented”

@CMD 113 - I wanted to mention Waters too, but I hadn't been exposed to his Divine stuff until my 20's. Crybaby, however, with pretty Depp and hottie Traci Lords made a significant impression on my 12-year old self. And in small-town '80's, I had yet to become acquainted with the concept of bisexuality, so the Traci thing was. . . (pleasantly) confusing, lol.

So even Waters' not quite so outre work is has impact. And the tackiness is part of the charm.

MartyVega@103

At an earlier age, I too got sexual inspiration from Rocky Horror, but not from the pool scene. The seductions of Brad and Janet by Frank-N-Fertur did it for me. Sexual surrender has always excited me (obviously). I hadn’t seen the movie in a few years, so I just rewatched those scenes (I have the DVD). Although I still enjoyed them, they seemed shorter and less fleshed out and with less dramatic tension than I remembered. I guess, as others have noted, it just seemed more exciting and porn- like at the time. Ah, lost youth.

CMD@113

I had heard the term as “flogging the dolphin”. Because it has been around for a long time, I didn’t think it could have originated from the event you cited, but then I noticed that it occurred in 1965, so who knows? Anyway, good story.

In my case, that'd be "flogging the anaconda" ;-D
That brief flash of nip has had lasting effects: one of the most erotic things in the world to me is a woman falling out of an overlarge (mens/pajama) shirt...
I spent a summer going to one of the early midnight showings of Rocky Horror, great times, which explains why I've seen it so many times. I remember only being confused by the Rocky/Brad scene... But Susan Sarandon in a bra... (and if you've never seen Atlantic City from Louis de Malle, you really should, just for her skin care routine...well the rest of the movie is great too).

Subhubby @108, I'm confused, is this extract about Rocky Horror or Alice In Wonderland?

Marty @109, I think I saw the film 30 times in my first year. :) I've also been in two shadow casts and played Janet, Brad, Rocky and Columbia. When I'm hospitalised with Alzheimer's and can't remember my own name, I'll still be able to parrot every call-back on autopilot!

Ens @110, it certainly was something I'm sure my mother would have forbidden me to see if she'd known its contents. Then again my mother was of the Tipper Gore school of censorship...

Jinxie @111, a very thoughtful post. Reminds me of the old joke: "Erotica is what turns me on; porn is what turns those other, less classy people on." I'm also reminded of an episode of Peep Show where Jeremy, unable to find any visual stimulus around (do men not have minds' eyes. really!?), masturbates to the picture of the Queen on a ten-pound note. Most of what gets me going would not be defined as porn. Bowie in Labyrinth is a great example of something that has captured the erotic imaginations of generations now without being explicitly sexual. "Do as I say and I will be your slave" -- sploosh!! I think you've convinced me that porn is in the eye, and genitalia, of the beholder.

CMD @113 and others, I recommend the Netflix documentary "Disclosure" which looks at depictions of trans and gender non-conforming people in film and television through the ages. Produced by Netflix, it includes some back-patting but is a very worthwhile watch. And back to the topic of erotic thrillers, Angel Heart with Mickey Rourke and Lisa Bonet very much piqued my interest.

Subhubby @115/Marty @116, it was the explicit bisexuality and gender bending that grabbed my attention. The seduction scenes are a bit questionable through the lens of MeToo but at the time were a fun romp, and I prefer to keep them that way. On first viewing I was confused by audience members cheering Frank's demise, as I thought he was the hero of the piece! (Meat Loaf notwithstanding.) And yeah, not sure which was hotter, Susan Sarandon's figure, Patricia Quinn's eyeliner or Tim Curry's legs. Perhaps it's porn after all.

BiDanFan@117
Sorry, that was confusing. The quote was from an article about Alice in Wonderland.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alice_in_Wonderland_(2010_film)

@Bi: I always played Magenta. I've got the hair for it. Actually, I was signed up for the live cast before I'd ever seen the show--did it live after only seeing it twice. At the first performance our Janet got nerves and backed out maybe two minutes beforehand--we were already at "There is no rule #6." Our Frankenfurter stepped out into the audience and asked for volunteers to play Janet. A girl hopped up and stripped down to a bra and slip right there. Those two got married a year later. Good times.

Re: ""Do as I say and I will be your slave" -- sploosh!! "
Seconded!
"Your eyes can be so cruel....just as I can be so cruel."
DAMN.
Jinxie @111, you didn't err, you did her a favor. Bowie in Labyrinth was a wond'rous thing.

BiDanFan@117
subhubby@118

Sorry again. I gave a link to an article about the wrong Alice in Wonderland film. The right url is:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alice_in_Wonderland_(1976_film)

Dan's answer for LABEL was incorrect. The correct answer was "neither bi nor pan". In almost every dictionary except the one that Dan used, bisexual means attracted to men and women, or to both the same and opposite genders, and this does not describe LABEL at all, nor is she attracted to all genders. She is just a normal straight person who is also into nonbinary people. Like a straight man who is also into transwomen, it's a little unusual but doesn't incorporate as much homosexuality as has been historically dangerous, it's a little queer but not as stigmatized as being bi or pan.

I thought the question about "good porn" was stupid because what is great porn to one person is complete trash to another, even in the same genre. Hence the Caligula suggestion I guess.

I thought the size queen question was stupid, you're allowed to like whatever you want as long as you're not impinging on anyone else's rights. But it was a missed opportunity to talk about listening to the body's signals of pain and pleasure.

I thought the diapers question could have been handled better if the judgmental focus was taken off of preferences and put on actions. I think pedophiles are ok as long as they appropriately restrain themselves from intimacy with children It's actions that can harm others and be "bad", not preferences.

I'd prefer that Dan talk about reasonable safety measures while dating during covid, rather than publish a reader's vague request to please talk about them more.. A retraction of his advice to take risks because life is short anyway would have been appropriate, more appropriate advice would have been to stick to serial monogamy during covid, no matter which gender you choose to date.

I don't know if surprising Lyft drivers with Savage Love podcasts is the best way to spread the word. Poor guys are just trying to get through the day, I'm sure some would like to hear and talk about sex and politics and religion but I bet most just want a peaceful ride.

Hopefully he got the butt plug question right, I'm too inexperienced to tell.

Did this column used to be more considerate or is it just me?

Sorry for the negative feedback, hopefully this column is an anomaly.

Philophile@121

I’ll agree that determining “good porn” is very problematic. Even if you avoid what the definition of porn is and call it erotic cinema, you still have the problems of not only differences of artistic sensibilities, but also of sexual preferences. Obviously, tastes are going to vary widely. However, unless you’re going to pick at random from the thousands (or tens of thousands?) of erotic films you eventually have to rely on the opinion of someone who has seen the film you choose. I think you could do worse than giving an example of a film you liked and asking Dan (and the commenters) if they know of one similar. Where this went wrong originally is that Dan’s suggestion wasn’t even close to being similar to the LW’s example.

Blue Is The Warmest Colour, maybe check that movie out LW.
/ Hey Philo, given the times of health crisis and economic pain, and trump trying his hardest to sabotage the US postal service, not to mention his tacky wife cutting down trees planted over decades by other First Ladies, Dan, I feel, makes a valiant effort to keep things going.
Love to all in California, the fires look horrendous.

phi @121 & subhubby @122: The LW didn't ask for "good porn". They asked for something similar to Alice in Wonderland: An X-rated Musical Fantasy. It was a pretty narrow request.

As the only straight male in the world who doesn't watch porn our to an overwhelming lack of interest, I've been unable to participate in that particular discussion.

@124: fubar, I love you.

fubar@124

I don’t watch graphic depictions of sex either. It’s not that I can’t be visually sexually stimulated- I like to look at pictures of naked women. For some reason I find sex more about the sensation and than about imagery. How long can you watch a penis going in and out of a vagina without it seeming more mechanical than erotic? I guess I just consider sex to be more tactile than visual. I can still enjoy erotic movies (especially of seduction and sexual surrender) right through people being undressed, yet graphic genital depictions of actual sex don’t appeal to me. I’m not sure of why there is this disconnect. Perhaps part of the problem is that pornographers care more about proving the sex is authentic than trying to make it erotic. Anyway, I find I’m increasingly drawn more to erotic stories than erotic film.

@126: Thank you, subhubby, I'm feeling encouraged.

@102 & @117 BiDanFan: With the one very rare exception of my watching a pay-to-view X rated film in a Mississippi motel before flying home on leave after my USN Tech school training in 1989 (out of pure sexual curiosity; I was traveling alone and nobody knew me, so I figured, literally--what the fuck?) Rocky Horror Picture Show and Boogie Nights are the closest to porn that I've ever seen since my military years. Definite hotness in RHPS. :)
Later after I foolishly got married, my then husband for a while wanted me to get into porn, but I'd lost interest. I guess, for me, the novelty wore off.

subhubby @ 126
I’m also with you as genitalia close ups never did it for me. I fall for stories, sets, attire, acting, lighting, and camera. If done right I may be over once the people about to fuck had just started kissing, with some if not all of their clothes still on.

I think much of the appeal of erotic films stems from the fact that they still allow the viewers a room for interpretation, some leeway to add their own preferences and scenarios to whatever is happening the screen as opposed to industrial porn which is often too formulated and predictable.
The difference between the two may be summed up as masturbating to your own fantasy as opposed to someone else’s.

Ciods @119: I'm envious! Magenta was always the most coveted role. My cast career started much like your Janet's: I was a regular and had got to know the cast, and the woman who played Janet said she wasn't feeling well and asked if I'd fill in. I was not wearing a bra or slip though and had to borrow hers, and let's say we weren't the same size. "Janet stuffs her bra!" became a new callback that week. Good times.

Phi @121, yes, I re-read Dan's answer and indeed he said that bi is "a slightly better fit," but you're correct that it fits about as well as the other Janet's bra fitted me. He shouldn't have felt his options were limited to those two choices, neither of which is accurate. And yes, if the Lyft story is true, it is kind of similar to exposing an unwilling bystander to one's kink. If true, which is dubious, I hope she turned it off as soon as she realised.

Echoing Nucute's thanks to Fubar and Subhubby, and adding CMD, who are not the only men in the world who aren't into hardcore porn.

@76. Lava. I'll agree that there's no 'pure and simple' to the vagaries of personal attraction; but simplicity might be needed when it comes to the politics of self- and group labeling. There are still a lot of OS-attracted / heterosexual people saying, in effect, 'we are normal, you i.e. everyone else are abnormal, deviant, perverted, sinful, etc.'--so many that 'mainstream heterosexual' or 'conventionally straight' is almost a political category for me.

/break/
I've never felt like identifying as a 'pansexual', and not just for generational reasons. The pansexual people I know have often said things like (of their partners or crushes), 'I'd be attracted to them whatever gender they are', 'I love her energy', 'I love his grasp of theoretical physics' or '...coding'; and this is inconceivable to me: I've always been drawn to people hailing from much more traditional gender styles, like the gay male top (typically, in my pants), or femme or butch lesbian (usually a matter of affinity, with the possibility of attraction developing later out of friendship). In terms of sexual compatibility, it's never been possible for me to have imagined anyone other (roughly) than in the gender they were. So I'm just not pan in the modern designation.

Harriet, it helps people to have a group identity. I see that. Shared lived experiences keep us connected to others. Whatever label or gender a person identifies as, sure, is to be respected. No skin off my nose even though culturally it’s not my need to join the smorgasbord.
How someone identifies should not take up so much room however, that how they treat others becomes less important.

Harriet @131
"In terms of sexual compatibility, it's never been possible for me to have imagined anyone other (roughly) than in the gender they were."

I think if one is in a committed relationship with someone who comes out as a different gender, and if the two people stay together, that can lead one to think "I guess my attraction was to something else, not their gender." And that can lead to envisioning oneself as pan.

That's not the only option, of course. As others said above, "heteroflexible" and "homoflexible" are also available if you feel you're mostly attracted to a particular gender but can make exceptions.

@132: Very well said, LavaGirl!
Finding a place for oneself and being able to use that identity marker is meaningful and valuable. It seems clear that we need more terms than straight, gay, lesbian, bi (or homosexual, heterosexual, bisexual) to describe who we are sexually attracted to, just as we need terms like trans or non binary, or the now-so-broad-that-it's-practically-meaningless "queer" to describe our state of being. At a certain point, however, language just can't keep up with the vast permutations of humanity's myriad ways of being or of considering themselves.

After that saturation point (and I don't precisely what or where that point is), the level of hair-splitting, even if done with the admirable goal of inclusivity or visibility, starts to impede understanding, as the various people who used to be grouped under the umbrella of one term start to split off according to ever-more minute gradations of identity. Soon we find ourselves in a "People's Front of Judea" vs. "The Judean People's Front" situation.

Add to that today's political/cultural climate, which seems to be almost designed to encourage maximum conflict, and the majority of people, who are not personally affected by the label, can't keep up with the changes in terminology and are constantly being chastised for Getting It Wrong. We get a situation in which someone innocently and well-meaningly uses the now-outdated term and people jump down their throat, seeing the term which has now fallen out of favor as an intentional insult, rather than as the well-intentioned gaffe (which may, confusingly, not even register as a gaffe at all with other members of the exact same group who are either still using the term that others say is no longer accurate or appropriate or who simply don't care that much about hair-splitting) it really is.

I'm thinking of the "ed" at the end of "gendered" which used to be part of "transgendered," before the preferred term became "transgender." I've seen cis people use "transgendered" and be excoriated. The people using the term didn't have a stake in the label game, and were genuinely trying to be sensitive and use what they thought was the correct term; certainly they weren't saying "tranny" or "he-she" or other patently offensive terms. And yet they got raked over the coals.

Look at how even among the Savagelovesphere which includes people of all sorts of identities, we can't achieve consensus about the difference between "pansexual" and bisexual." So that even if the lw settled on the label "bi" or "pan" or something else, it doesn't matter much if no one else whom they are talking to shares the same sense of the definition.

It often seems as though language police are lying in wait to pounce on the unwary. When done too often or too vigorously, that can end in the once well-meaning person decrying what they now term "political correctness," which easily tips over into a Fox News-worthy rant and attitude.

I don't mean to suggest that people who fall outside the tent of the majority or the not-queer tiptoe around the cisgender and heterosexual so as to not risk angering them. I do think that everyone should try to be considerate and conscious of people's differences and preferences. At the very least, though, some slack needs to be cut if one gives themselves an obscure enough and minute enough identity and someone else gets the nomenclature wrong.

CMDWannabe@129
Good point how explicitness restricts the imagination. In fact, just watching a movie is more restrictive than reading a book. I’ve often been disappointed on seeing the movie adaptation of a book I’ve read, thinking, “That’s not how I pictured it at all.” You can view things in your own mind in ways that you uniquely find appealing. This is one reason, as I’ve stated previously, that I’m increasingly drawn to erotic writing.

That’s not to say that I can’t find the visual also erotically stimulating. In line with your idea that less is sometimes more, making Brad and Janet (in Rocky Horror) run around in their underwear, rather than naked, made them deliciously vulnerable and made later seduction scenes ( that included being undressed) seem more arousing.

On the other hand, sometimes you want more:
About the time my wife and I decided to take our female dominated relationship to another level, the movie Exit to Eden came out. Although almost universally panned, most notably by co-star Rosie O’Donnell, we thought it might give us some ideas. In the film, Dana Delany plays the head dominatrix at fantasy island resort, and Paul Mercurio plays her main client/love interest. As we expected, this movie wasn’t the height of cinematic excellence, but we did think the scenes between Delany and Mercurio were hot. I thought Delany was very sexy, and apparently Mercurio has a gorgeous butt. Although I was treated to a full frontal view of Delany (thank you director Gary Marshall), all my wife got to see of Mercurio was the aforementioned glorious ass. She would have liked to have seen visible evidence of his arousal as she imagined whipping him into compliant shape.

@110 Ens. Pulver: Ever since I saw Rocky Horror Picture Show for the very first time, I have considered it delightfully racy. Group pool sex, fishnet stockings, mascara, stilettos---yowza!!
Even wheelchair-bound Dr. Everett Scott got into it. :)

@Dadddy (135): You might enjoy Alan Moore's and Melinda Gebbie's graphic novel (very graphic) Lost Girls. I used to have a copy, but it seems to have gone missing. I'm not sure whom I lent it to, but I would like to have it back!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_Girls_(graphic_novel)

@107 DonnyKlicious: "Waxing the dolphin".......I'm not going to be able to get that image out of my head for a while..... :o
However, thank you, Donny, for this reminder to share: please help save our PNW Southern resident orcas!

nocutename@134
I too was impressed by LavaGirl’s post@132. I’m glad I didn’t reply because your post was much better than mine could ever have been. This is somewhat similar to the battle in biological species classification that the late Stephen Jay Gould characterized as between the splitters and the lumpers. Although I suppose I fit well within the category of heterosexual, I don’t think I fit the standard mold there. Sometimes when I voice some of my sexual thoughts, my wife will look at me and say, “You’re such a pervert.” I’ll then reply, “Thank you.”
Sometimes it’s just better to go with the vague general term.

@140: subhubby, I like that dynamic and exchange between you and your wife! Mainly, it shows you both have a sense of humor and playfulness, which I think is crucial.

I think that broad-ish labels are useful, and then further specific clarifying information should be given when necessary or asked for. For example, in this week's letter, LABEL says:

"If a woman is attracted to cis men and non-binary humans (who can have either a penis or vagina) but that woman is not attracted to cis women… would that woman be bi or pan? Labels are not super important to me, Dan, but I’m calling on my friendly neighborhood sex advice columnist for help just the same!"

And I don't know why she needs a label to cover that very specific set of conditions. Unless she's looking for a community of exactly-the-same like-minded people, saying she's bi should cover the broadest of broad strokes, since she is open to dating or having sex with cis men (presumably either straight or bi), and non-binary folks (seemingly regardless not only of their genitals, but more importantly, regardless of their sexual orientation, though those not attracted to cis women would rule her out). I cannot imagine the scenario in which she'd need to be that specific in any dating app or casual conversation. She can say she's not interested in someone, if she's not interested, without having to go into the ways in which that person or their gender identity fall short for her. She can be open to dating a non-binary person without having to ask those intrusive questions about what's under the pants. She can say she's not into cis women. All of those things are true and all are enough for most people to know to assess whether or not they think the two would have a basis for a sexual relationship. The rest just causes head scratching.

This letter is interesting to me, because it complicates the whole gender vs. sex or genitals issue. Generally, I think of a person's sex as being distinct from their gender. gender identity, or performed gender. This is why we differentiate between sexual orientation and gender preference or gender expression. This is why I can understand that a self-identified gay man (call him Man Q) might be okay with dating a transman who hasn't had bottom surgery (call him Man G). Man G is a man: he considers himself one and presents as one. It doesn't matter that he has a vagina. Similarly, I can understand a person for whom genitals make a big difference: this is the gay man (call him Man R) that doesn't want to date a transman unless he's had bottom surgery (call him Man L). Perhaps even then, Man R won't be interested, depending on how much "original condition" he wants his partners' penises to be in (look, Mr. Ven: I just ended a sentence with a preposition).

Both points of view make sense to me. I also understand those bisexuals who say things like, "I am attracted to the person, not the genitals." Personally, as a cis straight woman, I am attracted to both male-gendered and male-bodied people, and am not at all attracted to vulvas, so I have to accept my limited tastes. But this woman is attracted to cis men--so she's straight--and n.b. people--so genitals don't matter to her, but not to cis women, so she's not a lesbian--but it's not the vagina part of the woman that is the problem for her, so much as the gender identity. That's a new one for me to grapple with and I wish I knew her stance on transmen and transwomen whether to just add to my confusion or to help clarify things.

What's the over/under on how many times Dan says the words "Jerry Falwell Jr." on the podcast this week?

That should have read:
this woman is attracted to cis men--so she's straight--and n.b. people--so genitals don't matter to her--but not to cis women--so she's not a lesbian. But it's not the vagina part of the woman that is the problem for her, so much as the gender identity. That's a new one for me to grapple with and I wish I knew her stance on transmen and transwomen whether to just add to my confusion or to help clarify things.

Ms Cute - (Popular people get more leeway.) #141 seems reasonably assessed; I'll just add that Mr Savage oversimplifies in counting only the participants in whatever activity is being examined and not the coding of the activity. In Savagetopia, boys taking the Gay Sex class would be required to perform the C-word because some gays have that anatomy; I'd make non-gay-coded activities optional.

@144: Oh, Mr Ven, I don't think that Dan would require that. GGG "within reason" is his watchword.

For those like Dan the Man and Griz who proudly endorse and wear our ITMFA gear (t-shirts, caps, pins, etc.), I have a truly fitting slogan for 2020, passed on down from a good fellow musician friend:

Flush the Turd November Third!

Want Trump gone? Pass it on.
Get Trump's goat--get out and VOTE!
Send Trump to jail via the U.S. MAIL!

Google search the first above line---t-shirts are now available.

Wow--no typos--and Griz hasn't has any red, red wine yet tonight. :)

@146 nocutename (re your @99 at my @100 & @101): I meant to award you the Big Hunsky, as I was trying to set up the coveted numerical honors. I hope you are savoring the glory and abundant riches. :)

Nocute @134, very good point about the cutting of slack. Context should be a clue. If someone is clearly talking respectfully about the group, a gentle "the preferred term is transgender" should be all that needs to be said. I as a white person have learned due to the current BLM debate that my language was somewhat outdated and I appreciate having been gently educated rather than called a racist. But this just shows me that I have curated my Facebook friends well.

Where people have preferences around gender presentation, not just biological sex, that seems to be where a fine line between sexual orientation and "type" arises. Our much beloved Ricardo is gay, but only likes men with dark complexions. Does he need a separate label for that or could he just say that dark men are his type? Clearly I would go with the latter. But when the restricting factor is, for instance, an androgynous appearance, now we seem to think we need a separate word to denote someone who, for instance, is attracted only to cis men who present as androgynous. Couldn't that just be a descriptor of preferences rather than requiring its own label? In other words, I can see your desire to keep the number of "official" sexual orientations low, with restrictors simply being descriptions of preference or type rather than necessitating a new label beyond straight/gay/bi.

Nocute @145, I agree that in Savageland everyone has the right to opt out of sex acts. Venn, you are assuming that all trans men would want to receive "the C word," which I would challenge, because wouldn't that kick off dysphoria for many? Not all gay men are expected to receive anal sex. If that's not "required," then licking pussy surely is an optional extra to be negotiated between the people involved.

Griz @146: "Flush the Turd November Third!" Love it!

Thank you, auntie grizelda. I hope you're recovery continues going well and you can start drinking your red wine again soon. Given the state of the world, I don't know how I'd function without mine lately!

Ms Fan/Ms Cute - I was recalling the podcast episode with the gay guest who was the author of that comic about how his type was trans men if they'd been on hormones for about a year. The guest had done it, but said that he wouldn't require it of others in his situation, and Mr Savage, true to Oral Comes Standard and the idea of esteeming people for instead of despite their attributes, said that they definitely should if desired (there was no assumption about whether anyone would want it or not, just that Mr S would expect one to be prepared to do so cheerfully if asked). It was actually one of the rare times that point was observed that way round, as usually it's presented as a case of bullying lesbians. It really would be a shame to trash one of the biggest points of SS-exclusive Privilege. I've said before that I learned everything I ever needed to know and more about female anatomy from Shirley Valentine.
xxx
Combining the theme of establishing definitions (the bi/pan question) with whom Mr Savage may mention on the podcast (the speculation about Mr Falwell fils), I am wondering whether "monogamish" can stretch far enough to accommodate having an officially acknowledged Other Loved One (with whom one wishes Mr S a speedy and happy reunion), who has been mentioned twice that I've heard, which makes me think of Ms Franklin's delivery when Sandy informed Miss Brodie, "Monica saw Mr Lowther playing golf with Miss Lockhart. Twice."

What do all y'all think about "multi" (short for "multisexual") as a descriptor to be added to gay/straight/bi (although I remember hearing that some people don't like to use "gay" as a synonym for "all homosexual people, including women," but prefer "gay" to refer only to men, and would like to differentiate it from "lesbian," so as to have their own, unique descriptor). This would necessitate having "lesbian/gay/straight/bi/multi/pan"--if people insist on retaining "pan."*

"Multi" would require the follow-up of more finely-tuned preference, à la BiDanFan's description of preferring only androgynous-presenting cis men, but there needn't be a very specific word to convey that to be added to the ever-expanding alphabet soup of labels that are proliferating like mushrooms after a rain.

BiDanFan, very interesting distinction between preferences that are appearance-based but not related to gender or genitals, such as Ricardo's preferences for dark men--and chubby, hairy men--and appearances that are related to gender presentation or performance, such as your preference for androgyny. I think when it's all boiled down, it's still a preference for a type, but there is some bleeding into orientation there. (It also strikes me that if there is a word for chubby, hairy gay/bi men--"bear"--that adding "grizzly" or "black" to bear might indicate Ricardo's ideal: a dark, chubby, hairy gay man.)

*A problem with "pansexual" or "pan" as I see it, is that the name implies that there is no one to whom the pansexual isn't sexually attracted. Obviously, everyone gets to decide that a particular person isn't sexually attractive to them, and everyone still has their specific features that are either non-starters for them or "must haves" or to which they will always be drawn (see, Mr. Ven: I don't always end my sentences with prepositions!). But I can imagine the set-up for an unpleasant confrontation when someone who is pansexual rejects someone who then accuses them of misappropriating the label "pan."

@Mr. Ven: I sometimes get frustrated with Dan's attitude towards oral sex, and cunnilingus in particular. I disagree with his "oral comes standard; if someone won't perform it, return them to the lot" decree, for instance. I think a lot of Dan's earlier, more glib, and blither dicta come from an earlier period when he was less thoughtful and also less informed of the variety of human sexual preferences and experiences and lacked the years of feedback he's since received. Yet the phrase lives on and is often quoted like gospel by his acolytes. Dan's attitude on the performance of oral sex seems to have expanded to allow for people who really hate to give blow jobs or to swallow or who have TMJ, but he still insists that any man who professes to be straight or bi should WANT to eat pussy. There's a double standard there, but even so, it's a move away from the "oral comes standard" attitude. It's almost as if Dan likes the cleverness of the original phrasing so much, he doesn't reconcile it with the fact that he's changed his attitude.

And what about those vulva-havers who don't like having cunnilingus performed on them, including cis women who don't necessarily have body dysmorphia? There are some women who don't like the feeling; some who are far too self-conscious about their genitals' smell, taste, look to be able to enjoy receiving oral sex (different from the dysmorphia that BiDanFan referred to, wherein that reminder of the person's biological body configuration is a cause of distress); and some for whom the act is traumatic because of a past violation (I'm thinking here of our own EricaP, who was assaulted that way and doesn't want that act performed on her). There are lots of reasons a person of any gender or orientation may not want to either give or receive oral sex.

Venn @150, I would view that as "love me, love my genitals." If you are willing to date a trans man or a trans woman, you should be willing to go down on them just as you would be willing to go down on a cis partner. However, that does not confer the obligation to date them. It was from Dan that I learned the terms phallophile and vaginophile. A gay man who is a phallophile should not date non-op trans men, then the oral sex issue would not be an issue. (Unless of course this man said he was not into oral sex, as some cis people are not, then perhaps it would be a match made in heaven.) Similarly, a lesbian is within her rights to decide she does not want to date a woman with a penis, just as a straight woman is within her rights to decide she does not want to date a man with a too-small or too-large penis. Or that she won't date a bald man, or whatever. Physical preferences are valid; it just needs to be recognised that too many preferences narrows one's dating pool. But a smaller pool is a price most of us are willing to pay, to some extent.

I would not consider an Other Loved One to be incompatible with being monogamish. It would depend on how often one sees this Other as compared to seeing one's primary partner. One cannot institute a rule of "you may sleep with other people but no catching feelings," as feelings do not follow such rules. If an occasional boink develops into a more regular and committed relationship, does one need to necessarily pick another term for one's marriage? I think the Savages are fine.

Nocute @151, I've seen a suggestion of "polysexual" which sounds great for those of us who are both polyamorous and unconstrained by sex/gender, but not so great for those who are monogamous, since it could cause confusion. I would be more likely to call myself multisexual than pansexual. I agree completely with your objection to the word "pan" as potentially being seen to mean "attracted to everybody," which is a negative stereotype bisexuals face as it is. Ha, you've jogged a memory of a T-shirt I once saw that read "I'm bisexual, but I'm not attracted to you." :)

Nocute @152, now you're doing what a previous commenter did and confusing "standard" with "mandatory." In cars, by way of analogy, cup holders are standard, seatbelts are mandatory. Oral sex should be expected, but absolutely there are many reasons for opt outs. Unless there is a good reason, one should expect that one's partner will like oral sex and be willing to do that for them. If you don't like giving, limit your dating pool to people who don't like receiving. I don't think that's an unreasonable view.

Oral sex is like wearing a mask during coronavirus. Expect to do it, unless you have a very good reason not to. And if you can't or won't do it, expect that you won't get out much.

Hmm, that makes it sound like oral sex is a chore and not fun, bad analogy! Wish we could delete our posts.

@155: It's okay, BiDanFan, I got your intended meaning. But I disagree with you @153, when you said that I was confusing "standard" with "mandatory." Because Dan hasn't just said, "oral comes standard;" he's said, many times: "oral comes standard, and any model that arrives without oral should be returned to the lot." Which implies that an unwillingness to engage in oral sex is analogous to a car's having a defect, even if it's a factory-installed defect.

Now, I don't think one needs Dan's approval to not want to give or receive oral sex, but his word does carry some weight around here, and there is definitely a suggestion that "standard" does indeed mean "mandatory, unless an acceptable reason allows for an exception."

And how many times have you heard or read Dan respond to a straight woman who wants to know whether her male partner is gay by having Dan say something along the lines of: "does he eat your pussy? If he eats your pussy, he's straight." There are a lot of straight men out there who don't eat pussy (I wouldn't date one, but they exist in large numbers).

@156: I should have written: "there is definitely a suggestion that "standard" does indeed mean "mandatory, unless an acceptable reason allows for an exception. And who gets to decide what reasons are legitimate enough to allow for that exception?"

If Dan has moved on from that earlier view to allow for people to set whatever limits they wish for themselves, no permission required after meeting some standard for an acceptable exception to the rule, then he needs to retire the "oral comes standard" phrase and to batt it away when it's brought up by someone more forcefully than he has done. It was a cute and clever phrase, but it's not particularly helpful or useful.

@158: Dadddy, these aren't "naughty" pictures (and I well remember mydriasis' avatar), though; these are full-on pornographic images.

It's Alan Moore (creator of "Watchmen," and "The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen"), so the story is much more interesting than it could have been if it was pure smut.

@158 daddy that was a beautiful avatar. work of art.

@159 nocute @3 nocute next week’s column - I go back to last (this) week’s comments occasionally!

@148 BiDanFan: I know, right? I wish I'd thought of it first. I'd be making a fortune in t-shirt sales. :)

@149 nocutename: Many thanks! I have since returned to moderate consumption of my favorite wine---cabernet sauvignon. And today was so beautiful outside that my beloved Love Beetle and I went out for another top down drive. :)

Nocute @156: 'there is definitely a suggestion that "standard" does indeed mean "mandatory, unless an acceptable reason allows for an exception."' Well yes. Weren't you, yourself, talking about acceptable reasons that allow for an exception? That is what standard means. Mandatory would mean there is no acceptable reason that allows for an exception.

'And how many times have you heard or read Dan respond to a straight woman who wants to know whether her male partner is gay by having Dan say something along the lines of: "does he eat your pussy? If he eats your pussy, he's straight."' None, because bi men eat pussy also. And "if he eats pussy, he's not gay" does not mean "if he's not gay, he eats pussy." Sadly you are correct that there are plenty of straight men who won't eat pussy. It's my belief that Dan's words are directed toward them, telling them to person up, stop being a pussy and start eating some pussy. Again, since he's allowed for acceptable reasons for an exception, I don't disagree with this advice.

Nocute @157: "And who gets to decide what reasons are legitimate enough to allow for that exception?" Clearly, the person with the pussy.

Griz @161, glad you no longer have to face a drinking prohibition! Yay for having one's top down, as it were.

Battling severe browser issues, this is the first time I've been able to read last week's comments. Not really engaged by the real letters, but I wanted to get into the issue of ^suggestive^ movies.

Even though I'd been reading porn since my early teens, actually seeing the characters from RHPS in different situations was HOT and gave my imagination a boost. Ditto for The Hunger.

I have my own quirky RHPS Halloween story: I preferred Columbia's style (hot pants, ankle socks, tap shoes) but did a Magenta take-off instead (black satin nightgown, little apron and hat); but I refused to dye my really long blonde hair dark, so sprayed it with bright red dye. Got home in the middle of the night and just went to bed.

When I washed my hair in the morning, it looked as if there was blood running down my body. Gross and hilarious at the same time.

Helenka @163, that's happened to everyone who's ever dyed their hair red. It is a shock at first! I remember once I was showering after a fresh dye job. My roommate, a gay man, had to come into the bathroom for some reason and I pulled back the shower curtain and said, "Psycho! AAAAAIIIIGHHHH!" and freaked him out! Gross and hilarious indeed.

Ms Cute/Ms Fan - We'd need a somewhat less cancel-hungry world, perhaps, with clearly established and accepted ways of initiating sticky conversations and graceful withdrawals. The only fictional example I can recall quickly is in a novel of William Mann's (an old friend). Times have changed, though, and there is certainly a growing air of disapproval of dispreferences.
xxx
Ms Fan - That's probably about as far as it could stretch, leaning heavily on the difference between Other Loved One and Other Partner. It makes me think of the Special Guest Star status bestowed on Peter Bowles and Patricia Hodge in the later series of Rumpole, when Guthrie and Phyllida would appear in perhaps two episodes out of six. If we're going to keep monogamish as being close to monogamous, I could see the bar being set in various places. The moderate position would seem to be drawing the line not at catching feelings but at acknowledging openly that someone else has status (similar to how lords or princes would have Official Mistresses). I've thought once or twice that Mr Savage seems to be inching towards abandoning monogamish to describe his couple. As the term seems to have been useful to others, it seems better to give it a more fixed mooring if possible than to have it attached to whatever Mr Savage does personally.

Nocute cont, I'd also draw a distinction between an expectation of oral sex as standard and an expectation of oral sex -to completion- as standard. To me, it's reasonable to expect someone to suck a dick or lick a pussy. It is not reasonable to expect someone to continue sucking a dick or licking a pussy until their partner orgasms if this causes the giver of the oral sex discomfort. Is this your objection to the idea of oral sex as standard?

@BiDanFan: I have no objection to oral sex in any way.

What I object to is a phrase (and attitude) Dan obviously came up with quite some time ago that I don't think serves any longer. Saying that any model without something that is supposed to be standard should be returned to the lot, which is exactly what Dan says, equating a person with a car and the interest in performing (or maybe also in receiving) oral sex, implies that not wanting to do oral makes a person defective and that a conscientious car-or-relationship-shopper should dump that defective model ASAP if it fails to perform.

In the years since Dan came up with that clever little sentence, people have come to him with "legitimate" reasons to not perform oral sex and he has, like the pope granting dispensations, signed off on the opt-out, particularly in the case of blow jobs. Yet he still seems to insist on the desire to perform cunnilingus as a marker for heterosexual attraction (even if the guy is bi) in a man and homosexual attraction (for either a lesbian or a bisexual woman). And yes, he often DOES say to women who worry about their boyfriends or husbands being gay, something along the lines of, 'does he eat your pussy? If he eats your pussy, he's not gay.'

I don't happen to regard Dan as the arbiter of all things sexual, but some people seem to, and I think he's doing them a disservice by still hauling out that once-so-cute phrase, which I hear him now walking back frequently. On the podcast, for instance, I've more than once heard him say something akin to, 'well, I always say, "oral comes standard; any model that comes without oral should be returned to the lot." That said, I think you have a right to not want to have oral sex performed on you.' Occasionally, he'll waive the requirement for the giver if the "reason" seems sufficiently acceptable to him. Dan gives a more generous pass to the would-be recipient who doesn't want to receive than he does to the less-than-enthusiastic would-be giver,

And when I said, @157: "and who gets to decide what reasons are legitimate enough to allow for that exception," I didn't mean it should be the pussy-haver, as you say it should "clearly" be @162 (although, yes, obviously); I meant that people call or write to Dan to ask whether their reasons are worthy of excepting them from the act, because it's his column or his podcast, and because he's the authority. Personally, I think both the genitals-haver and the person interacting with those genitals (and their haver) should each get veto power; if the act--either giving it or receiving it--is important enough to the person who is being told "no," then that person has to decide whether they are comfortable enough with paying that price of admission (a phrase of Dan's which I believe still holds up) to be in that relationship. In other words, if I meet a guy who doesn't want to perform cunnilingus on me, I get to decide whether or not I like him and the relationship enough to waive that expectation, just as if I were to say, "no--I don't like being gone down on," my partner gets to decide whether or not he likes me and the relationship enough to forgo it. Ditto for blowjobs. People are constantly asking for permission to stop doing something they clearly don't want to do, whether because it causes them pain, or it triggers disturbing memories, or they vomit as a consequence, or they simply don't like it. Because when your authority figure insists that anyone who doesn't want oral (in either direction) is defective, that is an act of shaming. That requires getting approval to be an exception to the rule. I don't think that's cool.

2020 Dan Savage isn't the same person as 2010 Dan Savage, nor certainly not the same as 2000 Dan Savage, just as the rest of us have changed over time. I think that his glib phrase no longer applies, now that he's taken into account the idea that people are entitled to their preferences--something that the cute phrase doesn't allow for. Yet he seems to be so fond of the phrase that he won't drop it, instead repeating it and then undercutting it.

But by now I've belabored this point so often and at such tedious length (sorry), that I've forgotten why it came up in the first place!

Also, I've stayed out of this discussion, because I had so much to say about other things, but yes, Rocky Horror Picture Show was incredibly formative for me sexually. I first saw it at age 13, even before its incarnation as a midnight cult film (which I saw dozens upon dozens of times) and it was the second time I remember being turned on by something I saw on screen. It's also the first movie I ever saw which depicted sex as a joyful and fun act that could be performed just for fun and with multiple partners, and that likewise made a big impression on me. Long live Dr. Frankenfurter!

Nocute @167:
Para 1: I wrote "Is this your objection to the idea of oral sex as standard?" Not, "Is this your objection to oral sex?"

Para 2: If someone is not interested in receiving oral sex, then of course they won't consider dumping someone who does not want to give it. The "oral sex as standard" perspective presumes wanting to receive oral sex. Yes, if I want oral sex and you don't want to give it, I'm gonna deem you the wrong fit for me. I think many people would feel guilty about that decision, perhaps so guilty they'd miserably stay with that person, and I think Dan was right to legitimise it.

Para 3: Admittedly it's a hair split, but there's a difference between "if he eats your pussy, he's not gay" and "if he eats your pussy, he's straight," which is what you argued previously. And I reiterate that "if X then not Y" does not imply "if not Y then X." I think it's sound logic that enthusiasm for cunnilingus would rule out homosexuality, don't you? Dan has never said "UNLESS he eats your pussy, he's gay," or "if you suspect he's gay, demand he eat your pussy to prove otherwise." These are men who are already eating the pussy. And who, for this and many other reasons, are not gay.

Para 4: Apparently Dan is answering this question because people are asking him. Sure, it makes no sense for someone to call into the podcast and, presuming they get through, say, "Dan Savage said you need to go down on me." If they won't, they won't, and you march that car back to the lot if it's that important to you. And ideally they will feel less guilty and selfish about doing that if Dan has said that they're not being unreasonable. Obviously, if oral sex is so important to the person that they're calling Dan to ask about it, they've already decided they're unhappy with no oral as a price of admission. I don't know where you get the word defective. I do think there's still so much sex negativity in our culture that it's more likely the person who wants oral sex and who isn't getting it to feel shamed for even considering dumping someone over this. And that's why I think it's important for Dan to promote oral sex as a legitimately deal-breaking need.

Para 6: It appears to be Venn @150 who sparked this debate by lamenting the idea that a gay man might be expected to eat his trans partner's pussy. Echoes of terfery, but it has allowed a distraction while home works are being done and I can do little else with my time! :)

@BiDan, I think we're mostly in agreement, and disagree over very small details--I'm avoiding doing some work I don't want to do (!)--and I really agree that if people feel guilty for prioritizing wanting oral sex (in either direction), they should be told that their desire is perfectly legitimate and that their subsequent decision to break up is therefore legitimate, as well.

I don't think the general culture, sex-negative as it may be, is still so anti-oral or oral-ignorant as to need Dan to legitimate it, but I do think a lot of people need to be told that it's okay to prioritize their sexual satisfaction, especially if the relationship is supposed to be monogamous.

As for the use of the word "defective," I thought I already said that to me, by using the car analogy, Dan implies that a model that comes off the lot lacking some piece of equipment that "comes standard" and which should therefore, because of that lack, be returned to the lot, is defective. If one bought a car and upon leaving the lot discovered that the heater or the windshield wipers hadn't been installed, they would consider that car to be defective, a lemon, and return it to the lot for one with all the standard features installed. Hence my use of "defective," I want to make it clear that I don't consider the absence of oral sex in a relationship to render it defective and I don't consider a person who doesn't want to give or receive it to be defective, though I enjoy both giving blow jobs and receiving oral. And indeed, I would consider someone who doesn't like giving cunnilingus to be sexually incompatible with me.

Ms Fan - I said that Mr Savage would presumably require young gays to learn letter-after-o-eating in case someone to whom they would later become attracted were so constituted. Both Ms Cute and I would let that be optional. I'll assume that somewhere between meeting and becoming partners there would be some point at which there could be some no-blame clarification (if you agree, about where would you put it?).

Mr Savage has stated that, if the participants are a gay cis man and a gay trans man, letter-after-o in letter-after-u is "gay sex". I call that "gay heterosex" and acknowledge there's lots of "gay homosex" available to a cis/trans partnership. Gays who like gay heterosex I'll probably put into the FTWL column, and I shall not chastise any gay who does not want to venture beyond gay homosex.

@133. Erica. What you say is absolutely true for the scenario you envision (your partner transitioning or coming out in another gender). I think there are people who can get into relationships with partners where that might happen--who care for their partners, no matter what gender identity they espouse (or it 'turns out' that they have). I've never been like that; I've always been the one liable to redefine myself, even dramatically in my younger days, in gender terms.

@132. Lava. I agree with you about everyone needing a community to identify with. It's almost a human right. Many discussions, in our current exacerbated right-left climate, are taken by the people we're arguing with--that is, that we the liberals or leftists are arguing with--as our saying that they have no right to any identity category e.g. as blue-collar whites, as straight white guys--and this is a pity. Everyone has a right to some imagined community.

Re 'transgendered', one wouldn't think straight women are (or have been) 'heterosexualised' i.e. that the meat injection has done its job. The remark might be droll if you thought the person saying it was on your side, or seriously creepy if they imagined that it might be a legitimate term. I can see why people take offence at 'transgendered'.

@172: Okay, having just spent time saying we don't need more labels, I will say that I'm a huge fan of precision in language, and that similar-sounding things can actually be very different, which is why in the case of threesomes involving people who are not all of the same gender or who don't all possess the same genitals, there's a big difference between, say an MFM threesome or an MMF threesome and hence the need for clarification is great. I have had several boyfriends who would have liked to have FFM threesomes, and I was not interested in interacting sexually with another woman--or at least of interacting in any way where I touched her genitals in a more than passing way, so I was unreceptive to that configuration, whereas I was totally open to an FMF threesome, where presumably the man got to be the center of the attentions of two women and got to experience double the female bodies he usually got. (As a matter of fact, when I was very interested in being the center of two men's attention and arranged my own MFMs, I had to assure the 2 straight men involved that neither of them was EXPECTED--either by me, or the other man--to interact sexually with the other except insofar as there may have been some inadvertent contact.)

So in the spirit of differentiating between the sounds-the-same-at-first-but-is-really-quite-different-in-fact FFM and FMF threesomes, I think the distinction between "gay heterosex" and "gay homosex" is a good and necessary one to make, in a cis/trans relationship. Still not an introductory or identity label, though.

@174: Harriet, I think of it completely differently, thus:

I am gendered female. That is, my gender identity is female because I view myself as female.

Because I am cis, the rest of society sees my gender as female, primarily due to my outward presentation, and not because they can see my genitals (despite my sluttiness, the vast majority of people on the planet hasn't seen them), or because they know the details of my chromosomal makeup (no one, not even me, has ever checked those out). But linguistically, I am /gendered/ female; I am not /gender/ female. Since it's a descriptor, "gendered" in its past participial form, functions as an adjective, but that form doesn't have to suggest the method by which that gendering is achieved, nor whether it is recognizable to others.

Therefore whether someone were to call me either "cisgendered" or "cisgender," I'd see it as exactly the same thing. I would not interpret that final participial "ed" which changes "gender" from a noun to "gendered" as an adjective as suggesting I had the "cis" implanted in me. I would simply see the word as an adjective to describe my gender identity.

I'm approaching all this grammatically.

In fact, 30 years ago, owing to the grammatical conventions of standard English, the term /was/ "transgendered," and if at some point, the semantics changed to suggest that the gender that was different from that which was assigned at birth was achieved artificially, then a lot of poor, well-meaning people (including a trans friend of mine who continued to use "transgendered" until at least the last time we spoke sometime in early 2020) would be horrified to discover that they were hurling an insult. This is where I think tolerance and compassion and a certain amount of slack-cutting and giving people the benefit of the doubt is involved.

If it is bothersome for folx to be referred to in one way which is almost indistinguishable to the majority of people from another way which used to be the convention, I think it should be incumbent upon the person so affected to gently correct, and furthermore, to do so by stating that this is a personal preference. Then, yes, I believe the other person has a moral imperative to use the term which they have been told the person prefers.

I mean, I guess everyone is entitled to feel insulted at whatever they choose, but it seems to me that they're setting themselves up to nurse a perpetual grievance if they are offended by such an unthinkingly-committed offense (unless they have already asked the person committing said offense to alter their language). But to each their own: some people appear to WANT top be offended.

Totally agree with Bi's logical analysis in para. 3 of @163, and nocute's grammatical analysis in @176. Just in case y'all wanted support

@177: Thanks!
@176: ugh: I made it nearly to the end and then wrote "top" for "to." I wish we had the ability to go back and edit published posts.

It seems that this thread has moved a bit past the "bi/pan" discussion, but I'll throw in my 2 cents. Personally, I prefer pansexual because I have the capability of being attracted to anyone in spite of their gender or their presentation thereof. I'm not automatically sexually attracted to any and all, but once I get to know someone and they have traits that I find attractive, well, then they are attractive, no matter their parts. So I suppose if we were to start talking labels and sub-labels, I might be demi-pan? Who knows - it's all a spectrum and after a while it just gets too nitpicky, so I generally just go with 'queer' unless someone wants me to break it down for them.

@162 BiDanFan: Many thanks! Tonight is another movie night for Griz
I hope to take another drive tomorrow. Hooray for sunny weather! .:)

@168 nocutename: Amen! :)

@169 BiDanFan: WA-HOOOOOOOO!!!! Major congratulations on scoring this Savage Love installment's Double Whammy (@69 Lucky @69+ @100 Big Hunsky Award = @169 Double Whammy)! Savor the double prizes, and bask in the sublime glory. :)

We're getting closer to the Double Hunsky! Any takers? Tick...tick...tick...

@176. nocute. This is the bit I don't accept as a premise:

"But linguistically, I am /gendered/ female; I am not /gender/ female".

I think 'someone is female', 'someone is male', just as e.g. 'someone is five foot nine inches tall'. We say 'I'm a man', 'my gender is female' (someone would say this in a particular context, possibly of someone asking after or contesting their gender); the natural question is 'what is your gender?' or 'what would you say your gender is?', not 'how are you gendered?'. This is a matter of linguistic usage to me. It's not really about grammar.

If, to you, the question, 'how are you gendered?' is indistinguishable from 'what is your gender?', and could conceivably be asked of everyone i.e. the 99%+ of evidently cisgendered people, as well as the small minority of trans people, then my objection to the term 'transgendered' lapses immediately. The '-ed' participial form no longer has the implication of 'something that has been done to you'.

Venn @172, and I disagree that Dan would require this, and would ask that you show your workings. I would also state that this is unfeasible; how is one to learn how to give oral sex without a person to give oral sex to? That is how one learns. What one could potentially do in advance is decide whether one is both a gay man and a strict phallophile; the crossover between phallophiles and Kinsey Zeroes is probably close to one-to-one, and that's fine. That's the reason I would, and have, advised trans folk, particularly those who don't want bottom surgery, to focus their dating efforts on bisexuals, or at least the homo- or heteroflexible. I can't make any given straight man desire my flat chest, nor should a trans man expect any given gay man to desire his pussy. It's silly for you to presume some fascist insistence on universal desire on Dan's part and I can only assume you're fabricating this as evidence of this persecution of gay men which you see everywhere -- even on the part of another gay man.

Harriet @174, agree. "Transgendered" sounds like something that has happened to someone, rather than something someone is. Regardless, it should not be presumed a slur, simply an ignorance which is not, on most parts, malicious.

Ms Fan - The context of the original comment was something of an alternate universe in which young gays were taking a Gay Sex class (where they would learn gay sex via practice). Mr Savage counts the c-word as unqualified "gay sex" if it's CG>TG. And he holds that Oral Comes Standard. By his own definitions, and by his saying on the podcast that he would expect a gay with a trans partner (in the casual rather than established sense if memory serves) to perform DS actions, it seems reasonable to conclude that he'd make performing oral on various genitalia a required part of the course. In more real world terms, would he pull the GGG card of a gay who drew the line there? I think he might well do so. I'm more interested in pushing the needle than feeling persecuted. I'll agree with your advice as helpful for reaching a universally happy outcome.
xxx
Ms Cute - Thank you for seeing the point. It's tempting to make a (UK) football joke about the success of Monosexuals (Manchester) United.

@181: Harriet, I think that it's easier to see that using the past tense verb "WAS," as in "I /was/ transgendered" or "I /was/ cisgendered" implies that some kind of gendering was DONE TO one. Of course to some extent that's true, especially in the case of cis-ness. From infancy onward, we are responded to in myriad ways according to someone else's perception of our gender based upon our genitals' appearance at birth, and that response becomes formative to our own self-constructed gender identity, whether that be something we embrace, accept, tolerate, chafe under, or reject, based on our interior feelings and sense of self and identity.

So I would agree with you there that the "ed" suggests an action that was done to someone by someone or something else. Words that convey action are verbs and it is possible for some of those actions to be performed by agents, while others can only be performed on objects. Sometimes a verb can work either way, so that someone can be either an agent or an object of the same intransitive verb (e.g. "I hated myself" or "Joe hated me.") Those two sentences have the same verb, same inflection, but the different subjects, even with the same object results in a different meaning.

The confusion stems from the fact that in English we use the "ed" suffix in two ways: as a way to indicate the past tense, if the word that "ed" suffix is attached to is a verb, and in order to make a noun into an adjective. And occasionally this becomes a problem. If the word is used as an adjective, that sense of agency isn't really or always operative, and the word becomes more a descriptor of an attribute than a commentary on how that attribute was achieved. In many cases, the difference between the word as an intransitive verb or as an adjective is benign. But the difference between the two usages is often subtle and intertwined and is invisible to most people unless they really take the time to think about it.

I agree that the blurriness between the two can result in offensive connotation, and either unintentional or sometimes deliberate confusion. Recently, people have objected to calling those African peoples brought over to the Caribbean and the Americas against their will and their descendants "slaves," which is a noun, and started referring to them as "enslaved people," with exactly the point that slavers imposed the status of slave upon people; that slavery is a system and can't be an inherent aspect of a person. Iin this example, though "enslaved" can be either an adjective or a past-tense verbal form, it works to show that what began as one can end up being the other, and it's pretty difficult to argue that there is an inherent aspect of "slavery" affixed to some people through their DNA, though of course, plenty of racist white supremacists do exactly that and use the bible to shore up that shoddy argument. It's also why people object to the term "illegal alien," preferring to use "undocumented person," because a person cannot be illegal--she can only commit an illegal act (and the same people who object to the construction "illegal alien" tend to have issues with the loss of dignity affixed to those people who entered the U.S. illegally, which is why we use "undocumented" more as an adjective that can be changed--like saying someone is overweight--than adopting a grammatical version of "illegal"). This example is probably the easiest one for the majority of people to grasp, partly because the actual vocabulary is different.

I think you're right that this is an issue that hasn't gained much traction yet because trans and non-binary people are such a relatively tiny minority. I also think that as a greater understanding of gender grows and as more people start to actively and insistently declare themselves non-binary or trans and visibility grows that tiny minority may become, though still a minority, a much larger one with much greater representation. In that case, the changes in language which will necessarily be demanded for some conformity and universal agreement and understanding of connotation will become a greater priority and in 20 years' time or so, this may be a non-issue, a relic of the past for the great majority of English speakers, in the way that the word "mulatto" is now understood by all but diehard racists (who still make a point of using it to make a hateful statement about what they call "political correctness") to be offensive and has been replaced with "mixed" or "biracial" by those who identify themselves thusly and by the rest of society who have no wish to offend.

This is where nuance and an understanding of the speaker's/writer's intent becomes kind of necessary. Since the nuance between saying "he's a cisgender man" and "he's a cisgendered man" are virtually indistinguishable to the vast majority of people in the English speaking world, and since in English we use the "ed" can make a word either an intransitive verb or a participial adjective--and most people never stop to think of the difference between those two in casual usage--in the absence of anything else that would indicate malicious intent, I would go with a neutral, rather than offensive connotation. And I would really urge more tolerance for those who have no horse in the game, who have little awareness of intra-community fights about small points or large ones, who have never given much thought to the subject, and who may be using an outdated term out of long habit and/or lack of awareness that there has been a change.

@184. nocute. I've never actually had someone, a stranger, come up to me and ask directly, 'are you transgender / transgendered?'. The question has come up in the course of conversation, and usually people are very thoughtful, asking how I would like to be thought of or addressed. If someone asked the bald question, a possibly NB young person, who seemed genuinely to be looking for guidance or soliciting information, and they used the wrong term, then obviously--obviously--I would give a straightforward answer and not be diverted in any way by my feelings about the idiom.

At any rate, I agree with what you say, with maybe just the slight restatement that being assigned to a gender might be something you have done for you, not to you.

Thank you for all of the movie recommendations. My husband and I will have many nights of viewing and playing ahead of us! RHPS is probably my favorite movie, I also wouldn't call it porn, but it does always get me hot! So it does the job. I much prefer good erotica for porn. This had been a treasure trove! Thanks again LTW.