Savage Love Nov 10, 2020 at 3:18 pm

Four Play




OMG I can't believe I'm first!


If I were to go back to school it would be to major in wannafuckmath.


Threesomes: you get to do things that are not possible if there are only two of you.

Foursomes: you pair up into two couples and you do couple stuff. (Not always, but this is typical.)

An even-numbered dynamic just tends not to be as... dynamic. Hence less popular.

If you want a foursome because you want group sex with a man, sign up as the special guest star for a couple’s MMF fantasy. If you’ll actually show up and you’re actually into both of them, you should be quite popular.

Otherwise, if you want the foursome, yeah... swing parties.

Note that couples often go to swing parties to hook up with their friends. Go with a date, fuck like bunnies with your date, and chat and make friends with the other folks there. Later on you can arrange to meet your new friends again, whether at another swing party, a hotel or someone’s home.


@jack @2: Otherwise known as combinatorics.


Dan, I think you missed the boat with QUEER. You did say "not gay" a couple of times, but you didn't really explicitely state that fantasies about a man and a woman having anal sex is not gay. The LW mentioned "one other woman" their partner is comfortable sharing his fantasies with, which means the LW is a woman and her partner is a man. Now, if these fantasies/sexting sessions involve explicitely gay roleplay, that's a different kettle of fish. But the impression I got was male/female anal, which is still het sex, regardless of who is penetrated or penetrating. I don't want to make a big deal out of nothing, but I thought the letter had a whiff of homophobia about it, though maybe just inaccuracy in labeling.

Generally, I do agree with your advice, though. As a rule, in monogamous relationships, you generally don't want to get into a LTR with someone who needs something in a relationship that you can't give them, and sometimes even in a nonmonagomous relationship. There are sometimes exceptions, but they are exceptions for reasons. When we got together, being with someone who wouldn't or couldn't receive anal sex was a deal-breaker for my partner. I didn't find that out until later, because at the time, it wasn't an issue. Now because of health issues, anal sex is off the table for us for the foreseeable future. It bums us both out, but we were already in love and committed by that time, and them didn't break of with me because of it. And I like giving anal sex and love rope, but my partner can't do the former and often doesn't have energy for the latter due to their own health issues. Again, a bummer, but I them and I'm not going to dump them over it. Almost all of our shared fantasies and rp involve anal and almost all of my personal fantasies involve rope. It's better than nothing, and it is what it is. Now, there are people who may not be okay with just fantasies and rp, and this guy sounds like he might be one of them. So if you aren't willing or able to include anal all the time, then I'd suggest cutting it off. There are also sometimes exceptions when people really hit it off, too, instead of something happening when they've been together for a long time, but just from observation that seems much rarer and much more likely to go up in flames. What seems more common is that people are more likely to overestimate what they are willing to have or do early in relationships, and then later realize they're not up for it when the limerance wears off. But that doesn't even sound like the case here -- you really don't sound that into this guy, so why not just break it off?

Regarding Trump, yeah, I definitely hear both Dan and WTF about that cognitive dissonance. I have four close-ish relatives who voted for for Trump. None are Evangelical or Catholic, though two are getting comparatively much more conservatively Christian as they get older. Two are toxic to me, one is not toxic to me (though is to others), and one is not toxic at all. Cutting them out of my life is not an option, and with two, and sometimes three of them, I don't really want to. I'd love to never interact with the other one again, but that really isn't feasible at this point, and probably never will be. I'm trans and pansexual and out my family. And my partner and I both disabled. Biden had a comprehensive disability plan in his platform (with lots of prodding from disabled activists and the left) to make it so that people like my partner and I can actually get married, save money, and not be expected to survive on $800.00 a month. And the Republicans in my family voted against that. What really gets me, is that they claim they are "protecting our freedoms" when I literally do not have the freedom to get married, and for a couple of them that they "care about" me "more than politics" or that I'm "more important" to them than by politics when, by the nature of their vote, in many ways, I am demonstrably not. I wouldn't put it past one of them to do it partially out of malice (though it's also what they believe) but I think the others have bought the politics of fear hook, line, and sinker. I am so sick of capitalism and ableism. I don't know what advice to give WTF, except to say that a lot of people are in your predicament, and just as flumoxed.


Mind if I borrow the term 'cumblebrag;? :)


Ick, what a lot of typos! Sorry about that. I wanted to add: it's often frequently accepted that some women and/or people with vaginas and clitorises need vibrators to get off, but it isn't as commonly accepted that some men and/or people with prostate glands need anal stimulation to get off. But that is the case, and the latter shouldn't be frowned upon any more than the former. I don't know that it really needed to be pointed out in this instance, but again, something in QUEER's letter is putting to me about the situation. And that doesn't mean I think QUEER should stay with the guy if she isn't able or willing to fill his needs. But I don't think they should be considered in a negative light, either.


@Dan Savage: In the interest of non-hetero normalization, which of your virginities did you lose in a MMF threesome?


I look to this as the judge of what is and is not gay.


@Alison Cummins/3 - Nicely put. I’m sure there are foursomes as combinatorial as threesomes, but the configurations, as well as the social dynamics Dan describes, seem to get so much more complex. A threesome seems to me to be attractive primarily because it allows position combinations that couldn’t otherwise occur: two people w penises simultaneously penetrating, from opposite ends, a third. One person with a penis simultaneously pleasuring two others without. Etc. Whereas foursomes, as you note, are just two couples at once. Maybe they daisy chain or something but still, the even number makes it more similar than different to typical partnered sex, to me at least


I was going to add to Alison Cummins' excellent explication @3, and RationalHuman's addition @10, that there is a definite whiff of "swingers" about a foursome (unless of course, the participants are 4 single people or even a couple and 2 single people), and for whatever reason, "swingers" or the idea of 2 couples has a more musty connotation than a hipper, edgier (and by implication and extension), younger threesome. If the couple in the threesome is different sex (DS), then there is going to be (or there is assumed to be) a bi-quality to the dynamic which is easily absent in a foursome between two different-sex couples.

Swingers and Wife Swappers might actually BE young and hip, but they sound like an older couples' thing, or like a relic from the 1970s. If both couples in the foursome are DS, I get a an extremely hetero and further, heteronormative vibe, which may even lean into homophobia. Despite the fact that four people may be in the same room as they have sex, a foursome sounds kind of vanilla to me (don't get me wrong: in my experience, vanilla sex can be scorching hot).

I do get irritated at the assumptions that all straight men want an FFM threesome; that most women also want the same; and that a threesome is necessarily composed of a straight couple and a guest star. I am a cis woman who is very straight. I have no sexual interest in women--none. The only way I would/could agree to an FFM threesome is if it were an FMF threesome: a man being the center of straight female attention. Several men I've dated wanted no part of any configuration of threesome. Of the men I've dated who expressed interest in a threesome, both were interested more in seeing me with another woman (and getting to fuck us both), than in merely getting to fuck two women in one session. So, though I was willing to invite a woman in to lavish attention on my boyfriend(s), neither of them was interested enough in that fantasy to want to bother putting in the effort. And I got resentful at being nagged by one of them to have sex with a woman in order to fulfill a fantasy when the man nagging me would have never even been naked in the room with another man, and when I was quite willing to share him and even have incidental contact with the hypothetical "her" while servicing him (I fantasized about both of us licking/stroking/sucking his cock, so I realized there was potential for some contact with "her").

All my life I had a fantasy of being the center of straight male attention in a threesome, and in my fifties I started making that happen. I'm single and so have approached FWBs and seen if any would be interested. Several have been, and I've orchestrated a few now. The men are straight or at most, heteroflexible, and any contact between them is incidental.

I love this dynamic, and since no one is part of a couple with anyone else in the room, there are no weird jealousy-issues, and no one feels left out, rejected for the new person. I highly recommend it.


I, too, have participated in my share of MFM threesomes, but although I was part of a couple, there was no jealousy because I was acting as a willing cuckold. My wife prefers one on one action. Although she says she usually finds threesomes distracting, occasionally she’ll include me when she’s in the mood and her current lover is amenable. She does like the attention of two men, but mostly as foreplay. The one big exception is that she likes me to lick her while her lover penetrates her. A few positions allow this, albeit awkwardly. I’m not thrilled being this close to male genitalia, but because I have a real need to be subservient to my wife, I sometimes even get turned on by it (if I don’t get a crick in my neck first). Unfortunately, this is all in the past until the damn pandemic is over.


I wonder why the answer to WTFDIDN is so different than the one given only few weeks ago to a mid-age woman to dump on the spot the otherwise smart, funny, good-in-bed man she’s dating who also voted for trump.
I understand you don’t choose your parents and for good or bad we’re stuck with them for the rest of our lives one way or another, but if they can be influenced why someone we’re clicking with can’t?
The answer may also be influenced by the recent outcome, as trump lost and we can forgive mom and dad knowing now that their vote didn’t change it, but a similar approach should have been offered to the few weeks ago LW despite our election anxiety.
In any case, it feels good to say, “trump LOST” and it’s definitely about time to LOCK him UP!

QUEER’s letter is also déjà vuish, only this time in the “what do I do” and ”OMG, he must be gay” sense. While the official answer is good it does not address the gay-or-not issue as well as some other nuances.

Few things for you to consider. First, take it as a huge compliment that the man you’re dating is trusting you to share his ass /sub fantasies with you. I suspect it’s been a long, shameful, conflicting journey for him to be able to talk about it openly. He stated you are only the second person he ever told his secret desires, and it’s very possible that the first one also started screaming “the pervert must be gay” and ran for her life.

I think him going the ass/domination way as soon as you start sexting is not the right thing to do, yet it is something he is all of a sudden able to bring up and is likely to be over excited about it.
Regardless, tell him where you stand on all this. Share your own anxieties and ask him to slow down. Assess what’s in it for you in regard to the suggested dynamics and actions. Don’t feel obligated to go along, but also don’t rule them out only because they may be unusual and different from what society told you OS relationships should look like.
I strongly suspect some of his newly confessed desires will settle down and balance out if and when experienced, and you are well positioned to be the one calling the shots.
Consult online or in person with people who have been in your situation and see what they have to say.


QUEER says: "I met a hot guy at my job." So just tossing out there that maybe QUEER could find someone at least as compatible who wouldn't possibly cause problems at work.


@1 madtowncalmguy: WA-HOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!! Congratulations on scoring this week's highly coveted FIRDT Award honors, leading the comment thread! Bask in the glory and savor the riches. :)


I kinda stumbled over this sentence:

"The fact that the then-president of the United States—the worst one we thought we’d see in our lifetimes—was waging a demagogic campaign against one of his own children didn’t stop my dad from voting for him."

My first thought was - what, hang on, I thought it was Dick Cheney's daughter who was gay, not Bush's?

I got it on the second try :)


Dan, I knew you'd lost your virginity to a woman but I don't think you'd shared that there was a man present too, so it seems you were never functionally straight! For some reason this makes me happy to learn.

Speaking as a bi woman, the problem with the heteronormative (by which I mean, for the benefit of the M involved, as opposed to the Fs) MFF threesome is that the M often pressures an uninterested F. Or that he more enthusiastically pursues a bi F because he sees her only as the ticket to ticking this box. Providing MFFs to straight Ms is not our role in society, and more Ms would actually get there with bi Fs if they considered HER desires as well. Stepping off soapbox.

I agree with Dan that most foursomes -- those involving a mix of genders, since those seem, for some reason, to exclusively be the ones under discussion here -- seem to be associated with swinging. So if that's what WTF is looking for, s/he should join the swinging scene. Though I have had one fab foursome where my bi partner and I met another both-bi couple at a party and much fun ensued. This differed from the swinger foursome because all of us seemed most keen to get some same-gender action. But in general yeah -- the more people have to fancy each other, the more difficult the ask. And any more than four is an orgy, is that the general understanding? :) Hmm, what if the foursome included only one woman, would that be a gang bang? What if it included only one man? I guess these happen so rarely there's no word for them.

There seems to be a double typo in A2: "I don’t think cutting off contact with non-toxic/non-QAnon parents or family members is the answer." Surely Dan meant toxic/QAnon parents or family members?

QUEER, you're not into butt play (his) or being dominant. That's fine; this isn't the guy for you. Politely decline. And while you're at it, HELLO WANTING TO BE PEGGED, BY A --WOMAN--, IS NOT "GAY." There are no men in his scenario. It is therefore straight. Kinky, perhaps, but 100% straight. Please spare this guy from your homophobia. Thank you.


I'm eighteen!
and I don't know what I want...


Bivalve @5, I'm fine with the term "partner" being used for a variety of relationships but not this one. He is not her partner. He is someone she's considering boning. Her "interest," let's call him. I agree that his price of admission -- lots of anal, possibly even every time -- seems to be things that squick her, so they should nip this one in the (ha) bud before it even starts.

And thank you for your paragraph 3 - looks like Dan did mean "I don’t think cutting off contact with non-toxic/non-QAnon parents or family members is the answer." Thanks for pointing out the difference. I hope Biden makes your life better!

Nocute @11, thank you for outlining some of the issues with an MFF threesome from a straight woman's perspective. In my experience, too, threesomes have been more fun when they do not involve a couple and a guest star, as jealousy issues can arise. The exception has been when they have involved a metamour -- but that's still not a unicorn scenario, because from my perspective she's the unicorn and from her perspective I am. :)

CMD @13, good point. I agree with your theory that the difference is that Biden has now safely won, so we can afford to be more magnanimous to Trump voters. Or that indeed, a partner is easier to cut out of one's life than a family member -- the bar is higher, the potential repercussions more severe.

Re QUEER, perhaps like last week's Mr BLAB, Mr QUEER had a bad experience when he waited to get vested with a previous partner before revealing his ass fantasies, and lost a promising relationship. I think he may be right to be up front this time, in an effort to weed out the ass-negative, and I hope QUEER allows herself to be weeded out in this way. She's not the gal for him.

EricaP @14, thank you, someone had to make the don't shit where you eat observation. Another reason she should say thanks but no thanks. Though paradoxically, in the pandemic they are less likely to be working in the same office, or in an office at all. We don't know the context of their meeting at work -- hell, one of them may be a customer, not a colleague -- but the closer they work together, the further they should stay apart sexually.


CMDwannabe@ 13 - a bangbuddy is less important than a parent. In the other letter her main concern was just whether she'd be able to get laid if she dumped him - that's not really a very important relationship.


About the swingers' scene being heteronormative... my fuckbuddy (F) and I (M) started exploring the swinging scene before lockdown, with precisely a view to having a bi foursome.

We've found that there is a healthy subsection of our local swingers' scene that is bi-friendly. The local sex club has bi nights. And we've found quite a lot of bi couples on the apps! Nowhere near as many as the straight couples, or straight-with-bi-women couples, but certainly enough to keep us fairly busy if it weren't for covid.


@Bi @19: " that Biden has now safely won."
You think he's won. I think he's won. But there are plenty of people who don't. And the majority of elected Republicans, unbelievably*, won't admit he's won. So I think "safely" is a ways off.

*After the last four years you'd think I'd believe anything. But I still find this astonishing.


I could say that the obvious answer is that there exists far better entertainment for a group of four, but I won't. I was going to lead by countering Mr Savage's assertion about threesomes' being heteronormative with "only the mixed ones" but accept that he has greater interest in those with more movable parts - only Ms Fan has already touched on that.

Partially agreeing with Ms Cummins and crowd, I'll tentatively analogize that foursomes : threesomes = DS : SS at least in terms of one frequently providing an easy default for those inclined to defaults. Not that foursomes can't be more dynamic than threesomes; they just often happen to fall into being less so.

That Mr Savage chose to frame his initiation as a brag seems the most heteronormative thing in any of the letters or answers.
Mx Wanna - Try looking at Mr Savage's position on L2 from the angle of the idea that I think I've observed rather more among those of the Roman Catholic persuasion than the Protestant of presuming there to be a good deal of suffering inherent in relationships with blood relatives - their being rather more in the way of cumbersome obligations and less in the way of voluntary delights. If we were to modernize the Musgroves from Persuasion, where the residents of the manor and the cottage almost always did everything together despite the manifold complaints they all poured out to Anne, they would likely (if presented stereotypically) be either Irish or Italian, continually quarreling and being maddening to each other, but preferring that to a separate peace. The closest Jewish reference that comes to mind would be Mrs Becket and Arnold from Torch Song Trilogy.

Prescribing social consequences is all very well, but that makes me think of the letter to the Ethicist column some years ago from a parent who wondered if keeping one's sons out of the Boy Scouts due to their anti-gay policies constituted being unnecessarily punitive when other parents claimed to be trying to change the organization from inside. The response was that parents trying to change the organization from the inside were usually just going on camping trips from the inside. I can suppose that Mr Savage pere may have received fewer invitations, cheaper presents and shorter holiday visits than straight-D-ticket relations, but it's hard to visualize much of more consequence.
LW3 and beau don't seem to be a match. Her attitude has given me one or two ideas of recent LWs or Lovecast callers with whom to match her in a Covenant Marriage, but nothing worth going out of one's way o arrange. I shall not take her less seriously or frame it as bad labeling.


I was part of an MFF triad for 5 years and as such I've had my fill of MFF threesomes, almost to the point where I'm not interested in them at all. As a novelty I'd be fine with it, or if there was a particular gal we were interested in, but the pressure to perform is pretty challenging for a mid 50's guy (and maybe any guy). Earlier this year the triad became a twosome and we began to experiment with MMF threesomes.

Personally I totally prefer that arrangement. Due to the orgasm gap, having two guys in the room is very useful. Having two BI guys in the room is something my girlfriend finds very entertaining, as do I. MMF threesomes are also far easier to arrange in my experience.

My gal and I also hook up with swingers. It is a different dynamic and can be very couple/couple, and very hetero normative. Don't get me started about the bias against bi guys in the lifestyle. Since we are both bi, if we can find another bi/bi couple, there are far more combinations.

Last weekend we hooked up with a bi/bi couple that we've known for a while, and who are being as covid safe as we are. During the night of play we had all combinations of threesomes with each participant, while one person or another took a break. We had couple/couple arrangements, and a 4-way group grope session with arms, legs, mouths, penises, and pussies in all directions. Delicious.

For us, variety is the reason we are non-monogamous, not just for different people in the mix but also different scenarios. It is kind of funny to me that the most common "fantasy" for people is now my least favorite of all the options.


The only threesomes/ foursomes I’ve had have been in my head, and great fun is had by all.


Good to see you coolie as my eyes widen with your adventures.


Ciods @22, fair point, we won't be "safe" until he leaves office, and not even then as he's already threatening to run again in 2024. And there are other Trumps. But let us at least breathe a sigh of relief, we certainly need one.

Venn @23, I would argue that if anything, mixed-gender threesomes are binormative. As Nocute alludes, it's possible for straight people to have a threesome without the same-gender participants interacting with each other. Personally I would find that a bit dull, but I say that as someone who will never be in a threesome with a person that is not my preferred gender. I'll steal your FTWL. It seems obvious there's more -incentive- to a mixed-gender threesome when one is bi, at least. And the straight M we are calling Norm would prefer his partners be bi than straight, or at least willing to fake it, as Nocute has described. (Hey, there's gotta be -some- advantage to being left out of both Team Straight and Team Gay! If slotting easily into any threesome is it, I'll take it.)

Coolie @24, MMF threesomes are easier to arrange in my experience as well. Agree with you about the potential for one member of a foursome to take a break and observe the threesome activity before their eyes. Delicious indeed. As for your final sentence, the primary appeal of the (MFF, or any combination of) threesome is novelty, and for you that novelty has worn off.


Thank you Auntie Grizelda @15. It's not only my first time being first, but my first time posting here, so I really feel extra celebratory. It's like I lost a double cherry or something;)


LW2, I remember rules which said, don’t talk religion and politics and perhaps that’s how you need to play it with your parents? If you love them, then their flaws come along too and voting for trump is a big one. My mother died just over a year ago, at 98 yrs of age, I have no idea who she ever voted for.
Only you know how to navigate your ambivalent feelings for your parents. Like Jesus said
“ Forgive them Father, for they know not what they do.”


Our political system isn’t as flash as yours, crash bang boom every four years, though of course which Party is in charge, those who have the most seats in Parliament, run the show. The boss of each Party, hence for the winning party that would be the Prime Minister, is interchangeable. Leadership Coups had a run for a bit.


LW3, eyebrows raised.. where have you been? Men and their arse play is across the board, nothing to do with gay sex. Women and their arse play too, right across the board. Also nothing to do with gay sex. Etc.
The only question you have to ask yourself is, does his fantasies tickle yours, or are they a turn off. Once you drop the shock horror pout.
He has been vulnerable with you, sharing his inner sexual fantasies, respect that please.


I hope that Dan Savage's father is proud of him. He is a hero. He is a 'culture hero' perhaps primarily, a figure who has done a lot for gay and queer minorities, people (in which category I would group myself) who risk routinely getting beasted or persecuted, and who stand in perpetual need of the advocacy of those, like Savage, with a public platform. But he is a hero in the broader sense, too, of having helped and offered support to many indiscriminately.

What Dan says here about continuing to engage with those close to us of contrary political views is different from his boilerplate about DTMFA-ing Republicans. Maybe the point is that we shouldn't validate randos' noxious political views by fucking (said randos).

I do not see why it should be harder to set up two couples going to bed together than to arrange a couple (normatively) inviting in a special guest.

@5. Bivalve. I thought Dan did make the point you make in your first paragraph.

@10. RationalHuman. This is true (the greater likelihood of two-by-two-ing, rather than daisy-chaining). If this suggests that threesomes are more innately or naturally transgressive, shouldn't foursomes have been mainstreamed more?


Beautifully said, Harriet. Dan Savage is like a light house, solid and showing the way so people don’t get caught in a ship wreak.


I came here to make the observation that CD@13 did. Blanket prohibition against good sex with a terrific guy except that he's a Trump supporter but leeway for parents who are the same. At the time of the earlier letter, I didn't say anything because I didn't want to get into a political discussion (still don't). In my gut, I agreed with Dan, but when I thought about it rationally, I didn't see that abstaining from the good sex was going to do anybody any good. It wasn't going to change the Trump supporter's mind; it wasn't going to protect the LW from the evil influence. I have the same observation now about WTFDIDN's relationship with her parents.

Dan, would you clarify, please? Why the difference?


@5, "It bums us both out" -- I see what you did there!


Family is different, Thanksgiving is coming up, it could be a time for healing and taking the power back from trump et al.
Yes, people got caught in his negativities, because that’s how he manipulates them. Find scapegoats for the rage so many feel, those left behind, those who get fed crap from Fox News. Again, scapegoats are pointed at, so the real villains.. the rich... stay hidden.
Divide and Conquer is their game, and if families love each other this Thanksgiving could be the perfect time to not talk of politics. Let it all settle, hopefully this buffoon trump and his lackeys will cease their pathetic attempts to stall reality, and soon.


Adding "wannafuckmath" to my vocabulary. Thanks Dan!


Just checking: I read the letter from QUEER and was not sure it was coming from a guy? I mean, I guess the


@38 - oops, that was an accident. Is it possible to delete?

Anyway, as I was saying: I read the letter from QUEER and was not sure it was coming from a guy? I mean, I guess the name QUEER implies that, and the responses certainly seem to accept it as a given, but it never actually says "I'm a guy and I met this other guy at work..."

I also remember reading letters from str8 people (men and women) who worry that any str8 guy's interest in having anything done to his butt is gay, e.g. "I want my girlfriend to finger my butthole while she blows me. Am I gay?" Or "My boyfriend wants me to finger his butthole while I blow him. Is he gay?" Ditto for pegging, or whatever. I even remember one from a woman who worried that her boyfriend was gay because he wanted to fuck her in the ass.

Not too worked up about it, just putting that out there.


@24: "MMF threesomes are also far easier to arrange in my experience."

And MMMF foursomes are not much more difficult. Because once you find a woman who is game, getting guys to sign up isn't terribly difficult. Anything more than four tends to be a bit tougher. Somebody has to wait for an available space. And in a well populated orgy, they just usually wander off looking for another group.


@40 I agree and we were to damn close to an MMMF get together back in mid March! Dammit! We'll start over on that once there's a vaccine. For now we are sticking to people who have the same low tolerance for covid that we do, very low! AND we are not playing often at all, once every two months or so.


coolie @24: As a man in my 50s too, I learned to think of myself as the conductor in MFF threesomes. It results in a different, less debilitating, pressure to perform.


Dan the Man: Agreed with Robin8; your term, cumblebrag is a winner! :)


BiDanFan @19, -- Fair enough. I tend to use the word partner as an all-purpose, gendee neutral term for people who are involved romantically, sexually, or in kink scenarios, but who aren't married. I don't neccessarily mean it in a long-term context, for instance, I still view people who are play partners with each other as partners, even if it's limited by the duration of that scene. On the other hand, I do also use it to describe LTRs, like mine and my partner's. That said, I can see how it can be a loaded word with more permanent connotations.

And thanks! Though it looks like the Senate is likely to stay in Republican hands, so I don't know how much he'll realistically be able to accomplish. And campaign promises, versus actions in office are very different things, anyway. But Trump didn't even have a plan (in addition to being awful in a bunch of other ways, too).

Harriet @32 Yeah, maybe. He did say "not gay", but he didn't really explain, and I couldn't tell if he was being serious or sarcastic.

LavaGirl @31 Exactly! Also, were you the one who a few weeks (or possibly months, my sense of time is not great anymore) was looking for book recs for pre-teen and teens girls? If so, I saw a lot of great suggestions, but there are a couple of great authors for that age bracket that I didn't see listed before I stopped following the comments. Tamara Pierce writes excellant feminist YA fantasy. Her Tortall universe is for slightly older readers and her Circle universe is for slightly younger readers. The Wayward Children series by Seanan McGuire was started much more recently, and it has diversity for days.


@34 Fichu and others, my recollection was the previous letter writer indicated they were uncomfortable being with a person who’s a nazi (just substitute “trump supporter” for “nazi supporter” circa 1936… they’re the same). I don’t recall Dan suggesting that no one should ever have sex with nazi’s even when they want to.

While I don’t see any problem with people dumping family members over something like being a nazi supporter, not everyone is willing to do that, for any number of reasons. We don’t choose our family members (though just because they’re “family” does not mean we HAVE to keep them - it’s ultimately ALWAYS a choice). That these people are related to us doesn’t reflect on us, though it may feel that way, and though others may choose to see it that way.

But we do choose our sex partners, and that does reflect on us. To share one of the most intimate experiences that a human can have with a nazi says something about us, our values. Maybe we don’t care, that’s our choice. And maybe we do care, and that says something about us as well.


Ms Fan - I was thinking only of my own point of disagreement, and didn't add an "if that". Your points seem to stand perfectly well, and of course you're the expert (though your slotting into "any" threesome isn't entirely accurate). Your FTWL seems quite in the spirit - I suspect both Dame Maggie and unDame Geraldine (who, if memory serves, declined both titled and non-titled honours) would approve.


Pretty @45: Godwin's law. Way to scupper a conversation right there!


Spokane @38: QUEER is the acronym for the writer's sign off, "Questioning Unusual Exceptionally Erotic Relationship". She mentioned there being "only one other woman" with whom the man is "comfortable sharing his gay fantasies".

But yes, she's confused that "ass play, sucking dildos or DP" is gay when performed on a man by a woman. Obviously, the only way to be sure that a man is gay is to ask him about show tunes.


Dan, it feels weird to say something back to you, but I'm sorry that your father is that way. It must both make you feel sad and angry, and put an additional strain on your relationship with him. I hardly need to say to you that we get to choose our friends, but not our relatives.

This leads me to a question: how is Jerry doing? I hope he's well.


@47 fubar, Godwin's law is bs at this point in our political reality. The comparison is quite literal, but this isn't the place for a deep dive.

I used the term "nazi" deliberately to make a point - for many of us there is little to distinguish between nazi's and Trump supporters/Republican party. So if you're having trouble understanding why someone would disassociate themselves from a trump supporter, just substitute nazi for trump supporter, you'll understand (or you still won't, and that's your choice as well).


Pretty In Pink @45, it may always be our choice whether or not we internally consider our relatives to be our family, but it is not ultimately always a choice for everyone whether they associate with their relatives or not, or whether or not they publically claim them as family. There are a lot of disabled people who are at least partially dependent on relatives for resources, transportation, advocacy, emotional, financial, physical, or other support (for instance the bureacratic wrangling involved in assistance in qualifying for and staying qualified for governmental safety nets that are designed to be difficult for people to qualify for so that they just give up and get jobs -- when in reality, what happens is people fail in a rigged system and then die because they actually need the assistance they are denied). LGBTQUIA+ kids and teens sometimes have to live with and even pay lip service to their homophobic parents. I'm sure there are other scenarios, too, such as an elderly parent dependent on their abusive adult child. The more I think about it, the more I'm not even 100% sold on the idea that it is always possible for everyone to internally distance themselves from relatives -- that's the kind of thing that can take a lot of work. Look at how difficult it often is for people who are abused in romantic relationships to leave, or sometimes even to recognize there is a problem. Then imagine if someone was raised by a person like their abuser instead. That could lead to some very complex thought-related hoops for them to jump through. There are probably other examples I haven't thought of. It's also worth noting that just because someone publically distances themselves from their family, that does not automatically mean that society accepts it. If a child runs away from home, they are still legally considered their parent's child. If a parent leaves their family, if there is a paternity test done that proves parentage, they are generally still held accountable for child support. If a celebrity publically disowned their sibling,:in most cases media would still refer to the two as family.


Pretty @50: It's lazy and simplistic to substitute "Nazi" for "Trump supporter." It's also quite disrespectful to the millions who died at the hands of the Nazis.

I have no trouble understanding why someone would disassociate themselves from a Trump supporter, but I can do it without hystrionics and hyperbole.


@52 fubar, you may have no trouble understanding, but some people obviously do, hence why I commented and the example I used. Feel free to ignore next time if it doesn't apply to you.

The rest is your opinion, which you're entitled to of course. I just disagree.

Now, on with the show.


@51 Bivalve, all good points.

I was speaking in the context of adults. That minors don't have the same autonomy as adults, I felt was a given (though if you're a minor reading this who's in a harmful situation, seek support while staying safe).

And yes, there are many reasons adults may not be in a situation that makes it easy to disassociate from family - I briefly accounted for that in my original comment. But what I felt was an important to emphasize is that it is a choice. It may not be a practical choice, it may not be a realistic choice without suffering much harm. It may not be a realistic choice without causing suffering in others. I would be the first to make all the same points you have in a different discussion context.

The point here is that far too many people suffer without such obstacles, because they simply throw up their hands and say "well, they're family, I have to suffer". We are bombarded with that message in society and popular culture. People lose sight of it's a "choice". Don't give up that power. If that choice is causing you such undue harm that you don't want them in your lives, then do what you can to change that.


Pretty @53: A world to the wise: nobody is ever convinced by histrionics and hyperbole. Perhaps rethink your methods, if not your self-righteous indignation. You've come here expecting a Twitter/Facebook/Fox News row. Nobody is interested.

"Feel free to ignore". Thanks for the reminder... Done.

Chrome version coming soon, BDF, I promise.


Thank you Bivalve@44, yes that was me re books. I’m getting a good pile together for my grand daughter for Xmas. Thank you for your added suggestions, I’ll check those out. And thank you for sharing your story.


By the time you finish deleting all those who say Boo to you fubar, you’ll be talking to yourself! What a tool.


Chrome Version, fubar!! but you promised it would be platinum. Hope you haven’t handed over any cash, Fan, you know how tricky some of these salesmen on the internet can be.


Pretty in Pink.. if people know clearly they are emotionally done with family, then yes, stop dealing with those who voted for trump.. for others it’s not so easy. And as Bivalve has pointed out, for some it is impossible.
If I was a US citizen, and relatives voted trump I don’t think I could resist asking why? Then I’d have felt the same re both Bush Presidents.. or Reagan or Nixon.
Ugly men, the lot of them. Killing other nationals and trump killing his own thru neglect, esp his non response to this Virus.
It’s too dangerous now to feed division, as I see it. Time to pull together as a nation to confront this Virus, as winter approaches. Time to get behind Biden/ Harris to heal after this sludgy man trump has left his horror mess.


Those other Presidents fought unjust wars, killing your military people and Trump goes for the ordinary citizens via the Virus.
How can anybody not see how his neglect has killed US citizens. Still, he does nothing and still they support him. Minority groups are the ones most effected, guess that’s a wink wink to the racists. Like when Reagan did fuck all when AIDS hit, and the populace didn’t blink, as it was the gays getting it.


Harriet @32, I agree Dan is a hero to people of all sexual orientations, queer ones especially. Thank you again, Dan, for all you've done to promote greater sexual literacy in the world at large.

I disagree that Dan made the main point, which is that butt/dildo play between a man and a woman is not gay, strongly enough. I think it should have been the focus of his answer. It got a mere aside in his advice to "order this not gay guy to get on his not gay knees and suck your not gay dick." Which I also disagree with; while I'd find that fun, her aversion seems too strong and the relationship too non-existent to prescribe GGG in this case.

This Guy @39, QUEER says, "He later revealed there was only one OTHER woman he felt comfortable sharing his gay [sic] fantasies." If this guy is a man, the woman he's referring to must be QUEER herself. Also, "I asked him if he was curious about gay sex and he said no. In no way does he want a man, he said." Ergo, QUEER is not a man. The signoff, if she picked it, says to me that she thinks he is queer, and/or that the sex he wants to have is queer. Or maybe that she feels queer about the whole thing. She's definitely a she.

Bivalve @44: "I tend to use the word partner as an all-purpose, gendee neutral term for people who are involved romantically, sexually, or in kink scenarios." Me too -- and we've discussed it here before -- but these two are not. They are merely discussing the possibility of hooking up. If a partner were someone one wanted to hook up with, I'd have a dozen partners! ;)

Pretty @45, well said.

Fubar @55, I was convinced by Pretty's post, which seemed neither histronic nor hyperbolic, and indeed accurate from the POV of the immigrants who've died after being put in cages, the families of the black men and women who have been shot by cops who got off scot free, or the victims of coronaviruses who had to listen to that awful man deny its existence and pooh-pooh sensible strategies to contain it. Nazi? Yes, Trump is one. Sorry to pull a Miss Treat but check your privilege, please.

Lava, I think Trump is a goosestep beyond Reagan, Nixon or either Bush. Not only does he share their attitudes toward the poor, gays, immigrants etc, but he had zero respect for the institutions of the country he was inexplicably put in charge of. Constitution? Who cares, he'll just do whatever he wants, which makes him a fascist, as opposed to the other Republicans who preceded him, who were "merely" bigots who lacked empathy for the less fortunate.


A point of clarification: There are men out there -- straight men -- who fantasize about gay sex. They're not interested in having actual sex with actual men. But with a female partner they fantasize about getting fucked and sucking dick by a guy -- and they want their female partner to play the guy when realizing their fantasy. That's what I understood QUEER to mean when she referred repeatedly to her partner's "gay fantasies" in her letter. Some of these guys are gay or bi, obviously, and in a sense laundering their gay fantasies through their female partners. Others are... straight and complicated and fascinating.

It's possible that QUEER is reading her partner's fantasies about getting his ass fucked -- DP'd even! -- and sucking dick as gay and he's never referred to them that way and it's not where his head goes. Hopefully she'll jump into the thread to clarify!


@33. Lava. Thank you.

@34. Fichu. I think the people who care about politics on the liberal side are 1) people like BLM protestors, who collectively believe in a deep, identity-shaping way that they're more likely to be shot in the back by a police officer if they don't; and 2) people like me, who can effectively avoid the consequences (within a normal range) of either side winning, for whom it's a spectator sport with hand-wringing and pearl-clutching. And 3) people whose antipathies towards the 'deplorables' are the mirror-image of the populist right's towards them.

Dropping a lover over politics smacks to me of preferring abstractions over the people round you, the here-and-now of your immediate situation.

@44. Bivalve. Straight guys who have been shamed because of their desire to have their butt explored have my every sympathy. Even people who are just embarrassed by it, who don't know how to bring it up with women.


@45. Pretty in Pink. The fine issue is surely how we deal with a low-tax, small-government Republican fellow-traveling with Trump.

@48. Fubar. I'm not sure these acts--performed on a man's ass by a woman--are those she's referring to as gay. Her sext-er has a preoccupation with all things ass and fantasises equally about MM and MF assplay--?

Also re your @52, the etymology of 'histrionic' and that of 'hysteria' is not the same. The first comes from 'histrion', actor--not immediately anything to do with the womb. It would brush misogyny to suggest anything acted-out and over-emotional is feminine.


@61. Bi. Yes, her aversion seems so strong I don't know why she's still interested in this guy. It seems that he's hot and available--that is, she knows him from work. Fine, that gets her chatting, sexting and texting--but when she finds out that the asshole is the alpha and omega for him, doesn't she just back off? I didn't think she was describing opposite-sex buttplay as gay, for the reason given by Dan (now I've gotten that far)--that the guy (straight) was so ass-oriented that he was imaginatively preoccupied with gay cismale sex.

I'm probably with you in that I'm not sure she's a candidate for being casually GGG in this case.

The issue of whether a 3, 4, 5-way is harder to arrange as the numbers go up is a sorites problem, in that after a certain point the get-together is an orgy, which, as the popularity of bathhouses attests, is not hard to arrange. Perhaps this does not arise if all the participants have to know each other personally. My own experience has been that it's been the exception, not the rule, for every member of the three to be equally into it. People (esp. in couples) have different motivations for getting into the threeway; and, especially when the fuzz of sexual anticipation lifts during sex, these become apparent. In grouping or a bathhouse there's less awkwardness in taking a timeout, just to look or to find an impromptu one-on-one. These are by far my personal preference (and everything I'm saying was also true before I had work done).


When I woke in the middle of the night, I calculated that, counting men and women who are straight, bisexual or lesbian/gay in threesomes that are either triangular or V-shaped, there are 182 different threesomes, in 44 of which all three participants remain within the lines of the orientation of each. This is discounting frequency (or likelihood), the easiest example of which is that, if a straight or bi woman anchors an MFM, I didn't count Mr A straight/Mr B bi and Mr A bi/Mr B straight as different. I also didn't calculate the distribution of cross-orientation activity, though it seems offhand that either one or two would likely be the highest.


Harriet @63 re @44, yes, and the primary way in which they get shamed by these women is through allegations that this interest makes them gay. Which is why I wanted Dan to chide QUEER more strongly than he did. I suppose it's possible that there is more information here, that Mr QUEER did in fact ask her to dress as or role-play a man, but since she didn't say that, my Occam's razor money is on the garden variety "butt play / dildo sucking is gay" prejudice. I'll join Dan in hoping QUEER chimes in, and I will try to be gentle, but no promises, haha.

Harriet @64, Fubar didn't use the word hysterics. He was out of line IMO for dismissing Pretty's view, but let's not put misogynist words in his mouth.

Harriet @65, perhaps she's just horny and pickings are slim in Covidland. Perhaps she likes to think of herself as open-minded, and is prude-shaming herself for not wanting to be GGG in this way. I think it's common to instinctively think we may be down for something, particularly when it's with someone we've really got the hots for. QUEER, there is nothing close-minded or prudish about realising that one's sexual interests don't align with someone else's -- in fact I think this is more common than uncommon with anything beyond the vanilla. Chances are if you have sex with this guy, you won't enjoy it, no matter how hot he is -- and neither will he. Do both of you a favour and tell him thanks but no thanks, his kinks just aren't your bag, baby.


The letter from OH FUCKING HELL, the 60-something woman who left her longtime male friend for the cheating partner she later learned voted for Trump we've been talking about is from the October 20 column titled "Don't Give Up" in case anyone wants to go back for the details.

I'm still interested in Dan's answer on how the 2 situations, Trump-supporting boyfriend and Trump-supporting parents, differ. Dan? If you're out there?

Pretty In Pink-- I get that there are similarities between those who would support Trump and those who would support Hitler, but there are differences too, and those differences are so startling that to use the comparison to make a point is offensive. Besides, it derails the discussion and careens it in a different direction.

Not that I'm in charge of what direction these discussion take, but I am interested in what actions should be taken when one finds oneself in close relationships with intractable Trump supporters.

I've been lucky enough only to have to unfriend some folks on facebook and stop speaking to one ex, but the subject interests me. I may have made the best of a bad situation, but that doesn't mean I turned it into a good situation. I'm particularly interested in what I might have done about that ex. The relationship had previously been a good one, one where we could joke about political differences, his conservatism for economic reasons, my general liberal ones. Perhaps another way to put it is that I could respect him (stand to be in the same room with him) when he was a John McCain sort of conservative. I don't believe I've done any good, done anything to change his mind or his votes or done anything except make him dig in his heels deeper now that he's become a Trump supporter.

I genuinely wish I had something better. I bet we all do.


BiDanFan @61: There was no "privilege" -- and that was a cheap shot -- in expressing distain for conflating Nazis and Trump supporters. There's no arguing that Trump isn't a fascist, but when he starts shipping people to gas chambers, he'll be on par with Hitler. I agree 100% with Fichu @68.

Harriet @64: I'm aware of the etymology and meaning of the word "histrionic", which is why I chose it, but I'm not clear how or where the word "hysteria" or the notion of emotion entered the conversation. Perhaps my privilege is blinding me to my misogyny.


It crossed my mind, when I joked @48 about show tunes, that someone would pile on and call me homophobic, but instead we got an update from Dan @62, so that's nice.


"Perhaps another way to put it is that I could respect him (stand to be in the same room with him) when he was a John McCain sort of conservative. I don't believe I've done any good, done anything to change his mind or his votes or done anything except make him dig in his heels deeper now that he's become a Trump supporter."
I would wonder why your ex thinks that Republicans should change to adopt Trump's values?


Oh look: me @69. Finding myself in a thoroughly bad mood, I'll eschew the honours this week and confer them on whomever should comment next.

I'll also tidy up my wording: "no arguing that Trump isn't a fascist" means "no disputing that Trump is a fascist".


Reagan took the deficit from $70 billion to $175 billion.
Bush 41 took it to $300 billion.
Clinton got it to zero!
Bush 43 took it from zero to $1.2 trillion.
Obama halved it to $600 billion!
Trump’s got it back to a trillion.
Politifact checked.

"The deficit has gone down much more under Democrats than Republicans. That’s a fact. You can’t argue with that. It’s a perfect example of how Republicans never believed what they were saying. If you asked them to take a lie detector test, do you believe in lower deficits, they’d say yes and pass. But they were never willing to do anything to back it up."


@22 ciods
"You think he's won. I think he's won."

One more sentence is necessary to state the reality fully:
He has won.

But exactly as you say:

""safely" is a ways off."

Because the loser is an amoral totalitarian, leads a party of amoral authoritarians, and their base constituency are amoral authoritarian followers brainwashed into the alternative universe of rightwing media.

That nearly half the country has not disappeared, and will never accept compromise or democracy. There is no un-brainwashing those people. They are a (psychological and emotional) zombie army that we simply must contain electorally. (Though it isn't easy to be hopeful in that, because look what the hell nightmare it took to more fully motivate the non-zombie electorate this time.) Our other difficult task is to reverse rightwing negative 'reforms' of the education system to create a future in which these zombies don't exist, or at least don't roughly equal our numbers.

Speaking of evil zombie armies, are we sure it's a coincidence that Mitch McConnell's hands look like Gregor Clegane after he became an evil zombie on Game of Thrones?


Fubar, I'll agree with your conceding the @69. What was "histrionics and hyperbole" if not a cheap shot? Don't dish 'em out if you can't take 'em. Moving on.
Curious2 @74, glad to see you back!


Actually, nope, not moving on yet. My reference to privilege was not in fact a cheap shot. It was a reminder of reality. The reality is that Trump and his cronies are not trying to control your uterus, not putting your kids in a cage, not shooting your sons, not kicking you out of the military or your job. If someone more directly affected by Trump uses stronger language than you would have done, perhaps consider that they may have had good reason to do so.


Fubar @ 69 - The thing is, the only thing that's missing for the comparison with nazis to hold is the gas chambers. Trump has done or is currently trying to do pretty much everything else Hitler did to his own population. If he manages to stay in power, you know what you can expect.


I've never believed in Godwin's Law, the Internet adage that whoever mentions Hitler first loses the debate.

I mean, it certainly can distract if, say, people feel like the titanic horrors of the Holocaust have been minimized. So often I try to use more generic academic terms. However, being jargon, such terms have their own deficiencies as communication.

I've been a serious student of indoctrination. And I think it's important to learn from history. So I studied Nazi Germany, and know it to be important to understanding humanity.

If someone says that Trump would proceed to do X, Y, or Z, are they right? One could say that are "alarmist", so I will paste an excerpt from the middle of a wonderful chapter in one of the best books on Nazi Germany, "They Thought They Were Free":

"They say...‘You’re an alarmist.’

And you are an alarmist. You are saying that this must lead to this, and you can’t prove it. These are the beginnings, yes; but how do you know for sure when you don’t know the end, and how do you know, or even surmise, the end? On the one hand, your enemies, the law, the regime, the Party, intimidate you. On the other, your colleagues pooh-pooh you as pessimistic or even neurotic. You are left with your close friends, who are, naturally, people who have always thought as you have.

But your friends are fewer now. Some have drifted off somewhere or submerged themselves in their work. You no longer see as many as you did at meetings or gatherings. Informal groups become smaller; attendance drops off in little organizations, and the organizations themselves wither. Now, in small gatherings of your oldest friends, you feel that you are talking to yourselves, that you are isolated from the reality of things. This weakens your confidence still further and serves as a further deterrent to—to what? It is clearer all the time that, if you are going to do anything, you must make an occasion to do it, and then you are obviously a troublemaker. So you wait, and you wait.

But the one great shocking occasion, when tens or hundreds or thousands will join with you, never comes. That’s the difficulty. If the last and worst act of the whole regime had come immediately after the first and smallest, thousands, yes, millions would have been sufficiently shocked—if, let us say, the gassing of the Jews in ’43 had come immediately after the ‘German Firm’ stickers on the windows of non-Jewish shops in ’33. But of course this isn’t the way it happens. In between come all the hundreds of little steps, some of them imperceptible, each of them preparing you not to be shocked by the next. Step C is not so much worse than Step B, and, if you did not make a stand at Step B, why should you at Step C? And so on to Step D."

It goes on like this.


QUEER writes: "We’ve had several sexting sessions and it always shifts to me dominating him or a gay sex fantasy. I really want to be open but he is making this very hard"

In their sexting, he manipulates her into role play she doesn't enjoy -- he's pressuring her to be the dom and to talk about what she'll do to him with her dick.

I don't see the upside to continuing these sessions, and I don't think it's homophobic of her not to want to imagine herself with a dick.


Ricardo.. I often think of you and hope all is going ok, and here you are, safe.
Sexting is about getting off, and if this woman isn’t getting off, and it does sound like the guy is filling up the space with his scenarios and wishes.. then whether it’s gay sex or nun sex, if it’s not floating her boat, then stop sexting. What is the problem here?


Lava @ 80 - A big kiss. I'm well and safe, thanks, and hope you are too. The last 8 months have just been too weird (not only because of the pandemic), and I felt I would do better not to spill my guts on the Internet. But here I am again.


Oh Ricardo.. a kiss and a hug, back. I thought of you last couple of days, truth. Of course we would have been here if you’d spilled your guts, that’s what SL buddies are for. Big hug.


@62 - thanks, Dan. That's kind of where I was coming from. (P.S. I've been reading your column since back when all the letters were addressed to "HEY, FAGGOT")

Also I have known one or two str8 (or so they keep telling themselves) men who wanted to go into great detail with me about gay sex and what they would imagine doing, liking, having done to them, etc... always with the disclaimer that they don't actually want it, it's just fun to talk about. I don't argue with them.


Pink@45 " I don’t recall Dan suggesting that no one should ever have sex with nazi’s [sic] even when they want to."

Here's Dan, Aug 14, 2017 in a column titled "Savage Love Letter of the Day: Fucking Nazis":

"If someone you just met tells you they're a Nazi, don't fuck that Nazi. If you're already fucking someone and they reveal themselves to be a Nazi, stop fucking that Nazi. If someone tells you they're a Nazi and you fuck that Nazi anyway and then keep fucking that Nazi because they're so goddamn good at sex (for a Nazi), your effort to "gently guide" that Nazi away from being a Nazi doesn't make it okay to fuck that Nazi."


LW3, you don’t have to accomodate this man’s fantasies, you’re not some sex therapist. This is sexting, purely about getting each other off. Both play into the text, it’s mutual.
Here’s you tearing your hair out trying to be open, and that’s not relevant to you being aroused and enjoying self pleasuring thru the text exchange.
If that’s not going on, then your path is clear. Tell him it’s not happening for you, thanks anyway. You don’t need to go into where his fantasies come from, only if they join with yours and you enjoy each other, thru text. It’s not rocket science.


@59 LavaGirl (and others), I find interesting what people focus on. The point isn’t all the barriers to change. The point is we too often create those barriers ourselves.

I kind of feel like I asked everyone to stand for the national anthem and someone just had to point out that little Bobby can’t because he’s in a wheelchair.

@nazi talk
I’m not going to argue the equivalency of Trump supporters to Nazi supporters circa 1936 (as I specifically put a year to in anticipation of any gas-chamber counters, to no avail). I do regret mentioning it, and had zero intention of turning the focus on whether Trump supporter is equivalent to a nazi supporter. To me it’s pretty clear. To others, I guess not so much. I really thought we were past that being such a trigger word. I primarily was using the term “nazi” as an example of how to understand why someone feels the way they do about someone else, not as a means in itself to win an argument, when there was no argument and nothing to win.

@76, 77, 78… exactly.

@84 Fichu, touché! (but doesn’t actually change anything about my comments). After seeing it, I actually do remember that, LOL. I would be interested if Dan thought about that when answering last week's letter writer, and how Dan would frame what he said then about nazis in relation to Trump supporters now.

Best wishes everyone.


Pretty In Pink @86:

Please see


BiDanFan: You're not usually one for disingenuity. "Privilege" has a particular meaning when used as you did @61. @76 ain't it. Even if it were (and it ain't), Pretty disclosed nothing whatsoever about being personally affected by Trump, so you're making stuff up in order to justify your cheap shot.

Ricardo @77: Yeah, but the gas chambers were a rather big deal. So were the medical experiments, and so on. Enough to matter.

The US political and social landscape is divided as never before, and where the US goes, so, eventually, do the rest of us. I've made my feelings about supporting Trump clear, on more than one occasion, in these pages:

No thoughtful, compassionate person should fuck a Trump supporter, but calling a family member (or anyone else for that matter) a Nazi is lazy, and worse, useless - and is absolutely histrionic and hyperbolic. The people who claim the moral high ground have to do better than those that don't, and have to apply a lot more intelligence to the problem.


@88 fubar
"Yeah, but the gas chambers were a rather big deal. So were the medical experiments, and so on."


"No thoughtful, compassionate person should fuck a Trump supporter"

Hear hear.

I had that passage of Dan's from 2017 which reposted by Fichu@84 in mind while reading Dan's response this week. You can't pick a dad who didn't vote for the worst human being in American history (Trump), but you can certainly choose who not to fuck.


Mr Bar - I'd never apply the big scarlet H (though it's potentially the sort of enabling comment that might not be safe to make around those of the hoi polloi who will take it seriously) to that little comment, but I would call it dated, which is probably, given how the scarlet H has been so watered down by overuse (thanks so much, straight Tumblrinas), worse.

The day of the Show Queen is, for better or worse, quite gone. It's probably part of the price we've paid for assimilation. Of course, what would constitute a likely replacement marker isn't easy to determine.


curious2 @74: "That nearly half the country has not disappeared, and will never accept compromise or democracy... There is no un-brainwashing those people."

About 1/3 of the country is brainwashed, and will never accept compromise or democracy, or even reality. When Trump first got going, he had a third of the people believing that the entire US government and the state of Alaska had colluded to put a Kenyan Muslim into the Oval Office. Somehow, he got almost 1/6 who weren't delusional to vote for him anyway, in 2016 and this year too.

One sixth is a more solvable problem than half the population. It really needs to be Biden's #1 priority, so we're not facing Trump 2.0 in 2024. Hopefully, he comes up with something better than just insulting them.

(If Trump were to be reelected in 2024, would he be #45 or #47?)


Mr. Venn @90: I chose the Show Queen reference in my comment precisely because, as you say, it's a dated yardstick of things gay, and because it's as useless as the metrics listed by QUEER.

That Dan, who's known to be a fan of the occasional Broadway show, then chimed in on the topic, made me laugh. I'm in need of laughs these days.


@87 Alison, interesting. I think I missed that one. Inconclusive to me at this point. So what do you think based on that column? Do you think Dan would substitute Trump supporter for Nazi in @84's column quote?


@62 Dan the Man: Thank you for joining the comment thread and further clarifying the subject of QUEER's letter. Agreed; here's hoping that QUEER joins the conversation.

@69 fubar: WA-HOOOOOOOOOO!!!!! Major congrats on scoring this week's delectable Lucky @69 Award!! Savor the wickedly kickin' awesome riches. :)

Welcome back, Ricardo and curious2! Cyber hugs, positrons, and VW beeps!

@91 fubar: I have never considered tRump as presidential material. He's a disease and a gross, functionally illiterate mistake of biblical proportions.
After being hurtled 244 years backward into the Dark Ages by tRump and his Evil Empire, I think technically Joe Biden should be regarded globally as #45. How sad that our country can revel in sending men to the Moon but is still too chickenshit (even 51 years later!) to elect a woman President of the United States.


Okay. Who's hungry for the Big Hunsky? Tick...tick...tick...


@88 fubar, I don't disclose identifying details about myself on the internet. Anything I would share would be relevantly similar but not factual. Is there a litmus test for who is allowed to call out others for being such horrible people?

You’re someone who is stuck on a word. This word has special significance to you, and it bothers you that others don’t treat it with the same kind of respect that you believe it deserves. I can understand that.

But I’d ask you to understand that there are no words to describe the rage I have towards Trump, Republicans, and the 70,000,000 fellow Americans who voted for him. It’s none of your business why (or even whether) I am entitled to that rage. And if it makes me feel just a little better to refer to them as nazis, my lazy ass will continue to do so (just maybe not here).

Hopefully you can carry on even though that’s the case. Despite my reality, I do so every day. Best to you.


curious2 @89: "You can't pick a dad who didn't vote for the worst human being in American history (Trump), but you can certainly choose who not to fuck."

That struck home for me. And it's probably why I have my kickers in a twist about some of the comments this week.

My dad would have been a Trump supporter. He thought Margaret Thatcher was too liberal. He died several years ago. I miss him. The idea that people should figuratively kill off, and literally cut out, their relatives makes me sad.

My dad was a complex character. His homophobia was sourced by his Catholic school experience. His racism and sexism... standard issue, perhaps? But when my cousin was diagnosed with HIV shortly after my brother died, he lamented that gay was better than dead, and he hammered that home to my uncle.

People are capable of changing their perspectives.


Griz @94: I hadn't thought of striking Trump from the record. Biden #45. I like it, but what about all the 8645 merchandise?

I punted on @69. The honours go to Phi @71 & 73.


Pretty In pink.. fubar has deleted you from the comments, some app he’s found.
He does that when commenters, mainly women I think so far, have displeased him.


Pretty In pink, my mother over sixty plus years of my life, did some really nasty things. I broke off connections and had little to do with her a few times, for long periods of time.. then we would repair damage done sort of and try again. family is family.. up to you if you want to reject relationships with family who voted trump, and up to others to decide for same with their family. The LW has affection for her folks, so what.. you think she should drop them for voting trump?

    Please wait...

    Comments are closed.

    Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.

    Add a comment

    By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.