CMD @8 A tip about sharing Amazon links: you can lop off the "ref=..." and everything after it and the link will still work.

Mrs Fox @98, I agree that "certain kinds of BDSM can be a Big Ask for the non-kinky partner", but I've also seen quite a few success stories in the rope community, where a vanilla partner came to their first rope event solely for the benefit of their bondage-loving SO, but then got into it themself, and they both became part of the community. This is common enough in the kink community generally (as Dan keeps saying), but I think it's probably harder if the kinky partner has a very specific niche kink - like diapers or humiliation or cuckolding - that the vanilla partner just isn't into at all.

But with rope specifically, it maybe helps that there are so many different ways to approach it, so more people can potentially find something about it that appeals to them. My own "hook" was the sensory experience and the intimacy of it, but for someone else it could be the aesthetics, or the technical challenge, or the D/s or sexual potential. So for a loving couple, I think there's room to explore, so long as the kinky partner is also GGG and not too prescriptive about how they want to tie or be tied. And it probably also helps that, pre-Covid, you could find rope classes and events held in clean and bright rope studios, rather than dark and seedy fetish clubs, which might be a less intimidating environment for the vanilla partner.

Perhaps the biggest hurdle would be the normalisation and certain expectation of non-monogamy which exists in kink and rope communities. Some people are completely monogamous and tie only with their romantic partner, but they are in the minority. So the vanilla partner entering this world will probably have to deal with other people asking them or their partner to tie. How would they feel about that, and how would their partner? They could say no of course, but some people may find this culture uncomfortable.

@103: Thank you for saying that kinky partners also need to be GGG with vanillas. That's a perspective we don't always hear.

Lost Margarita @103, excellent points all around. Certainly plenty of folks discover things they might never have tried if not for being GGG with a kinkier or more sexually adventurous partner, and come to legitimately enjoy said thing themselves. And thank you for pointing out that GGG goes both ways. My previous comment was in response to a phantom letter apparently - oops! My brain went on a tangent based on other letters Dan has received in the past re: the give-and-take in mismatched kinks/preferences. Your descriptions of rope play, the technique, balance and counterbalance intrigued me enormously, but also left me with a sense of "holy hell, that would get exhausting if that's all a partner wanted to do or couldn't feel sexually satisfied without."

I like that you point out the almost inherent non-monogamy of this particular community, and that it's an aspect that a couple needs to discuss ahead of time and agree to their boundaries.

I take threats seriously when they originate from people who have testified before state legislatures. And one never knows when the threat one laughs off will become President - we've had two running now.
xxx
Something new that I just came across yesterday: same-sexer women reporting that they have been called the F slur, some even saying that has happened much more often than their being called the D slur. Is this just a Young thing? We seem to be on the older side here, which made me think I'd check around and see if perhaps this has become a widespread occurrence and I just never heard about it. Thankfully nobody has invited the inference that it's worse when it's done to women, though I do peer through a lorgnette at those who claim that it's entirely a gender neutral slur now that is employed equally against men and women/(others?). But I suppose it could have become true. I have a hunch that I may reshape if anyone can add a few pieces to the puzzle.

cowboy @101: I'm not sure if you're just being pedantic, or if I'm missing something.

One can acquire a property during a marriage (legal or common law), and put only one name on the deed. It's still, as you say, community property (where applicable).

Similarly, where I live (albeit not a state), the marital home becomes community property, regardless of title, and upon the marital dismount, it's split between the warring parties just like all other community property, with the original owning party getting no special rights, other than credit for the value of the house on the date of the ill-fated nuptials or acquisition of common-law status.

There's not enough detail in the letter to know if Mr. Dude and his betrothed are already considered "married" under common law. Where I live, that means cohabiting for a number of years, or immediately upon scrambling DNA whilst shacked up... But the house may already be community property.

So while Mr. Dude may not technically have bragging rights to "our house" because he's not named on the title, he may wind up with half the house. At least in the non-state where I live.

Mr. Venn @106: "one never knows when the threat one laughs off will become President".

Ne'er a truer word spoken. It was an impossible thing, and yet it happened. I find myself in your camp when it comes to the possibility of other impossible things becoming reality. The current SCOTUS bodes not well.

You offer glimpses of utterly horrible things you've experienced, and while I don't know you, I've come to like you through your writings here. I'm sorry those things happened.

Mrs. Fox @105: ""holy hell, that would get exhausting..."

My experience with BDSM and D/s is that the time-consuming kinky scenes supercharge the vanilla quickies.

Where I live, upon divorce the following are split evenly down the middle no matter who owned them during the marriage:
• primary and secondary residences;
• furniture;
• vehicles;
• any RSPs and pension funds accumulated during the marriage.

We chose the separation-of-property marriage contract but these categories of assets would be divided upon divorce anyway.

So if the LW were in my jurisdiction, the house would belong entirely to his wife during the entire marriage, BUT:
• she couldn’t sell it without his consent;
• he would have half of it upon their divorce.

@100 fubar: WA_HOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!! Major congrats on scoring this week's Big Hunsky honors! Savor your newfound riches and bask in the highly envied glory. :)

@106 vennominon: I'm sorry those incidents happened to you! Sending big cyber hugs, positrons, and VW beeps.

@106 vennominon & @108 fubar; "one never knows when the threat one laughs off will become president". BRRRRRRRR!!! Agreed and thirded. Cyber hugs, positrons, and VW beeps.
At least we have a real President and Vice President now since January 20, 2021. SCOTUS has scared me since the passing of our beloved Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

Harriet @95, if the guy was, say, literally teaching a class on how to have Zoom meetings, and himself made the most obvious mistake of not closing personal tabs, then perhaps he could have claimed to have left the "gay" tab open on purpose to see who would notice, as a teaching moment. But I am inclined to continue to think you are twisting the very ordinary meaning of the phrase "Zoom class," because if anything, wouldn't it be more likely young people would be teaching widowers (a year into the pandemic) how to use Zoom than vice versa?

Middle schoolers titter at everything, from a speech impediment to a punworthy name. Nobody but a middle schooler should worry about what middle schoolers think.

EricaP @99, that would make me androgysexual.

Congrats on the hunsky, Fubar!

Cowboy @101, I agree that marriage does not add the spouse's name to the deed on a house. What it can do is make the spouse the automatic heir to a house and anything else the deceased owns if they don't make a will specifying otherwise.

Venn @106, since when have nasty names lobbed at people needed to be accurate? It's possible the lesbians in question were similar in appearance to twinks and the insulters got their gender wrong. At least it seems to no longer be an all-purpose insult the way it was when I was young. And I've seen many young people saying "I'm so gay" on Facebook as a positive thing, many of whom are rounding themselves up from various places on the Kinsey scale.

EricaP @99 BDF @113

I've heard of terms like "androsexual" and "gynesexual" (or -philic) before, and know some enby folx who use them. But I could never figure out if "androgynesexual" meant attracted to androgyny, or attracted to masculinity and femininity separately. Cos I've met bi people who were attracted to masculine men and feminine women, but not to androgynous individuals (and vice versa).

Also, if gynesexuality is attraction to feminine gender expression regardless of gender identity and sex, what is attraction to XX-type visible sexual characteristics regardless of gender identity and expression? As, again, there are folks who'd be attracted to women, AFAB enbies and some transmen, but not to anyone with distinctly XY physical characteristics. "Cisgynesexual" or something similar doesn't really fit as the attraction isn't exclusively to cis women. I've seen "vaginaphilic" bandied about (often derogatively), but that also seems misplaced, as it's usually less about genitals and more about hip-to-waist ratios and such.

Maybe some combination of best-fit labels and longer qualifiers like BDF's examples @68 is the way to go. I don't think we'll be able to come up with a single linguistic system to reflect every nuance of sexual orientation.

Lost @114, yes, androsexual and gynesexual are useful in not relating to the gender of the person with the attraction but ironically express one's gender preferences, if not one's own gender, in binary terms! Indeed what if one is attracted to people who present androgynously, rather than people who present as masculine or people who present as feminine? And I think there do need to be different words for people who are trans inclusive versus trans exclusive. Many people won't be interested in a trans woman with a penis no matter how feminine she looks. Dan's words phallophile and vaginophile seem useful but it seems clunky to have to use both ("I'm a phallophilic androsexual").
I reckon this is why it's popular to just identify as queer.

Ms Fan - That was a possible thought, along with the idea that some of it could be happening online when a woman uses the G label and posts something non-specific. The context was a discussion about reclamation, with the idea being advanced that the F slur is being thrown at people the slur-users know or presume to be women. When I've been presumed female, I don't recall ever being called the D slur, but I certainly wouldn't assume that such a thing's happening even multiple times would give me reclamation rights - although, then again, I don't use known and agreed slurs and don't like their being used against anyone. One woman specifically cited Roman Catholic circles in which the F slur has apparently been deemed applicable to any gender by the RC Church, but I'd have thought the RCC would at least officially still stand against slurs.

On the positive side, nobody took issue with my example of Judy Gold's screaming in tones that would make a fundamentalist evangelical proud that Sen Graham is a F*ing F as something that is Not Okay.
xxx
Ms Grizelda/Mr Bar - I thought you'd appreciate that one, and hope you're both doing well.

BDF @115

"And I think there do need to be different words for people who are trans inclusive versus trans exclusive. Many people won't be interested in a trans woman with a penis no matter how feminine she looks"

... But some of those people could be interested in AFAB non-binary or AFAB transmasculine people as well as cis women. So not necessarily "trans exclusive" across the board. Personally I think I'm more attracted to a particular gender expression rather than a person's sex or gender (as I think you are as well), but to other people it's primarily about the body (and that's ok, so long as they're not an arsehole about it).

Whatever happened to, “I think you’re very attractive and I’d like to get to know you better?”

Is the need to catalogue oneself Psychopathia Sexualis style related to the fact that people advertise themselves online for all the world to see?

As an example of what I mean above, I'm thinking of some queer women I know, who tend to date androgynous and butch women AND transmen. I guess they could be classed as "androsexual", except they're not interested in cis men. Maybe "transandrosexual", if we hypothetically include butchness and AFAB androgyny under the umbrella of transmasculinity? But that's also not ideal, as it seems to imply that women are naturally feminine, and if they're not, they must be 'trans' in some way. At some point these labels just get too convoluted to be useful, and it seems more practical to just explain wtf you're into.

Lost Margarita @119
“But that's also not ideal, as it seems to imply that women are naturally feminine, and if they're not, they must be 'trans' in some way.”

Bingo.

I’d tweak this a bit. All women are feminine by definition, no? Any behaviour a woman demonstrates, or any body a woman has, is by definition feminine.

To get around this problem I use butch and femme to describe gendered presentations. My formulation of kids-these-days is more like, “All women are presumed to be femme and all femme people are presumed to be women. An afab person who uses tools and doesn’t wear makeup no longer has the option of being a butch ciswoman, but must be transmasculine.”

I’ve seen comfort with makeup used to define womanhood. “All women must wear makeup, therefore cis-woman privilege is liking makeup. Transmen who haven’t transitioned yet are oppressed because they have to wear makeup even if they don’t like it.”

Which flabbergasts me. I get it that third-wavers are on to things that second wavers hadn’t grokked yet, but the second wave is still important.

And grrr... kidsthesedays are so smug about how they understand intersectionality, but they don’t seem to get how racialized concepts of “femme” can be.

Grr. Grr. Grr. Get offa my lawn.

@120. Alison. Is your 'formulation of kids-these-days' what you take kids these days to be saying about gender, or how they understand gender? What you quote seems wrong to me, in that being 'trans'--trans whatever--is typically something that answers to a desire or urge, usually a desire to look like, or more conventionally like, what you feel yourself to be inside. A ciswoman with little interest in makeup more drawn to handyman skills than craft skills is not necessarily trans without feeling or wanting to be trans.

@113. Bi. I'm still oversensitive to tittering. I think that as you start to go out en femme, you gradually put yourself into more and more mainstream contexts, or context where your point is that you're not exactly making a point, that you're appearing as who you are; and that, in those contexts, you presume, once you're reasonably proficient and convincing, that most people will appreciate you're serious and won't want to laugh in your face. And then, I guess, you always assume that there will be litmus-cases for how convincing you look, like assholes who just can't conceive of trans at all, or middle-schoolers--and maybe you're particularly concerned with their reaction. This was certainly true of me 10-15 years ago. Now I'm not even sure I'd have any contact with age-group e.g. running into them in a mall, it might actually still be true.

Alison @120 Harriet @121

I think that maybe the point "kids these days" are trying to make is that you shouldn't just assume a person's gender based on what you see. Some people choose to re-affirm their internal identity with a "matching" external expression, some don't. The only way to know is to ask. In the same way that nowadays one shouldn't assume someone's wealth or class based on what they're wearing. Since while some wealthy people choose to reaffirm their status with expensive clothes, plenty walk around in scruffy casual gear.

But I agree that some people overshoot the mark in trying to be PC, and would in fact assume without asking that any masculine-looking AFAB person must be a transman and wants to be addressed with masculine pronouns and honorifics. I've read some accounts of butch women who felt uncomfortable and even triggered by sales clerks etc. calling them "sir".

As for "transmasculinity" as an umbrella term which includes butch women, I dunno. Many butch women do acknowledge a kinship and some common ground with transmen. Many transmen come from a background of identifying as butch lesbians earlier in their journey. Some stone butches do experience gender dysphoria. Both Leslie Feinberg and Patrick Califia have written about this affinity very eloquently. So I feel like there needs to be some umbrella term to describe the experience of being AFAB and very masculine. Maybe masculine-of-centre (MOC) is a better word for it than transmasc.

@21 It is possible to have healthy long term relationships even if your illness is not under control, which happens to the sizable percentage of people for whom medication does not work and for whom other treatments (electroshock and ketamine) are either not viable from a fear of brain damage or lack of $30,000/year cash for treatment. It does require that you get yourself on good footing. There are for example entire cultures in which schizophrenia is not considered a problem in any way or an advantage, and people who would be patients in our culture suffer not at all. For other mood disorders (many chronic depressives are in fact bipolar, the categories are largely meaningless anyway, etc) it is still possible even though you may be quite ill. It's like chronic pain. Takes practice. But there is nothing at all that says you are going to be toxic or harmful to others merely because you are sick, and always will be. One recommendation might be to date others in your situation, as how else could you be understood, but that is also not by any stretch a requirement. Certainly we don't tell people not to parent, which is arguably much higher stakes. Why deprive them of love? The problem is assholes not illness.

tl/dr to the previous comment - you need to be able to handle yourself. The idea that you have to have your illness under control which may be a biological impossibility (and often is intermittently or eventually for most) is in error and needlessly punitive.

Keep in mind young people newly diagnosed read your words. Accuracy is important. It is due to cultural factors and symptoms an isolating type of illness and unless it's addiction often you never meet in person others with what you have. Internet words are all there is.

"It does require that you get yourself on good footing."

Actually I take this back. It doesn't. All it requires is that you not be toxic. Toxic and mentally ill are not equivalents.

You just need to be on footing. Doesn't have to be good footing. Not actively tumbling into the abyss. If that happens once you are in a relationship though that's fine. The reason why it's not a great idea to start in a relationship while actively tumbling into the abyss is that you are unlikely to be able to make good decisions. Though one of my best relationships started that way. Ok, two.

Maybe there are no requirements at all other than don't be an asshole.

Lost Margarita @119

"At some point these labels just get too convoluted to be useful, and it seems more practical to just explain wtf you're into."

Yes, and then there are always exceptions too, and in both directions. I consider myself androsexual but there are way more men I'm not attracted to than ones I'm hot for. And I'm very occasionally attracted to someone femme (like a couple of times in my life).

For me, "androsexual" mostly helps me explain that I'm not interested in MFF threesomes -- without saying "I'm straight."

But in the alternative I could just get better at saying no without getting defensive.

Fichu @15 and BiDanFan @16: I meant to comment on this earlier... "Huzzben" was Dan's term for his husband Terry after they were married in Canada. It wasn't until the USA got itself some marriage equality, and the couple married "properly", that Dan dropped the term.

Perhaps the BDSM lover with the non-initiating "huzzben" is similarly disadvantaged by a Canadian marriage.

fubar@128
In the column Dan has written about hanging onto the use of "huzzben" despite being USA-married. His explanation was something along the lines of after it being prohibited for some long it became odd to say the word.

That was a couple years ago, and for all I know he's dropped it now, but he didn't then. (Personally I wish he had, it sounded weird to my ears when I binged years of Lovecasts.)

@116 vennominon: It is wonderful to hear from you. i am glad you are doing well. I love your shared your quote from Judy Gold's Stop Making it Worse. Many thanks, and YES---grossly overpaid RepubliKKKan Obstructionist Senator Linsey Graham--like RepubliKKKan Senate Minority Leader, Mitch McConnell--- fucking SUCKS!
I am doing okay----music, cats, the warmly anticipated return of my beloved Emotional Support Beetle, and all the wonderful people in my life, like you, are the Elmer's glue that is holding me together. I just played some more solo piccolo, C & alto flute, and piano music last night, and practiced some orchestral conducting from Ernest Gold's film score to It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World.
Griz is on the mend in physical therapy. My right shoulder and upper right arm are much better. Now it is my back at the bra line that is giving out (OH, to be flat chested!).
Other than the challenges of physical therapy and the yipping of a Dachshund from the 3rd floor of my apartment building when its humans are foolish enough to leave it alone, I am doing pretty well.
XXX, big cyber hugs, positrons, and VW beeps,
Griz

Alison / Margarita: It does indeed seem tricky to find words for these concepts that avoid presenting gender as a binary and/or affirming gender stereotypes.

Alison, your formulation of kids-these-days sounds a bit terfy. Lesbians are not extinct; butch lesbians remain a thing; nobody is being pressured to transition because she doesn't like makeup; many so-identified butch lesbians from the the past were in fact trans men or non-binary people who didn't have the vocabulary to recognise that at the time. But some were in fact butch lesbians; nobody is retrospectively erasing them. Sure, sometimes butch women are misgendered. But they always were. The sales clerk, rather than thinking they see a cis man and calling her "sir," now thinks they see a trans man and calls her "sir." At least it now comes from a place of trying to do the right thing, until we get to a society where no one assumes gender and we have a unisex vocabulary for everyone. (Personally, I would love to get to a Star Trek world where everyone is addressed as "sir"; I'd much rather be called "Sir" than "Ma'am"! I remain amazed that so much of language is based on what one's presumed role in reproduction is.)

EricaP @127: "There are way more men I'm not attracted to than ones I'm hot for." I think that applies to everyone. I don't think anyone is alleging we need words for "I'm attracted to every member of these particular genders" because attraction doesn't work that way, for anyone.
Out of curiosity, why is "I'm straight" an insufficient explanation for why you don't want MFF threesomes? I'm sorry you've encountered pushiness in this respect. Weren't we discussing reasons to avoid unicorning, or was that last week.

BDF @131

Good point re: butch women being taken for cis men in the past (either accidentally or deliberately as a taunt), and now for trans men. Might even be why it's triggering for some, a reminder of the bad old days.

"unisex vocabulary for everyone"

Maybe the Soviets were ahead of the curve on gender-neutral honorifics with "comrade" and "citizen"... :)

BDF @131 -- I'm enby and happy to date enby folks who look sexy to me (who are on the masculine side of the spectrum). So "straight" feels wrong.

EricaP @127: "explain that I'm not interested in MFF threesomes -- without saying I'm straight."

I don't think that saying "I'm straight" would convey disinterest in a threesome. I'm straight, and have no aversion to MMF threesomes.

Imposter syndrome, can’t identify their kink.. voyeur would be my guess. I’m sure the purists are not happy accomodating your kink all the time, so be sensitive to the vibe in the space.
People are not having babies so much now, and who can blame them, so lot more time on people’s hands to explore their lives in other ways. Not that one can’t explore with children, and many kinksters have children. I’m not intimately connected to the community, past internet reading. Hard to teach old dogs, new tricks, and I’ve got my passions elsewhere. Solitude and books and Art and ocean. With adult children , grandkids & friends here and about. Always music. Like Satre, a general position I take is that hell is other people, so small doses of them. Then I digress..
Wherever you are with one other human, stay sensitive to their non verbal communications and respect those as much as one respects verbal ones.

fubar @134 - in my experience, MFF threesomes usually connote some enthusiastic activity between the women. But it's true that, as I said above @127, I can just practice saying no to stuff I don't want.

I thought it was about the placement of the letters. MFF vs FMF

I wonder if the selfie was accidental. If it was someone who had not been inappropriate before, I would assume accident.