That's weird, it skipped from 199 to 201. I guess there's no double hunsky this time.

Ugh it looks like my comment landed on @200 and disappeared into the ether, as seems to happen quite a lot. Contrary to the numbers game here, 200 seems to be the unlucky number! I'll give it some time to see if it reappears.

Curious @196, our Venn (I believe) has lamented the use of the suffix -phobia as misleading. It is not literally a fear of bi people, gay people, trans people etc. It is simply bias against the group. Good luck changing the words, but I think we are stuck with "biphobia" meaning "an irrational bias against bisexuals."
I suppose "irrational bias" is redundant, but I kind of like keeping both words in my definition, as it gets the point across that such a bias is indeed irrational. And also leaves open the possibility of a rational bias -- such as, perhaps a member of a certain group victimised one when one was impressionable. A trauma like that would make a bias or even something closer to an actual phobia more forgivable.

Opal: Since there are many comments, may I politely ask you to use the Username @number convention, so that I can follow what you're talking about? Thanks! (And a heartfelt thanks for your posts, with which I agree heartily. Thanks for continuing the discussion with Philophile, your patience outstrips mine for sure!)

Opal@198
I just wanted the opal to shimmer a little.

BDF@204
I think it was me that felt that the -phobia suffix was insufficiently damning, calling it fear (not bigotry). IIRC at the time Mr. Venn was cool with it.

But I was convinced to warm up to it a bit since I think both that fear is the psychological foundation of prejudice, and that the world's rightwing bigots, especially the ones in their toxic masculinity, are probably as offended as they could possibly be by the observation that they are afraid of something.

In other words, while I have major linguistic reservations, I'm feeling like the best word is what makes them feel most insulted.

It's possible NADS is not biased per se, but ignorant. Perhaps she believes bisexuals can't be monogamous because that's what she's been told by monosexuals, and has never met any out, monogamous bisexuals -- perhaps she's just assumed anyone in a monogamous, opposite-sex relationship must be straight, an assumption a lot of people make. The advice to examine her reasoning would help her question these stereotypes and learn that they are inaccurate. So she should introspect regardless of whether her goal is to broaden her dating horizons.

BDF@208
"Perhaps she believes bisexuals can't be monogamous"

That is quite a bit more likely than my the possibilities (@98) I said were unlikely. But if that's what NADS meant by her disinterest in dating non-straight men, I wish she had written better. Hell, no matter what she meant I wish he had written better. (Or that Dan had asked her some questions. As I always wish.)

curious @196

"Isn't there some kind of positive feedback system that can help the good ones stand out?"

I wasn't sure if you meant a positive feedback for someone's Fet content (images, writing, etc), or a sort of personal reference system for kinksters? If it's the former, then as Opalescent said, there is one based on popularity. If your image, video, or writing generates a large number of "likes" or comments in a short time frame, it will appear on Fet's "Kinky & Popular" page (unless the admins de-trend it, which they sometimes do - notably with writings that criticise Fetlife). Trending on K&P will make your image/video/writing visible to a large number of users, and drive more comments and likes. As Opalescent said, this system is by no means a sign of quality, as it's just a dumb numbers game: K&P content is usually generated by friend collectors with a few thousand followers, and is often very generic lowest-common-denominator stuff (porny T&A pics and 50 Shades-style written erotica).

If you meant a peer reference system, there isn't anything formal. You can post a writing on your profile where you ask people who interacted with you in some capacity to leave a review in the form of a comment. I've seen this a bunch of times, usually on the profiles of kink educators. Often enough, people with a long list of glowing reviews were later revealed to be serial abusers, who used their status and reputation in the community to groom and silence victims. This is why I'm generally very sceptical of those kinds of positive feedback systems in the kink community. It can be done, but there need to be some other checks and balances in place, otherwise it easily becomes another tool of abuse.

Margarita@210
Thanks. I guess I just meant reviews, now that I think more.

"people with a long list of glowing reviews were later revealed to be serial abusers, who used their status and reputation in the community to groom and silence victims"

OMG. Thanks, I only recall reading positive things here about the review system.

It sure would be nice if some system were implemented to make people (particularly those looking to be in vulnerable positions) more likely to be safe.

/Break/
But I guess I'm not too surprised there isn't; people in general are hesitant on principle to support organized systems no matter how serious the problems needing solving are (climate change, pandemics, economic policy, etc.) and no matter how competent the designers are (er, in fact people prefer the designers be incompetent!).

BiDanFan @205 I will try to remember to put in the post number!

Curious @206 sure, why not link what you have in mind/come up with? I'll need a reminder on setting it as my avatar.

BiDanFan @205 I forgot to add, I'm glad you enjoy my posts so far! I'm a fan of yours as well. There's some things we have different perspectives about. You are generally respectful and interesting in how you express yourself, and I really appreciate those glimpses.

Margarita @210 Curious @211
The reference/vetting system seems to primarily filter out newbie Top/Dom men. It utterly fails a lot of people due to social engineering and people developing a following to hassle any victims who speak out.

Meeting and playing publicly help, but they aren't failsafe. Definitely loop in the DM, if you have a limit on sexual play, for example.

Set a nonverbal safe gesture as a backup to safewords. I like holding their keys to use as a drop, nicely symbolic of trust, but tapping out/etc work too. Some people can't catch their breath to say anything, or feel awkward or ashamed to safeword. Remember, safewords aren't a panacea. They're only as reliable as the other person!

When I play with newbie bottoms/subs, we might use wrist restraints, but I don't tie them to anything. I think it's a good precaution.

I keep everything really light and wanting more. A lot of people have "eyes that are bigger than their tummy"! Or something is really hot in fantasy, but not reality.

I've played with lots of newbie Tops/Doms. Usually I ask a friend I trust to show them safety and technique, and watch them while they practice. I explain how my body language works.

Either way, I focus a lot on communication, negotiation, etc.

Philophile @147
I missed this earlier:
"Clearly, rejection is a hard topic for a lot of people. I wish everyone loved themselves no matter what anyone else thought of them. If anyone said they rejected you because you weren’t good enough, please realize it was their poor social skills causing your distress, not your inherent unattractiveness."

I sometimes struggle to love myself, but I do like myself! I can be insecure, and tend to find external validation very empowering. Rejection rarely upsets me, but I occasionally get a twinge, no matter how nice they are.

The ones who are mean about it don't appear to lack social skills. They apparently want to be rude and hurt people, it's not an accident.

People who are thoughtful enough to consider the possibility that they might accidentally upset others rarely cause major problems. Anyone can have a "foot in mouth disease" moment!

Opal@212
I haven't started looking. Are you sure you wouldn't like to look for something /you/ like? To be honest, no one has used the ones they've asked me to find in the past. But I'll be happy to suggest something if you don't want to.

Philophile @176 & 177 you repeatedly claimed that BiDanFan was calling NADS mentally ill by mentioning that she might have some biphobic views.

When I said that some people can be bigoted in some respects, but be kind in others, I wasn't specifically referring to NADS. It's possible she is in that category, but her letter doesn't give enough information to go on.

The people I mentioned in the biphobic examples aren't generally mean. They didn't continue to hassle me afterwards. I truly believe it was primarily misunderstandings about bisexuality. I did address it by educating them.

Someone who calls me a "fat ugly bitch" when I politely turn them down is being deliberately mean, hurtful, and rude.

@200 Lost Margarita: WA-HOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!! Major congratulatoiins on scoring this week's DOuble Hunsky Award honors! Savor the glory of your newfound good fortune and bask in the envied glow. :)

@202 Opalescent and @203 Lost Margarita: Is the Double Hunsky @200 an unlucky number? Uh-oh! I hope it doesn't really bring you bad luck! I have noticed that by the third page lately comment numbers either get mysteriously hidden or seem to go poof altogether.

Oh look, the SL comment gremlins have regurgitated and spat out my @200 again, and it only took TEN HOURS or so! I will try to avoid commenting at the end of page 2 in the future. AG @219, probably best to keep it as something lucky, to console the unfortunates whose comments get eaten (like rain on your wedding day or a bird shitting on you are supposed to be lucky). At least it adds some suspense to the numbers game!

Harriet @163 - I wouldn't date someone German; that's why I raised it as an example. Humans draw conclusions from their experiences and if the conclusions I draw from the Germans I've met make me unwilling to date them or anyone I see as in the same category, that's my business.

Dating isn't housing, schooling, jobs, or commerce. People aren't ethically obligated to give everyone a chance nor to explain their reasons for their likes and dislikes.

It's good to examine my prejudices (as BDF says) -- but that doesn't mean I owe anyone or any category a shot at dating me.

EricaP @221, you are right that who you choose to date is your business. I certainly don't expect to be included in anyone's dating pool, and in fact expect most people I meet to NOT want to date me unless they indicate otherwise (I mean, who goes around thinking they're such hot stuff everyone wants to get in their pants?). But, as a person of Russian descent, I can tell you that if I met someone and they told me that they "wouldn't date someone Russian", I would consider that person to be racist/ xenophobic/ prejudiced. I wouldn't want to be friends with, do business with, or have any other meaningful platonic relationship with that person.

PS to my @222, I would probably be more sympathetic to the "wouldn't date someone Russian" person, if they were from a community which had been/ is being oppressed by Russia, e.g. a Ukrainian, a Chechen, Eastern European Jew, etc. (many, many examples). But even so, if their blanket rule extended to all Russians, regardless of circumstances, I don't think we'd be friends or anything along these lines.

@192. Opalescent. I agree with you that people on the board tend to agree with each other in the most important respects when they give themselves over to vehement disagreement. As I see it, any Savagista--meaning by that someone aligned in values and politics with Dan Savage, interested enough in people's problems to read not just the advice but also commenters' subsequent revisions and reflections--is very probably in the same 2% of the population--educated, liberal, queer or antihomophobic, and then perhaps not living a life principally devoted to making money. It's a question to me why people clash when we have so much in common.... One theory might be that the political shared ground can belie cultural differences; and that it's a shock, say, to a married ciswoman to find herself (say) ranged against her fellow Texans and in the company of a trans person. Another theory is that when people agree about so much, all they can disagree about comes down to personalities, and personality clashes can be especially strong.

Re 'introspection', I did know what 'introspection' means; my line of thought was to wonder why someone averse to dating bis would introspect if they didn't want to overcome a prejudice. (Or maybe to justify it?). My view here (as an almost incidental bisexual, as it were) is the boilerplate liberal one: of grasping that bi people aren't visible as such, and that anyone with a 'no bis' policy has a prejudice, philosophy or program. I do not feel I've lived my view, or that it's deeply-felt, or results from suffering or being on the wrong end of prejudice--in that if I've ever initiated or made myself available sexually, and been turned down, the explanation in my mind hasn't been that the person declining (or declining to pursue) has been biphobic, only that they haven't felt it for me. In this way, the people critical of those like NADS can only legitimately be getting at her beliefs or program, not at her behavior--because it's always reasonable to turn anyone down for any reason, especially any purely personal reason.

(There are other prejudices, of course, that I feel I've lived through and suffered from in myriad ways, esp. transphobia, transmisogyny and the prejudice against sissiness and femme-ness among gay men; I'm sure other people have been affected, negatively impacted by biphobia in ways like I've been by these, and my having no more than the liberal 'party line' on biphobia is in no way meant to suggest a limited scope of sympathy for its victims).

I'm also disillusioned with Fet. What I really like is a sort of 'United Nations of Sexual Practices' in grouping--there's virtually no kink subsection I don't want to be exhibitionistic in front of, and pretty much everything evidently consensual and exploratory I like, or am happy, to see ... but it doesn't really cater for that, it's more atomised and--though this might be just my take--more virtual and less 'let's get down and do it'. The dungeon master of my dungeon has more good things to say about it, and says he still is found by new people there, though the scene is principally word-of-mouth. It's a pity in that my very strong belief is in a community of kinksters and those making a stand for self-expression and against bigotry--but the 'feel' of the site is more dating-site-like, with direct messages, and the expedient of needing multiple profiles if you have usually not-assorted niche tastes (e.g. topping in pissplay but not elsewhere).

'You are your category', particularly as a dick-having ex-man, has always been the worst downer to me. 'You are your politics' just isn't.

@201. Opalescent. I've been barred from giving blood in the US but I was because I'd lived in England in the 80s. I didn't tell them I was one of those English or pseudo-English people they'd heard about who liked taking it up the ass. Or 'arse' ('arse, darling'). Where I am the questions are only about unsafe sex. Non-profits collect blood as well as hospitals. It was a relief to me to learn I'm from the most bog-standard blood group and probably don't need to donate.

@221. Erica. Could a German be sufficiently non-German, in terms of how you've come to see Germans, to change your mind? Dare one ask what these Germans who have made you averse have been like?

You don't owe anyone of any social category a shot; but if you exclude people who might otherwise qualify on the back of their personal characteristics, you pretty much invite them to dissemble their group memberships.

Opal, "you repeatedly claimed that BiDanFan was calling NADS mentally ill by mentioning that she might have some biphobic views."

Do you mean this?
@127 I just don't think it's right to call someone mean or mentally ill when they don't seem to be harming anyone, and I'm not sure that they are losing touch with reality or harming themselves. The only problem here seems to be the anger of people judging her.

It's a long winded way of saying if there is no harm to other, or self, there is no wrongdoing. I'm pretty sure BDF was using the common definition of biphobia and calling her mean, not so much self-harming, but I was moved to be thorough.

You might have missed this bit:
@97 "I think bigotry is causing harm based on a person's class, in the dictionary it's identified by acts of hatred or intolerance toward a class. I don't think that refusing to date ANYONE is hateful or intolerant, I think pressuring people to date, or change their attractions or other preferences, can cause great harm.

A few people seemed angry at her for her sexual attractions rather than any mean actions. But maybe they were offended by the way she didn't say that she treated bi guys very well in nonsexual areas of life, that was a glaring nonaction? Idk. I mostly tried to make my point clear that people who shame or attack others when there's no wrongdoing are doing wrong. Historically this sort of anger at inconvenient romantic rejection has led to modern incels, conversion therapy, criminalizing homosexuality, some really scary stuff.

Does that clear up our argument? I'm not sure what you're looking for?

I agree with the vast majority of your ideas, but not that someone is being intentionally mean by calling a woman a fat ugly bitch after a polite rejection. We can never know someone's intentions. It's clear that they are ethically confused if they think name calling is not mean. While someone may be more confused about reality than ethics when they believe and spread stereotypes. I've definitely seen people here, even other women, call women bitches and seem to truly believe they weren't being mean or bigoted but educating. It's scary but I don't think incels are trying to be mean. They have a community where murdering is cool and respecting women's rights is naive self harm, I think it's more like a cultural difference. But how to fight back against, or free people from, or convert or heal an ethically sick internet community? I have a hard enough time reminding people here that cheating and lying and name calling and such are hurtful and wrong, and this place seems far more ethically healthy.

Lost, if someone turned me down because I was of Russian descent, I'd think they were socially awkward and didn't know to use "it's not you, it's me." If someone dumped me when they found out about my heritage, I'd wish to have dodged that bullet sooner, maybe tell them it's nicer to screen for their deal breakers earlier. If a friend told me they didn't date Russians, I'd ask why. So long as they didn't treat me badly because of my heritage, or spread stereotypes, I'd see no problem.

Margarita @200
I don't think I will go search for it, but I report it if I come across it. It's not just that they aren't cleaning house, they refuse to act on reports sometimes. Then, they pull down posts warning about them (even with name and picture covered up).

I'm reminded of my history teacher whose Irish mother wanted him to date an Irish girl. Alas, when he finally brought one home, the poor girl, whose family were from the wrong county, couldn't finish two sentences before his mother reddened, spat out, "Cork!" and left the room in a huff.
xxx
Amazingly, Mr Savage begins the new podcast by taking a wishy-washy pot shot at the German national character. Then the first call is from a pansexual woman wondering if she can succeed in a monogamous DS marriage. His reply establishes two camps (reflected in his letters and other columns/podcasts) - one camp that bisexuals are as capable of happy monogamy as anyone else, the other that it's cruel and oppressive to push for monogamy with a bi/pan partner. (He's in the first camp, thinks the caller is in the second camp and that she'll have to issue an ultimatum, and calls her partner an MF without foundation.)

Cocky @228 she was participating a couple of days ago. I didn't see any "I'm leaving" post, but perhaps she contacted you separately.

I'm sorry to hear you are leaving, and if you are right about her. I think you both have a lot of insights, and I value your perspective. As Harriet @224 and I said, I think we are mostly in agreement. Some people are mired in misunderstanding or personality conflicts.

Venn @230 I haven't listened to the podcast yet. I have mixed feelings about both camps. I'm bisexual, and a switch.

So far, I have had no difficulty remainig monogamous if my partner is strictly top or bottom. I do feel happier when I am able to express both sides, preferably with the same person. My longest relationship of this type was 9 years. It's hypothetically possible I would change after even longer, but I think it's unlikely.

I have also been in relationships that were monogamous sexually but allowed for kink play with others.

I'm not interested in casual sex, and am definitely not willing to cheat. If my partner wants monogamy, I don't tend to feel any attraction toward other people. Monogamy isn't a struggle.

I'm willing to explore polyamory, and have been kink playpartners on an ongoing basis with some poly people. I want to stick to closed "polycule" for reasons I mentioned earlier.

Margarita @222-@223, agree. As to the "it's my business" argument, sure it is, but NADS made her bias everyone's business by writing to an advice column.
(I hadn't been living in the UK for long when I dated an Italian man who clearly had a strong anti-American bias. Which, given the way America has behaved over the past century or so, I can't blame, but hello, why then was he dating someone from there!? Only to criticise my accent and vocabulary? I wish he'd said no thank you, with or without explanation.)

Harriet @224: "It's a question to me why people clash when we have so much in common...." Harriet, YOU'RE the one who was saying just a couple weeks ago that you enjoy debating with people with whom you're 98% in agreement!
https://www.thestranger.com/savage-love/2021/04/13/56538340/savage-love/comments/185

Cocky @228, Lava hasn't been banned. Her profile is still active. If she's choosing not to comment, I'm sure a lot of us are relieved, but that was a decision on her part -- this isn't a democracy, and the "gang" can't vote anyone in or out. I hope you will stick around.

Margarita@220
"@200 again, and it only took TEN HOURS or so!"

I think that's a record. It used to take just 3 hours.

It always is very inconvenient; all flow stops at the page 2/3 change.

cocky@229
"Lava got gang-cancelled"

You mean she got booted?

I don't think that's true, cocky. She and her 14,779 comments seem to be still with us. https://www.thestranger.com/users/19192984/lavagirl

Did she write you that she was expelled, or are you assuming this because she's gone silent for a week? If the later, don't worry, that's what she does now when asked to stop her campaign of harassing BiDanFan. She'll pop up again soon acting like nothing happened.

Bidanfan @233 Margarita @222-223 Harriet @226 Erica @221
Our beds aren't Equal Opportunity spaces! I have repeatedly said that NADS isn't required to start dating bisexual men. Nor is Erica required to date Germans.

Both should evaluate their reasons why, and do their best to make sure any negative attitudes aren't leaking into other areas of their lives.

@228 cockyballsup: I'm sorry to hear that you are leaving the comment thread! I have seen LavaGirl's comments earlier in this week's thread and I didn't get the feeling she was blocked or gang-cancelled from the comment thread. If this is the case, I will miss both you and LavaGirl very much. Your shared viewpoints have quite often been been helpful and appreciated.

Harriet @224 Philophile @226
Yes, it's reasonable for her to reject anyone, for any reason. However, if she is rejecting them by saying "I don't date bisexual men because they (all cheat) (have AIDS) (are sissies)..." that isn't reasonable. She should keep her reasons to herself!

🎶I don't need your reasons, don't tell me, 'cause it hurts!🎶

As to why she should introspect even if she doesn't change her dating habits, she cares enough to write in and ask if she's biphobic. Our collective answer is " we don't know, are you?"

So, she needs to look inward for the answer, or write in with more details. Plus, as I mentioned before, if she is biphobic, it's likely that she feels the same way about bisexual men who she isn't dating. That could affect how she treats them.

Harriet @224 like you, I don't assume that people who reject me are biphobic. Plus, like Philophile @226, I don't want to be with someone who doesn't want to be with me and/or isn't attracted to me. The sooner I find out, the better!

Opal @235, I too have repeatedly said that she's not required to date bisexual men, nor is Erica required to date Germans, nor was my ex required to date an American, and that as a matter of fact he shouldn't have. I don't think anyone here is arguing that she should. We're simply debating exactly how bad a person this policy, which she's completely entitled to, makes her.

Roll on next week's column!

@Opalescent
How about this
https://artdaily.cc/imagenes/2015/08/04/opal-2.jpg
"the best opal stone ever found"
per https://artdaily.cc/news/80497/The-finest-opal-ever-unearthed-will-be-publicly-displayed-for-the-first-time-in-Australia

It's name, the "Virgin Rainbow" opal, is somewhat SL-ish.

In case you might like it, I've cropped it a bit for the little avatar box:
https://i.ibb.co/8jHNrPS/Opalescent.png

Ha! NADS thought that was a quick question. ;)

To use an avatar one needs to go into one's Stranger account.
At the top of the page in the gray bar, just below the red box you see:

On Desktop, "Support the Stranger"; click on the icon just to the right of it and select Account.
or
On Mobile, click on Menu, then at the bottom of the dark gray box click on Account.

Under Profile Picture, click on an option that might say "Change your picture".
To upload a photo from a web URL, select the Web Address tab.

This conversation is going in increasingly weird circles.

A: I wouldn’t date date ----- people. Does this make me ------phobic?
B: You’re not obligated to date anyone. Your statement does sound ------phobic, but without knowing your reasons, I can’t really say.
A: I don’t need to give reasons! I’m not obligated to date anyone!
B: Yes, that’s what I just said. In fact, you probably shouldn’t date ----- people, if that’s how you feel, as it probably won’t be a great experience for them.
A: Are you telling me I should force myself to date ----- people, otherwise I’m -----phobic?!

I don't see any point in continuing with this. If anyone is interested, they can google "biphobia + dating" or "racism + dating", and find out what bi people and and POC think about these ~preferences~. There are quite a few good articles, prompted by the "zero tolerance" policies adopted by Grindr and Bumble in 2020. And no, you're not obligated to read them either.

Margarita@243
What a wonderful comment.

"I don't see any point in continuing with this."

I was already there last week (before Dan touched on it as a quickie).

"I wouldn’t date date ----- people. Does this make me ------phobic?"

if they have to ask, and don't have any more to say or explain about it, what do they expect people to answer?

I believe everyone has categories they won't consider in their dating pool, whether that's based on looks, gender, sexuality, religion, politics, or, yes, race and national origin.

Nobody likes hearing they've been rejected for something they don't control, so we don't generally discuss these preferences and exclusions in public.

And perhaps I shouldn't have mentioned my aversion to dating Germans, but I decided it was worth the risk of losing people's respect (ie Lost Margarita @222) in order to broaden the discussion beyond "biphobia," which I think is an overly strong word for someone who otherwise respects bisexuals and treats them well.

@235. Opalescent. Of course no one is 'required' to date people of any social category whatever. The reductio of this would be saying that gays were required to date straights.

I might think that someone who I suspect (stress 'suspect') wants to fuck (not date) me, but doesn't, is transphobic; in my case, that's much more plausible than biphobic. However, we are probably still talking about my younger days.

@234. Bi. There is all the difference in the world between a 'clash' (using the term to refer to unpleasant, probably unproductive confrontations, that become a matter of who's right) and fining down the last 2% of disagreement with a congenial conversation-partner broadly on the same page as you. The purpose of the fining-down disagreement is either to find some common ground or to identify the stakes of a disagreement (which may, in the end, be no more than a difference of taste, or two people's tendency to define a situation in different normative terms). My motivation for taking an interest in, sometimes for proposing to explore, the last 2% of disagreement isn't to win any sort of argument. (If the person I'm talking to sees it as such, or is unable to adjudicate the merit or coherence of my points, then in all probability I've picked my spot badly, and am talking to the wrong person). 'Debate' is not a word I remember using.

For the avoidance of all doubt, I disapprove of inveigling others into psychologically costly, unprofitable conversations for the purposes of amusement--i.e. trolling. Playing devil's advocate in a theoretical discussion both people are enjoying, and where an interlocutor broadly understands the move--this is a different matter entirely. I think the theoretical discussions about sex, the 'sex war' and sexual politics, gender politics, the queer community, kink, potentially the most interesting part of the SL board--but it would seem I'm in a minority in this, in that the last few days of the week seem to descend, on average, into fractiousness, misunderstanding and sometimes ill-feeling.

Like, I'd be fine if my kid dated someone German. It's just a very particular aversion, due to some particular experiences I had, and I don't feel obligated to resolve these feelings for the benefit of hypothetical Germans who are otherwise a good match for me.

I actually think that's a better marker of bigotry -- would you be upset if your kid dated someone in X category? (Or was X category themselves)

EricaP@245
"perhaps I shouldn't have mentioned my aversion to dating Germans"

I know I found myself wondering.

But then I forgot about it. I like and respect EricaP, and she (unlike the LW) didn't invite us to ask about it, so I feel it is none of my business.

It was easy for me to imagine it might have something to do with all the many millions who died in WW2 and the Holocaust.

I would understand if, most of a century from now, people still couldn't forgive Americans for the occupation of Iraq etc. Hell if I lived elsewhere I might be reluctant to date Americans!

@245. Erica. We are no closer to knowing what qualities Germans have, or what qualities you attribute to them, that make them unsuitable candidates for your dating them. Nationality is nothing like race--there are plenty of Black, Turkish and Middle Eastern-origin Germans.

Of course you don't have to say if you don't want to.

/break/
Taking the other tack, let's suppose a bi woman who declares that she's only dating women from now on, because her last four lovers have all been men and proved themselves douches. They've revealed their douchey-ness in different gradual ways. The right thing to say here, it seems to me, isn't #notallmen: though notionally correct, the impulse is probably quite cheap, to affirm the validity of your identity at the expense of someone's feelings, and, as it were, casting doubt on her experience. A better response is to say, 'quite right' and to affirm her sexuality--and perhaps only then in the context of a long, supportive discussion to ask her whether she might not have awful taste in guys.

@249. curious. That would be a better explanation of drawing the line at dating Germans aged over 90.

Harriet @246, I already regret restarting this conversation, but I would just say that while you don't think you're having "clashes," the people you are clashing with may beg to differ.

BDF @241 - "quick question," indeed!

Lost Marg @243, Curious @244 - yes. I was very over this conversation and where it was headed last week. I was more than a little dismayed to see Quickie Letter #1 this week. I haven't been following comments very closely at all this week, but folks seem to have been able to keep the conversation fairly civil while bringing up various sensitive topics. I don't feel like I've really had anything of value to add this week, without straying into the realm of a straight lady's hypothetical opinions about situations she's never been in.

I also meant to shout out Venn for the fantastic and apt term "wokescolding." I can't help but feel like LW1 is creating an unnecessary hand-wringing situation for herself, where a dating preference gets blown disproportionately into a "phobia" (the latter term used to mean something very specific, but culturally I feel like it's a term that's getting overused and its meaning is therefore being watered down [ditto a lot of mental health adjacent terms]). Didn't we once get a letter from a female LW who was wringing her hands over possibly fetishizing her bi BF because she was so hot for his bi-ness (Dan's advice being that she needed to CTFD)?

Long story short, the current direction of culture's pendulum is such that many people are in constant fear of being labeled as some kind of "-ist" and its implications are varied to say the least.

Harriet @249 "We are no closer to knowing what qualities Germans have, or what qualities you attribute to them, that make them unsuitable candidates for your dating them. ... Of course you don't have to say if you don't want to."

Indeed.

Harriet @250, I hate myself for laughing, but that was brilliant.

Venn @230, when you say her family was from "the wrong county", do you mean the girl was Catholic and the boyfriend's mother Protestant? I was in Belfast last year and it was fucking INTENSE. Can't really say much more about it, except I hope that Irish expat families do get over the whole "my Jesus is better than your Jesus" thing, eventually.

A new column is up.

BiDanFan @82: Thank you for the kind welcome! :)

Harriet @162: I was thinking of "aversion" as involving something visceral, like recoil or disgust, as you suggested, but also visceral in the sense that it is deeply felt and not based on reason. I would also include a very strong intellectual disinclination, but not a mild disinclination or one that could be easily changed.

@258 Electrophile: Welcome to Savage Love! I like your avatar. :)

I know this is SO late into this week's SL column, as a new one for this week, Savage Love: Switched On has already started as curious2 @257 announced, but....is there anybody still hungry for a Lucky Numbers Game numeric honor since we're so close to hitting the Triple Whammy @269? Tick...tick...tick...

Otherwise, onto our newest Savage Love installment for the week of May 4th. :)

Dan is completely right in telling ICBTRO "if you want to be with him for as long as you can, you've gotta get a grip on your insecurities."

The one thing I'd add to Dan's advice is to ask ICBTRO -- Have you had a serious conversation with your partner about this issue? You might try sitting down with him and showing him your letter and Dan's answer, and asking him whether Dan is right that you should be talking to a shrink. If he says you seem well-grounded, maybe he could write you a letter about all the awesome aspects he loves about you, and you could try referring to that letter every time you feel a wave of insecurity.

Maybe he loves the happy noises you make when he fucks you, maybe he's envious of the closeness of your friendships, maybe your looks are exactly what turn him on. Have the conversation and find out!

EricaP@260
This was meant for the new comments section at https://www.thestranger.com/savage-love/2021/05/04/57140437/savage-love/comments

@260 EricaP: Bravo and SO well said and summarized, re ICBTRO, Erica! :)

@261 curious2: Thank you, too, for mentioning EricaP's spot on comment in the new Savage Love column for May 4th. :)

Ms Lost - I have a sense they were all Roman Catholics and it was just a case of one county's hatred for another. I don't recall his ever saying which was his mother's native county.

Me @260 - whoops! Apologies for posting in the wrong thread! That's what happens when I type in a word doc and then paste into the thread when I have too many tabs open!

Electrophile @258 thanks for joining us! I agree that visceral reactions usually aren't changeable by mere logic! It's interesting that you bring up intellectual or philosophical aversion as well. I think that is more common in a political context.

Fox @253 I agree that "homo/bi/trans-phobia" are misnomers. Unfortunately, we're stuck with them. I don't know why they didn't use the "-ist/-ism" suffix instead.

To address your and Philophile @127 & 227, I disagree that using "phobia" implies that they are mentally ill. That terminology is only used for people with extreme phobias that impact their lives, such as severe agoraphobia.

People frequently have fear of public speaking or spiders, but don't need treatment for it. I think it's been watered down in a non-clinical context, much like narcissist.

Harriet @246 "The devil doesn't need an advocate. The brave need supporters, not critics.” — Seth Godin

So far, I'm enjoying our discussion. The "why would they introspect if they weren't considering whether their reasons are good enough" felt like an attempted gotcha or being deliberately obtuse. I'm not sure if that was one of your examples, or if it was genuine confusion!

The whole reason we're having yhis circular discussion is that Philophile @227/etc is insisting that we are pressuring NADS to date bisexual men, even though NOBODY, including BiDanFan is doing so. sighs

Harriet @249 I know a few bisexual women who have sworn off men for those reasons. Nearly all of them changed their mind after they got over the breakup.

I agree that "not all men"-ing at them is neither helpful nor kind. I find it difficult to be as supportive of them as usual, especially if they are making negative generalizations about men.

It pokes my trauma buttons, because I used to be very fearful of men/boys due to being bullied and abused. I find myself becoming more skittish, sometimes for days afterwards.

So, I try to walk the line between giving them the support they need, and protecting myself.

Curious @240/242 The Incel...err...Virgin Rainbow is spectacular! I would love to have it as my avatar, if it doesn't get us in trouble for copyright issues!

Philophile @227
"Does that clear up our argument? I'm not sure what you're looking for?"
Unfortunately, I don't think it does, but like Margarita said, I don't think it's productive to argue about it any more!

"I agree with the vast majority of your ideas, but not that someone is being intentionally mean by calling a woman a fat ugly bitch after a polite rejection. We can never know someone's intentions."

I can't read people's minds. I challenge you to come up with a single example of someone using the phrase "fat, ugly bitch" without intending the subject to be hurt and insulted (aside from consensual humiliation play). That's the reason anybody uses that phrase, especially in the context of romantic rejection.

We seem to have different definitions or perspectives on being mean, that ties into intention. To me, if someone accidentally says something hurtful (not knowing it would upset them), they aren't being mean.

If they reject someone, and that hurts the other person's feelings, but they didn't say anything rude or insulting, they aren't being mean.

If they intend to cause unconsensual, un-negotiated emotional pain, they are being mean. Meanness inherently requires deliberately intent, in my point of view.

"It's clear that they are ethically confused if they think name calling is not mean."
They aren't confused. They know name calling is mean. That's why they are name calling! They aren't ethical, either!

Opal, yes, I think I see our disagreement now.

I think that harming someone else is always mean. I try to never presume to know when someone intended harm unless they say they did.

Benevolent sexism is mean because it undermines women's successful completion of tasks and sense of well being consistently in research studies. But it does feel good when guys open doors for us, so a lot of us only disagree with hostile sexism. But realistically, in cultures where BS is tolerated, HS is too. Lots of people don't even realize that by using sexist stereotypes they are perpetuating sexism, despite the research or logical arguments.

Lots of people think revenge is not mean or self harming! I bet the guy who lost his rag thought sexual rejection was unethical and deserving of revenge because it made him feel bad, and he was acting completely fairly by insulting you back. Pain for pain, revenge is a very popular idea, before "turn the other cheek" there was "eye for an eye". Many groups of people are really ethically confused, our last president seemed extremely confused about ethics.

My complaint about commenters was about attaching negative labels to people solely because of who they chose to date or reject. I think that's mean, but not that they intend to be mean.

I understand that racist dating is a big thing in the US. But I don't believe the solution is to shame people into dating more races, but to come down harder on anyone who gives the "wrong" race, or interracial couples, a hard time. Possibly incentive interracial dating, at least spread awareness about the current dating trends and how they are racially biased, but definitely not shame anyone into interracial dating.

I'm getting mixed messages. If you don't like talking about this, please stop writing to me about it.

Philophile @271
I felt like we were stuck in a loop on this particular topic, but in general, I enjoy talking with you so far.

"England and America are two countries separated by the same language" -George Bernard Shaw
It's true on an individual basis, too!

I was genuinely bewildered by your claiming that BiDanFan was accusing NADS of being mean. By the definition of mean that I use, that isn't true, and I couldn't figure out why you thought so.

I tried to explain my understanding of what BiDanFan was actually saying, and adding my own thoughts.

Now that I understand you are saying we are telling NADS that she might be inadvertently hurting people's feelings with her views about bisexual men, I agree with you.

I am not trying to shame her into dating bisexual men. I think that she should try to make sure that her views about bisexual men aren't accidentally harming bisexual men who she isn't dating.

I'm not labeling her as biphobic, or saying that she is always biased against bisexual men. She can have some specific opinions or misunderstandings about bisexual men that are untrue of all of them, even if they are common. Stereotypes can be based in truth, but aren't universally true.

Sometimes we need to do a little weeding and pruning in our mental gardens. Sometimes we need to consider how we phrase things, to do our best not to cause harm.

Philophile @271
I don't understand what you mean by incentivizing interracial dating. Do you mean tax breaks?

The men I have dated could pose for a United Colors of Benetton ad! It doesn't prove conclusively that I'm not racist. I might discover a bit of racial bias about something I had never considered before. That wouldn't prove that I am a racist person, just that I was influenced by racism on that particular topic.

Someone can refuse to date people who aren't the same race, or who are a specific race, without being racist.

Violence being directed at them or their partner for interracial dating is a very legitimate concern.

They might not be attracted to them visually, or might have a fetish for red hair or blue eyes or something.

Or, they might actually have some racially biased views. In that case, they should not date people who are that race. Nobod, including themselves, should pressure or shame them into it.

However, they should evaluate whether expressing those views would be hurtful to people from that group who aren't trying to date them.

Even if they never do or say anything outright racist, their attitude can leak through when they interact with people of that race (or sexuality, or whatever). That can cause harm, without any intent.

Philophile @271
I guess it boils down to NADS isn't automatically biphobic or bigoted just because she won't date bisexual men.

However, she might or might not be refusing to date bisexual men because she's biphobic.

We don't know. She has given insufficient data to figure it out. So, she never to answer her own question herself.

Oops, predictive text messed up. That should say she needs to figure it out, not never.

Opal@273
"by incentivizing interracial dating. Do you mean tax breaks?"

I don't think I've ever laughed so hard at my computer screen! (Yes, I'm an economics nerd too.)

Curious @276
I'm glad I gave you a laugh! Seriously, I can't think of any other ways that the US government could incentivize biracial dating!

Opal, We agree about most. But I'd prefer to assume innocent until proven guilty (of harming someone). And unintentional unless they tell me they want to hurt me, or hurt me the same way after apologizing, or don't seem interested in ethical complaints sort of sociopathicly. So truly "intentionally" or not they will realistically continue to hurt me. But I have no problem saying that it looks bad that she announced her preferences with minimal shame (she didn't seem proud of her bias tho), no associated reasoning, and most importantly without confirming she had bisexual friends or otherwise treated that group well. And I also think it's mean to reject people without "it's not you, it's me". Or an ethical complaint.

Yes, I was thinking of tax breaks for interracial couples. Even a day they get free meals like veterans day would be something. To provide some systemic incentive rather than fear for once. I don't know about interorientation relationships, is it really bad if monosexual and bisexual people mostly date in-group? Again I think the problem is the danger that open homosexual couples and polycules face in public, or at work, school etc that is the big problem.

It isn't automatically bad for people to date inside their groups. They aren't automatically bad people for not dating people outside their group. Nobody has said either, in this entire comment thread.

There's already a national holiday celebrating interracial marriage: https://nationaldaycalendar.com/days-2/national-loving-day-june-12/

I agree it should get more visibility! I thought it was like Valentine's Day, because of the name. I didn't make the connection to Loving vs. Virginia until I looked it up.

Opal@279
That's so cool that there's a (albeit very little known) holiday!

I personally have been so frustrated with racism, that I've felt that were I to reproduce I'd like the kids to be mixed. Ya know, as a magic way to undermine racism by undermining racial divides.

Unfortunately I never really wanted kids though. So I could only enjoy dating outside my group.

I love that you used that avatar photo. I'm absolutely nuts about rocks (It has never come up here, but I'm a very serious student of geoscience.) It blows my mind that there's a rock that looks like that one.

Curious @280 that's really cool! I enjoy different stones, and a friend/playpartner of mine is a geologist. I really love that opals change whenever you get a different perspective! I think it's a good metaphor.

Withnail and I: people tried to sell me on this movie, I never liked it, but not because it's homophobic. This is a sad movie, ultimately about the '60's, an "end of an era" and coming-of-age movie. It's basically American Graffiti in the English countryside, but darker and with all men. But it is also a conservative/conformist apologist story, about how "going straight" was a natural part of growing up in that time. Anyone who is judging should watch it and keep in mind the time period, not to excuse the stereotypes, but to remind yourself the characters are immersed in those stereotypes. The scare tactics with the predatory gay uncle I think is part of the point. Richard E. Grant is so great but ultimately you feel sorry for him and are being asked to identify with the friend who "grows up" and moves on. Sad movie. Again, I didn't like it, but I think I understand it better than some commenters.