@100: And as I've said repeatedly, if ALPHA were ascertaining that the men he interacted with knew that he got off on humiliating them and got enthusiastic consent, I doubt any of us here would have a problem. It wouldn't seem to be that difficult for ALPHA to find such men.
I'd also like to know why you get to draw the line and others, including straight people and those who don't have a humiliation kink don't?

@100 cont.
I mean, how nice would it be if only the people who actually shared the characteristics set the rules SAID EVERY WOMAN EVERYWHERE.

Not happening. And I don't see too many men up in arms about what's happening to abortion, or trying to continue to ratify the ERA, or the lack of a male contraceptive equivalent to The Pill, or the way women who report sexual assault are (not) listened to or believed or counted.

I guess if women have to live under the repressive and dangerous rules and laws that men have put in place, the gay bottoms with humiliation kinks will just have to deal with the fact that straight people and those not into being humiliated against their knowledge will have opinions.

Actually, I think ALPHA's actions may well lead on and hurt vulnerable guys who don't have a humiliation kink; I'm open in principle to bouncing's line of thought that he could be doing a lot of damage. But I don't think not-in-demand feminine bottoms (of whom I was one, when I was playing the field) need the same protection from being toyed with or e.g. objectified as straight women. This is partly because of circumstances (the male bottoms are not at the same risk of violence and institutional cover-up), and partly for reasons of culture: bottoming is kinky humiliation and denial-adjacent, or comes to terms with those things, makes peace with them, in a way that getting little play as a straight woman is not and doesn't. In this sense ethics may be situational, and broad-brush moralists intrusive.

Tell you what, Harriet: I'll only comment on letters written by, for, and about straight women, if you only comment on gay men who are "feminine bottoms."

No? I didn't think so.

And cue you telling me that I deny the existence of trans people in 3 . . . 2 . . . 1 . . .

nocute@102
"I don't see too many men up in arms about"

I promise many of us are.

"those not into being humiliated against their knowledge will have opinions"

And how /dare/ they have opinions! Do they not realize that, in order that those who are into being humiliated will have every drop of humiliation they wish, those WHO ARE NOT into it must be subjected to it against their knowledge too?

That's how insane this playing of the humiliation subculture card is. I support subcultures including of course that one, and I think it's shameful that their card be played against the good people here by a malicious troll whose MO is to get under people's skin and play dumb.

nocute@104
"if you only comment on gay men who are "feminine bottoms.""

Perhaps there's some amount of money that could get Harriet to agree to that. If so my checkbook is ready for a Kickstarter.

@101. Nocute. It isn't me who gets to draw the line. I'm not saying that, I'm not claiming that right. I'm only saying that I see reasons why it should fall to the famed Jonathan Cheves, rather than to someone with no sympathy with the subculture of groveling before sadistic straight Doms.

The danger with a non-gay, non-sub, non-degradee implementing an all-purpose rule ('don't actually abase yourself', 'don't actually dehumanise yourself') is that it winds up stigmatising sex that people enjoy, or in theory prohibiting the sex e.g. as not between equals, or arising out of manipulated consent. We are actually in agreement, and were never not in agreement, on the point of there being a huge difference, a faultline, between ALPHA teasing guys with humiliation fetishes and his potentially ensnaring the credulous and vulnerable. Perhaps the difference is that I'm more inclined to think the mores of a dating/hookup subculture put in place a set-up where consent to the unequal power dynamic of the withholding top and anguished sub is assumed.

My view is far closer to your concern over ALPHA's destructiveness than Dan's or Mr Cheves's is. I applauded Dan for putting Cheves up on the grounds that it's right for an abject, maybe straight-fetishising sub to allay the self-doubts of a humiliating Dom.

Harriet@107
"I see reasons why it should fall to the famed Jonathan Cheves, rather than to someone with no sympathy with the subculture of groveling before sadistic straight Doms."

1) Absolutely every damn person here has that sympathy. And the rest of us more than you, for playing their card in your sick game here.

2) In any case, that sympathy has zero to do with his malicious actions towards people who he subjects to it without their knowledge. Which is the primary thing that is wrong about his actions.

3) Even as for the sociopathy that nocute has discussed, that sympathy has zero to do with it. Because it's not his actions, but his mental unhealth, that is the problem there, and members of that subculture have no special standing in evaluating that jerk's mental health. (You less than almost anyone ever.) In other words, no matter how happy a small subset of the people he interacts with are, we all equally can see that * he * is a mucking fess. If you think he's not because YOU like something about it, that's because you are a mucking fess.

@101. Nocute. It isn't me who gets to draw the line. I'm not saying that, I'm not claiming that right. I'm only saying that I see reasons why it should fall to the famed Jonathan Cheves, rather than to someone with no sympathy with the subculture of groveling before sadistic straight Doms.

The danger with a non-gay, non-sub, non-degradee implementing an all-purpose rule ('don't actually abase yourself', 'don't actually dehumanise yourself') is that it winds up stigmatising sex that people enjoy, or in theory prohibiting the sex e.g. as not between equals, or arising out of manipulated consent. We are actually in agreement, and were never not in agreement, on the point of there being a huge difference, a faultline, between ALPHA teasing guys with humiliation fetishes and his potentially ensnaring the credulous and vulnerable. Perhaps the difference is that I'm more inclined to think the mores of a dating/hookup subculture put in place a set-up where consent to the unequal power dynamic of the withholding top and anguished sub is assumed.

My view is far closer to your concern over ALPHA's destructiveness than Dan's or Mr Cheves's is. I applauded Dan for putting Cheves up on the grounds that it's right for an abject, maybe straight-fetishising sub to allay the self-doubts of a humiliating Dom.

Right on schedule. Time to remind people of the SlogBlocker browser add-on.

@nocute
after writing @108, it occurs to me that while I wrote earlier that bad consequences from good intentions aren't wrong, I'm saying @108 part 3 that good consequences from bad intentions aren't wrong: that they are instead mental unhealth. By good consequences of course I'm talking about the small subset of the people he interacts with who by luck happen to like it. I think that he's lucked into not doing them any wrong; in other words I think he's doing them good because he's sick. Bad intentions alone that they don't know about can't hurt them.

@108. curious. Only 'sympathy' in the sense of being sensitized to degradation and abasement in fantasy and in play, as against the not-in-control abasement of a dangerous openness to others and loss of self.

People can disagree with you without trolling you. There's more overlap between your and my views here than between yours and the views of Alexander Cleves and Daniel Savage. Are Savage and Cleves trolling you?

@104. Nocute. You were not in fact one of the people I had in mind when I called the across-the-board moralists unwelcome for applying a single concept of consent to a subculture. There were many, many more people who vituperated ALPHA more strongly and ruled the guest expert's judgment out of court without a thought. Your response was much more considered, asking what harm his roleplaying or power trip was in fact doing, which was why I responded to you.

There is a narrow ground of agreement between us, to do with ALPHA needing to secure consent for his humiliation (giving) fetish in some way, and I thought we were about to specify or land on it. If you've moved away from being about to do that, or gotten upset, I don't see it's anything to do with me (?). I did not say that people outside a particular Domming / straight fetishisation subculture could have no valid perceptions of, nothing to say about, that subculture. My point was about its being easier to misidentify or overgeneralise consent if not attuned to subcultural norms.

For the record, I do not have a humiliation fetish.

You disapprove of ALPHA because he bigs himself up by cruelly teasing gays. There seems to be something essentially homophobic in how he earns or performs his straightness. Yes, when someone puts it like that. But some gay people's fetishisation, as a sexual fantasy, of imaginary straight dominance is not objectionable--nor is the corresponding fantasy of the malleable dependence of gay bottoms. I don't think you meant to go there?

@108. curious. I didn't say ALPHA, in sincerely putting himself before us, called for our compassion and 'tender treatment' because I thought he was a basically nice guy, and further because he was offering something I thought hot. (Incidentally, I don't). He called for our compassion because he was, potentially, a mucking fess. It could be, as Cheves thinks, that with some slight readjustment of self-conception, he could have a hot kink that gave pleasure to giver and receiver; or he could be psychologically trapped into doing something premissed on vindictively getting the better of sub-by gays. I think you have a mistaken impression of early posts of mine you may not have read.

Erica, I think "accept hard limits" is less about saying that every price of admission is worth paying, and more about saying that every price of admission is valid and deserves respect without arguing about it. Accept as in "don't fight and complain about it" rather than "pay it".

Harriet, "I'm more inclined to think the mores of a dating/hookup subculture put in place a set-up where consent to the unequal power dynamic of the withholding top and anguished sub is assumed."
So you think dating apps assume either a withholding top or anguished sub? You seem to be suggesting that people seek satisfying sex or friendly romantic relationships.. Vanilla romance.. on fringe apps and leave the mainstream ones to kinksters. I'm not sure that's realistic, on the one hand I've seen fringe apps that cater to vanilla romance, on the other hand it seems really sad and socially fractured if so few people really want satisfying sex and friendliness as their romantic basis. Separately, scolding people for expressing opinions about other subgroups seems illogical thus ineffective, but I do like when you express your often-alternative opinions respectfully.

Re morality, Intentions vs consequences.. I'd rather spend time with someone who committed manslaughter through neglect and expressed great remorse than with someone who unsuccessfully plotted and attempted to kill another, although neither seems pleasant.

Also, honesty can be used vindictively and is not automatically deserving of compassion. Even neglectful or ignorant honesty can try the patience, especially if it is aggressive.

Re Harriet vs NoCute: Harriet, I have a (now long-distance) partner who is a bisexual male and who is into various forms of humiliation. I won't go into detail in case you throw them back at me later. So you can't say that everyone who is judging ALPHA negatively is doing so because they don't have any understanding or experience with humiliation as a kink. Like all kinks, humiliation must be CONSENSUAL. There is nothing in ALPHA's letter that suggests the humiliation he is subjecting his, I'll say it, targets to is consensual. If it were, then perhaps the "I'm straight and better than you" aspect of his motivation might be questionable, but no more or less so than any sort of sadist tendency really. Societal trends which are problematic are often fetishised -- from men dominating women to Nazi roleplay -- and Dan and the sex positive community here at Savage Love adopts a "whatever gets you hard/wet, just don't let your fetish get confused with reality" attitude. You're being wilfully obtuse if you think we are reacting differently to this particular kink just because it involves a subculture we're not part of. If gay men WANT to be humiliated by straight ones, have at it. If ALPHA is lucking into the men who enjoy humiliation -- as I'm sure some do -- then great, but it shouldn't be a question of luck, it should be a question of informed consent. It's not sex negative or "misunderstanding a subculture" to state that it's only ethical to humiliate people who have specifically requested or consented to it. So no, consent should not be assumed just because someone is on a (multi-purpose) dating app, nor because they have a certain body type, nor because they responded positively to a message from a masculine straight man. As with all kinks, what both parties want should be negotiated. It's silly to argue otherwise and insulting to adopt a victim status in doing so.

curious @96-97

"In other words there already is shit coming out of Harriet's mouth"

"Most offensive is how Harriet vomits up the red herring of the subculture card"

I've said this before, and will say it again, in the kindest way I can muster: please learn to control yourself. It's one thing to disagree, but that was WAY over the line. I've reported you before for your hounding and personal attacks, and would happily do it again. It blows my mind how you repeatedly throw out the most vicious personal insults, and everyone else on this board just looks the other way, because "oh well, I don't like Lava/ Harriet either". If you said to anyone else here that they had shit coming out of their mouth or vomiting up whatever, there would have been a huge uproar.

NOBODY deserves to be spoken to like that, whatever you may think of their commenting style. Don't like what they have to say = don't read, don't respond, problem solved. Disgusting.

Margarita @118, fair. Curious, if Harriet winds you up so much, why not mute or block them. I have muted them but Nocute's side of the debate was interesting enough for me to take a look at Harriet's side. They seem to be arguing, "Well I'm a thicc feminine queer man/amab person, and I'd find this sort of humiliation fun, therefore we must presume it's consensual for all of the thicc feminine queer men ALPHA is contacting, and no one outside that demographic can say otherwise." Well, Bouncing has said otherwise, so that argument is invalid.

Thank you Margarita for standing up for Harriet & against the bully boy, curious.
Have no issue Harriet being on the same team as you.. in terms of how some here perceive things.

I agree with Harriet, BDF and others who said that ALPHA is probably not straight. To me, the whole letter just screamed "closet case with a lot of internalised homophobia". I automatically assumed that he was very young and angrily working through a "doth protest too much" phase, which sometimes preceeds a coming out. The letter had all the signs of denial, from "earning my heterosexuality" by engaging with men, to feeling superior to the more camp and feminine gay men, to "I'm only doing this for a power trip", to "I got head from guys a few times(!) but I'm really not interested in men AT ALL".

But re-reading the letter again, I see that ALPHA is 26, which isn't that young. Still, a mid-20s identity crisis is common enough. I predict he'd be fully out as bi or gay in a year or so, and would then hopefully chill out enough to pursue his kicks in a more ethical way. My guess is that right now, he probably can't bring himself to be honest with the men he approaches, and say what his deal is upfront, because the whole thing is shrouded in shame, denial and confusion for him. He doesn't explicitly say so, but I bet his forays into Grindr follow a "binge and purge" pattern.

On the other hand, I also find the "fake fantasy letter by a gay bottom" theory pretty plausible.

Nocute @84

"Female genital mutilation is an example of this. Although one could say that many other cultures are imposing their values on a culture's practices, most of the world sees this practice as a human rights violation. The United Nations condemns it."

Tbh, I don't think FGM is a good example to illustrate the point you were making about clear-cut (sorry about the pun) "universal wrongs". In the UK at least, there has been loads of discussion and disagreement about the laws relating to FGM, which led to several revisions and clarifications over the years. Most people agree that "extreme" forms of FGM on minors are abhorrent and should be outlawed, but beyond that it gets murky. Criminalisation of "genital mutilation" on consenting adult women is controversial, especially as it relates to cosmetic labiaplasty, genital piercings (both WHO and UK's Female Genital Mutilation Act of 2003 include "piercing or pricking" of genitals in the definition of FGM), and other genital body mods. At one point, NHS regulations obligated staff to record genital piercings on female patients as "FGM", and many tattoo parlours stopped offering genital piercings for women for fear of prosecution (although actual prosecution cases for FGM remain very rare). In 2019, the government issued a clarification that piercings and cosmetic surgery will not be regarded as FGM, but other recreational genital body mods remain a grey area. Having read a bit about it, it's clear to me that the FGM law in the UK is deliberately phrased very vaguely to allow for wiggle room and selective enforcement, and that racist assumptions do feed into it.

@115. Philophile. I wanted to say something more specific. The dating app subculture I was talking about concerned strict tops approaching subby, probably not in-demand bottoms. I think it's reasonable to think, in those circumstances, that some of the pleasure the sub correspondents get from interacting takes into account the likelihood that the Dom won't choose them and is entering into some sort of humiliation or denial game. This may be wrong, and perhaps we could only speak here of probability. If you look at Alison's contributions to the thread, where she says that men must know they're going through the motions of fantasy in how they talk on websites and apps, you would get an idea of what I'm saying. (However, Alison may think that men on apps are fantasists more generally than I do, and she seems a bit surer than the guys that ALPHA is approaching are in on the kink that I am).

I did not say, or want to suggest, that people outside the humiliation kink subculture should refrain from commenting on the morality of the behavior of any person within it. 'Unwelcome' was an unfortunate choice of word. It meant not 'stay out, don't comment' but 'outsiders are likely to be wrong on where the line between consent and non-consent is'--and I still think this; I can't help trusting a commenter like Alexander Cleves more than I trust people like curious and fubar. The whole remark was that I don't think it's possible to frame a universal idea of consent such that it creates a level playing-field between every possible person and person of every possible taste and kink looking for casual sex. The single idea of consent will favor people who can get sex easily and disadvantage or stigmatise those who find sex hard to come by.

Let me chime in as a gay guy.

The answer to LW1 sucks parasite-infested ass.

I disagree vehemently that harriet and raindrop represent anything but a tiny minority view in gay culture of ALPHA's behavior. I am offended that some here are taking them as somehow speaking for us.

This flaky and degrading behavior by straight, bi, and gay assholes is bemoaned by literally EVERY single gay guy I have ever talked with regarding Grindr and other apps. It is a big part of why depression and suicide are epidemic in the gay community. It is the top reason I deleted all my accounts a month ago and decided to just be alone if that's what it takes to be free of this toxicity.

Cocky @124: Thank you, and sending hugs.

BDF@119
"They seem to be arguing..."

Yes, I think I characterized Harriet's 'argumement' that way too.

"that argument is invalid."

Yes, and that was my point. And that presenting invalid arguments is part of Harriet's game. I will try to be at peace with seeing Harriet toy with y'all that way.

@125. cocky. I have been at pains to say that I am not speaking for gay people or gay bottoms. Bi, for example, said that she would defer to the opinion of gay bottoms, and Nocute wondered whether anyone was actually harmed by ALPHA's online-only bait-and-switch. I made clear that we were not simply talking about bottoms here; and that the only population that ALPHA could safely address were guys into straights Doms with a humiliation kink. I said, further, that not all bottoms wanted to be dealt with 'cruelly or high-handedly'.

Guys fetishising straight Dominance are a thing. I'm not going to find them deplorable (leave that to venn). There has been no question of how large a subsection of gay subs they represent.

I don't know whether Raindrop is trolling you (y'all) but I am not, and I don't think that Daniel Savage and Alexander Cheves are. Your beef is with them, not with me.

I'm not on the apps either. Fifty year old plus office-worker's ass--it's not going to get a great deal of play. This isn't the way I date or have sex anymore. Mr Cheves to me sounds young. I think it gets wearing for all your lovers to be beasts, or potentially beasts, or actual sadists rather than creatively in-role sadists; and that as you get older, you come to need a bit more reliability and support, and to accept a bit less excitement or edge-of-the-seat being pushed in whatever casual roleplay you can get. Even so, Cheves is clearly right that humiliation and denial are kinks.

Margarita @118: It’s a recurring theme that a certain commenter, often reasonable and interesting, has a penchant for throwing out bombs, getting under others’ skins with ad hominem personal insinuations, and then prodding and poking like a cat with an injured bird, all the while playing dumb. I’ve been on the receiving end of that, and it’s not fun, especially when everyone else on this board looks the other way, because “oh well, at least it’s not me this time."

Kudos to Curious for attempting to support nocutename, even at the cost of losing his cool. Personally, like BiDanFan @119, I employ the SlogBlocker to mute that commenter, in my case having realized that I’m just too easy a mark.

I’ve said all I have to say about ALPHA, so I’ll say it again using more words: one doesn’t have to be a member of a subculture to understand the meaning of informed consent, and members of a subculture don't get to rule that people who /appear/ to be members can be treated as such without their consent.

In the kink community, it’s required and assumed that consent is obtained and sustained. Thicc gay bottom-presenting people are not denied that right because some of them enjoy being abused. I know a number of men who enjoy a cattle prod to the testicles, yet one cannot walk up to a stranger at a party and electrocute their balls. It’s not complicated.

p.s. to my @126
"I will try to be at peace with seeing Harriet toy with y'all that way."

Clearly, if I am to be "happily..reported" (Lost@118) for trying to do something about Harriet toying with people who (unlike me) read Harriet's comments, it is not wished that I try to do anything further about it. As it is wished and threatened that I do, I will be will be more than happy to leave Harriet to it. It certainly wasn't for my benefit that I did any of it.

Harriet @127, may I suggest taking up lots of walking, it’s a good way to get office- workers’ bums into good shape. And gives one a chance to enjoy the world at the same time.

@118. Lost. Thank you. The problem is that comments like 'shit is coming out of Harriet's mouth', from someone who has not actually read my comments, primes people against me before they weigh the merit of my contributions. They may not actually think that shit is coming out of my mouth, but they're likely to consider there may be something sus about my line if someone dislikes me so much. I reported curious's comment as abusive: not that I would want to prevent him speaking generally, but I'd like him to be restrained from addressing me in that manner.

@122. Lost. Nocute seems to have understood me as saying something like 'we have to accept the practices of any community e.g. a sexual subculture, rather than saying some things are wrong'. This wasn't my point. The point was that one cannot 'define ... universal standards of ... consent [such that] everyone will stand a[n] equal chance of getting [e.g.] a fun fuck or a relationship'. This is a quotation from @82--what I said, rather than what anyone might think I said. To fill this in a bit more, as a down-the-pecking-order feminine bottom, I have in the past acted in what some might think as demeaning or cheapening ways to get laid e.g. going to bathhouses. I do not want someone who can easily get laid (though maybe not as they'd wish) telling me I've violated some ethical norm e.g. of my abjecting myself.

@120. Lava. Good to see you again! Hoping you're well.

@119. Bi. Rather than guess at what I 'seem' to be saying, why not see what I actually said? I said @113, 'for the record, I do not have a humiliation fetish'. (In the past, I've liked randos fucking me to say e.g. 'you like it, you fat faggot', but, more, I've found it amusing--like, 'I' like it? I'm the one who likes it? That's the news? And it's refreshing to be addressed openly, but we're talking about something twenty years or so ago, and I do not seek out humiliation in my very rare casual encounters now).

What is with your 'versus', Harriet v. Nocute? As far as I know, I am not engaged in a formal debate. Nor do I think Nocute and I disagree. I spoke to her because she offered a more nuanced view of ALPHA than some people simply execrating him, and I thought we could find common ground (or, at least, that speaking to her was my opportunity for setting out a view that endorsed Dan and Cheves's position in such a way as it picked up specific points). Further, I am not actually the person who might think it a given that the people ALPHA was messaging were in on his humiliation kink. That would be Alison. Alison finds it implicit that guys talking about unrealistic sex on websites are working through fantasies (that is, that they know and don't know, simultaneously, that all the talk is in play, and that (at a certain level) they consent to its being a game). Her view goes further than mine; but I think it possible that ALPHA's account of who he chooses to message gets into the spirit of his kink, and that he under-emphasises how the messaging on both sides is tacitly consensual.

What I said was that 'the background against which ALPHA messages [people ... should] involve[] an acknowledgement, on both sides, of these [kinky] interests'. (Again, an actual quote from @82). Isn't this your view and Nocute's view? There is no 'versus'. For reasons to do with my past commenting history or disagreements with other posters (which are irrelevant), you seem to be have a disagreement with me when you could more appropriately be having one with alison cummins, Dan or Alexander Cleves.

@130. Lava. I walk in the mountains, thank you. My sex life is good. During the second lockdown, unlike the first, I was away from my partner (who does not live with me throughout the year for work reasons) and found myself in a polycule, for want of a better word. It was too much drama, the wrong sort of sex, and I thought I was too old for it. And I was glad to be too old for it. I'm actually personally in sympathy with bouncing and cocky more than I am with Alexander Cheves, but I am not going to stigmatise straight-fetishising or humiliation and denial kinks.

Hope you're well!

Yes yes, Harriet.. I’m good. Impressed with your self control in not reacting to how you’ve been treated by some. Well done.
LW, please adjust your motivation & try to treat others as you yourself would like to be treated.

Curious @126, yeah, I'm sure you did, but you phrased it in a way most people would have tuned out. I reckon a conclusion is stronger when more than one person reaches that conclusion independently.
As for Harriet's toying with us, there are a few options. You could let it make you angry. You could calmly address the flaws in their logic. Or you could ignore them completely. I'm 90% option C, 10% option B, depending on what else I have on my plate. Either seems better for the discourse and one's own mental health than option A.

Fubar @128, I'm sorry if you didn't feel supported when Harriet made you their cat toy. I just got frustrated and stopped even reading, aside from this week's exception. Thanks again for your SlogBlocker which made that possible!

p.s. to my @129
"I will be will be more than happy to leave Harriet to it. It certainly wasn't for my benefit that I did any of it."

As far as we know, the Report button's sole function is to get prople being booted from the board. There is a booted person from whom we heard that they recieved no notice let alone explanation, they simply tried to Comment one day and discovered that their account had disappeared.

As such, I have always regarded the use of the Report button as a very grave act; I have almost never used it; only in such extreme circumstances that almost always resulted in the people actually being booted.

As you can imagine, I am very far from pleased to hear that others have taken an action that would have me booted.

Most fascinating - these delightfully comprehensive and verbose deep dives on sexuality and the human condition.

BDF@134
"calmly address the flaws in their logic....Harriet made you their cat toy..I just got frustrated and stopped even reading"

After the last Harriet-gate a while back, Harriet posted that right then they were trying not to "wind people up". Harriet resisted her MO for a while.

As I return to Blocking Harriet, I'd like to mention that while that protects us from being cat toys, it leaves others who forget or are new to the board to being treated as cat toys.

I don't feel great about it, but since my effort to pop up and point this MO out occasionally has been met anything but thankfully, I shall enjoy and cherish the rest from doing so.

Curious @126-137

Nice bit of DARVO there. You're right, the report button is a last resort. I, too, only use it in extreme cases. I told you before that you were bullying, so this shouldn't come as a huge surprise. If you don't like the idea of being reported, maybe don't say that there's shit coming out of other commenter's mouths, don't call them psychopaths, don't link to ugly caricatures and say "here's a good avatar for so-and-so", don't name call, don't say shit like "I bet your ex tried really hard with you before getting a restraining order". These are ~personal attacks~, not disagreements. It goes FAR beyond any reasonable heated argument on a discussion board.

I do like your comments and your often sympathetic attitude to the LWs, but please, just control yourself. As others said, either disagree in a civil way, or don't engage. If you really think someone here is a danger to other commenters, you can report them too. No need to take matters into your own hands and re-enact Lord of the Flies here.

Lost@138
As has been said before, this is a primarily self-regulating community, which is a collective responsibility for which we all step up and try to demonstrate a little leadership. I know that's what you're trying to do to, but I don't appreciate you trying to regulate me into banishment for trying do my part to help others, particularly because I don't recall you ever doing your part to try to regulate any of the problematic people myself and others have tried to do our parts about. It seems you are in favor of anarchy here.

"I told you before...so this shouldn't come as a huge surprise."

Yes I remember that very very well. I simply thought that you didn't know what you were talking about, and would--as even Harriet themself did by taking a hiatus from their MO--see that others also also saw Harriet's behavior as a problem.

Now, it was gross (or as you say, "Disgusting") that I used the word shit that way; I only did it because I was trying to (poorly) extend a metaphor earlier in the paragraph. Albeit an completley unnecessarily gross one.

It was also gross and unkind to use the word vomit in that sentance, and I regret that too.

I wish I had not disgusted anyone, I am sorry about that.

Was I then the only one whose attempt to access the column went directly to the new site, where there were neither comments nor any option to leave one?

Now, I can regret being sent to the wrong page on the ground that I might have broken the world record for typing speed if my fingers could have kept up with my thoughts, but the interval did give me the time to do such things as research the Guest Expert. I have a mixed bag to report. He does not concur with the view of some on the Woke side that Gays are Insufficiently Oppressed; he also buys into Universal Bisexuality.

LW1 gave me the impression of being someone who knew what he's doing isn't really right, but knew also that he could get a permission slip from Mr Savage. How much this affects points in LW's favour, that he showed concern about homophobia, etc. I have not yet settled.

I can agree more or less with M?? Harriet on the point of rules being made by outsiders. Mss Fan/Cute/Erica may recall a thread in which I mentioned being unwilling to accept blindly a Code of Consent for MM that had been made/approved by (and would also apply to cases involving) women, for I accepted that it had been established by women that they needed particular considerations regarding consent that did not apply (or at least nowhere near so broadly) in cases without them.

Ms Fan mentions, [ "whatever gets you hard/wet, just don't let your fetish get confused with reality"], but people seem to think that keeping it walled off from personal reality is sufficient, when the problems come from things bleeding into general consciousness/perceptions. This is the socialization of gays all over again, and that is what's deplorable, not fantasy A or B in and of itself when indulged in private and then put away, but that fantasies A and B become seen as intrinsic parts of character G when they fit only a portion of what is often character Q anyway. In my time, a fair portion of approaches I received came from people quite like LW1, acting on the assumption that anyone as androgynous as I wanted (or, worse, deserved) to be degraded. The worst of it is that the approachers were not all straight-presenting. I was able to respond to such advances with a stare that could have solved Global Warming, but I grieve for those gaybies who get pushed into that sort of interaction because that's how they were socialized.

Here's something new for the pot: Mr Savage (along with his myrmidons) frequently describes interactions of unilateral G servicing S or S>G degredation/humiliation as being "objectively" hot as well as morally innocuous, but I cannot recall him ever giving the same nod of approval the other way around. In my specialty area, one encounters G>S ideas rather more than the other way around, and I have been finding that just as problematic for decades.

Ms Cute, may you live to have it all your own way on abortion, which is about as far as I can go by way of support; any more would be impertinent and Not My Brief.

To conclude for now, I do think it would help a great deal if it were clearly understood that straight-servicers were psychologically vastly different sorts of people. Maybe the kiddywinkles coming up with so many new gender and orientation terms already have something to differentiate. Good for them if they do.

Mr. Venn@140
"Was I then the only one whose attempt to access the column went directly to the new site"

Did you click on the link in the 2 pm email which we each get on Tuesdays?

I'm guessing it was that, and * not * a 'redirect' from this site's URL in your web browser.

"I might have broken the world record for typing speed if my fingers could have kept up with my thoughts"

I hope that was not as traumatic for you as we all feared it would be!

Mr. Venn@140
"I have a mixed bag to report. He does not concur with the view of some on the Woke side that Gays are Insufficiently Oppressed; he also buys into Universal Bisexuality."

Wait, you say "mixed", and I can't see anything there you would see as positive! Haven't you defended SS against whatever "Universal Bisexuality" is exactly.

Curious, thank you for your efforts to defend me against Harriet. I believe your heart is in the right place. However, I don't need it now--Harriet hasn't attacked me. I generally appreciate your comments, many of which are quite thoughtful, and I hate to see you undermine yourself by letting your disgust get away from you.

I have to echo Lost Margarita @138, regarding the extreme language to describe someone who is much less of a troll than you seem to regard them as. If this was the long-departed vicious guy with the cobra avatar whose name I can't remember, or even Sportlandia with his "fuck you's," maybe the invective would be more warranted.

But given the last 18 months or so, I suspect everyone is testy and easily irritated and feeling antsy, so I think we could all use some grace extended our way. Maybe don't tell people that you're blocking them, and take some deep breaths before responding to a comment or commentor that irritates you?

As you know, I don't use the blocker, and have only reported a tiny handful of posts--none in the past year or so. Harriet's flip-flopping (I said this thing but when you respond to it, I'll say that I actually meant this entirely other thing) frustrates me only if I let it. I can tell they get under your skin, but they pretty much bounce off me. When after all the defense of ALPHA, they say they're in agreement with me, even though it sure didn't seem that way, I just shrug. When they positioned themself seemingly as a feminine man who's into submission and humiliation, made a lot of points from that perspective, and then declared that they're neither effeminate nor a humiliation-kinkster, I admit to feeling annoyed, but I know when I engage with Harriet what I'm signing up for.

nocute@144
I didn't intend to imply you needed help defending yourself. I know you don't. It was I think just the return of that pattern of behavior which Harriet previously disavowed which got my attention. I am totally sick of doing that now.

Mr. Venn. @140: I'm surprised that you wouldn't subscribe to a minimum standard of human decency.

@74 BiDanFan: Many thanks! Things are looking up. I have been happily divorced for nearly twenty years (10/16/2021 coming right up). Scoring this week's luscious Lucky @69 has been the closest thing to amazing sex as I'll ever get. :)

@100 Harriet_by_the_Bulrushes: WA-HOOOOOOOOOO!!!! Congratulations on scoring this week's Big Hunsky honors! Savor your newfound numeric accolades and bask in the envied
glory found only here in Savage Love Land. :)

@130 and @143 LavaGirl: I'm glad to see you back! You were missed. :)

Wow. Some lucky commenter will be scoring this week's Double Whammy honors (Lucky @69 + Big Hunsky @100 = @169) soon! Good luck to all those participating!
Tick...tick...tick.... :)

Skr Curious - Perhaps I mistyped (I still have many more typos than I did before July); the other point was a positive one. Some leftists think (white) gays aren't Oppressed Enough to count as being among the Deserving; the Guest Expert has disagreed fairly strongly with that view. It surprised me a little, as one of my hypotheses for his A1 was Gay Guilt.

I did not go by the email link until Thursday. Wednesday I tried to get to the column in the usual way and was taken directly to the new site.

xxx

Mr Bar - So much had already been said that I was largely wary of over-egging the prosecution pudding. I did mention that I have had a fair amount of experience with people like LW1, to whom I generally meted out the treatment their presumptions deserved. Coming to the conversation late, I may be looking mainly at what's descriptive versus what's prescriptive. We do have to acknowledge that a large number of people who are currently labeled G do have a severe lean or even exclusive preference for the S before we can do something about the general problem (it may or may not be a particular problem for those who consent, but it is definitely a general problem).

I recall some time back Mr Savage's response to an New York advertisement in which a straight man was advertising for a gay "roommate"-meaning-unpaid (or even paying)-servant. The terms were vile, something Mr Savage at the time said he'd roundly condemn if it weren't or his knowledge that there was a thriving market for that sort of thing. Quite descriptivist. Since then, Mr Savage appears to have moved in a prescriptivist manner, lauding straight-servicing as "objectively" hot (which he has never done for the converse, despite his strong approval for the consensual degradation of straight men by women [and I find the converse highly problematic as well, though perhaps at the moment less of a practical consideration]). When I encountered straight men like LW1 (or even worse, in some cases), I was able to give their contempt back in no-trumps (assuming "in s**s" to be an offensive term), but I worry for the gaybies who have been socialized to think that's what they're supposed to want and who may therefore let themselves be coerced into such an arrangement.

Curious @135, interesting. I guess I envisioned a Facebook-style "Your comment goes against community standards" warning, with a ban only for multiple infractions. I'm sure I have reported comments that were taken down, but the person who made them stayed to troll another day. It took numerous reports for someone who made threats of physical violence to be banned. That said, I can't disagree with anyone who might have reported your comment @96 as threatening or abusive. If you don't want people to report you, perhaps try not using abusive language. Though we all know it will take a LOT of abusive language for these reports to have any effect.

Curious @137, we can't protect newbies from the words of others. They will figure it out themselves. Periodic posting of the Slogblocker will be helpful.

Hi, Venn @140 and my sympathies at your having to read L1.
"In my time, a fair portion of approaches I received came from people quite like LW1, acting on the assumption that anyone as androgynous as I wanted (or, worse, deserved) to be degraded." So L1 may not be fake after all. (I didn't think it was.)
I again defer to the gays of the board, but it seems just as odd to claim that gays are being socialised to believe that straight men (ie men who by definition aren't interested in them) are "catches." I'm sure a great many gay men have a kink for straight men, just as many straight men have a kink for "lesbians," but no one could argue that this hurts straight women, or that objectifying "lesbians" is something straight men only do because society pushes them to. Gay men of the board, am I off base?

Nocute @144: "I know when I engage with Harriet what I'm signing up for." Exactly.

Mr. Venn@149
"Some leftists think (white) gays aren't Oppressed Enough to count as being among the Deserving [of, I assume, protection from opression]"

Ah yes, now I understand.

I obviously could not disagree more strongly with anyone who would think that. About a month ago raindrop implied far more [that gay prejudice was no longer a concern for a LW; I warned him it bordered on banning-terrirory], so it's not just leftists.

But as a leftist, I feel a special duty to call them out when they're wrong. Not that I can easily imagine a progressive thinking that, but I guess many people have things they're insane about so I take your word for it.

"Wednesday I tried to get to the column in the usual way and was taken directly to the new site."

Wow that's bewildering. It wasn't up here until 9:37 pm Pacific on Tuesday, but then it appears that everyone could use it.

And despite the theory upthread that the letter was aimed at paining you personally (which I'm surprised to find it seems not to have), I don't believe it likely you and you alone were redirected. I think it theoretically possible to do so using your IP address (though one doesn't always come to the site from the same IP; even on the same device that changes occasionally) or your login, but it seems like there's a lot of web developement tasks on The Stranger's plate already so I can't see them taking time to write code just to silence you.

I wonder what your 'usual way' is.

https://www.thestranger.com/savage-love is the standard URL for the weekly column, and would absolutely have been the way here by the next day...but since there is a several hour delay for that, the eagerest of us beavers use https://www.thestranger.com/authors/259/dan-savage

Maybe the webmaster briefly tested a redirect on Wednesday, and you just happened to fall into it by being at the right place at the wrong time?

In other words, this seems to me such a mystery I can't help but wondering if there was some kind of user glitch on your part. Maybe you typed a couple letters into the browser's URL box and it auto-suggested the new comment-free site but you hit Enter before you saw it had?

@128. Fubar (or, rather, in response to Fubar's comment, since Fubar has designed a Blocker and is not reading me)--the 'ad hominem personal insinuations' are all your projections, your self-criticisms (I would presume) which you have affixed onto me. The reasons I have to use open formulations like 'the people who have [...]' e.g. the people who strongly spoken out against ALPHA as abusive, is because some commenters decline to read what I say or enter into dialog with me. It can be taken as read that when I respond to a comment by number that this commenter is not among the group who have espoused the most extreme position.

There can be no 'standing up for nocute' since there is no dispute between me and Nocute. There is a civilised discussion, in which I tried to make a general point about a single concept of consent being unfit for purpose, to which Nocute responded. You put yourself in the position of saying props to the arguer who claims 'shit is coming out of' my 'mouth'; this does not make you look like a champion of articulacy or moderation in a discussion of sex and sexual variety.

Looks like I missed the party last week as well as this one, assuming the launch of the commercial side meant no more readers’ comments.
Going back to last week’s RUBBED letter as well as Dan’s response to it made me yearn for the old days when he would probably tell her something like….
"So yes, he was your masseuse, but did he ever cross any boundaries on the professional level? Would you feel the same if your befriended accountant/hair stylist/bicycling buddy confessed their feelings to you and allow you time and space to deal with it?
But don't let me stop you from being shocked, upset and violated. Not only you should report this crime of the century and ruin his career. You should also make sure he is forever labled as a sex offender and appearing as such on any neighborhood google search for the rest of his life."

I'm afraid I distracted from the points I made @108@111 that most interest me about LW1, so please forgive me for a rerun.

I believe that LW1 did * not * do wrong when by luck he was interacting with the subset of his (as we're calling them) 'targets' who liked his behavior. Because the consequences for them were good, no wrong was done. I find this intesting because it highlights that bad intentions can result in doing good. Unintentional good.

Whereas good intentions can result in doing unintentional wrong.

Now as both are unintentional, for neither is the actor really responsible: Whether they can, like the LW1, do unintentional good (in the case of LW1 because he is so stunningly mentally unwell). Or because they do unintentional wrong.

OK, that's the part that interested me, but...

But then there's the 'targets' subjected unwillingly to LW1's bad intentions. His practice of wasting their time was wrong, even in the context of the time-wasting which is already an unfortunate part of such sites, it is wrong for him to have a program of doing it to the unwilling. And though that's enough, we have even heard from the unwilling, confirming the quite elementary conclusion that they are being done wrong by LW1.

CMD@153
I'm so sorry we lost you to the other site, I was wondering where you've been!

@135. curious (if reading). I have no desire to see you booted--but I would be pleased if you could stop addressing me abusively. You are at liberty to report any of my comments you like. To my knowledge I have never badmouthed your character in an exacerbated or incoherent manner, nor ever tried to do anything than equably call your contributions as I saw them.

@134. Bi. Please find the flaws in my logic. Let's depersonalise it, so there is no question of someone winning an argument, someone winding someone else up, someone standing up for themselves. Print out word for word what I said and say why it's wrong (you'll find that it's much nearer your view than Dan's or his expert's). So far you've said (with very partial accuracy) that I have a humiliation fetish, and that I think that non-consensually toying with thicc subs online is acceptable because I personally find it arousing. I think you surmised I thought this last bit, without actually reading any of what I said.

@138. Lost. Thankfully I missed the avatar.

The problem is that people (some regular commenters) get in too close. The function of the comment board, essentially, is to offer a wider spread of advice to the lw than just Dan's, then maybe to share stories and experiences and to embark on a more general discussion of sex and sexual politics. Commenters like Bi and curious seem to get sucked into what commenters are like psychologically, building pictures out of their comment history. But comments on the lines of 'you said this three weeks ago' are useless to the casual reader or advice-seeker. It would be much more enlightening if view were pitted against view, impression of the situations in letters against impression, and statement against statement, than person against person.

@140. Venn. I strongly agree with one of your main points, that straight-servicers are not representative bottoms. My own experience of being propositioned in places where the deal was casual sex--uncomplicatedly and blatantly--was that the tops thought I would be more into humiliation than I in fact was (or thought I was). In practice it wasn't that much of an issue, because I had gone to the bathhouses (e.g.) looking for one thing; but taking the entirety of my sex life, with its hesitations, hiatuses, cuddling friends, not really feeling like hooking up with crushes because of a lack of self-confidence, getting back together with semi-regular partners, and so on, I was not a degradee; and the assumption that I was could either have been very assured roleplay or have come from a place of derision.

@144. Nocute. I'm not flip-flopping. The 'landing zone' for our agreement would be that ALPHA has in some way to secure his correspondents' consent for his withholding Dom roleplay. A subby man / feminine non-binarian into being Dommed is not obviously into humiliation--see what venn said @140.

You said twice that, together with raindrop, I did not think that anyone was being hurt by ALPHA's teasing on Grindr. This is what really warranted my getting back to you. I don't and can't know this. Alison Cummins and the guest expert Mr Cheves both suppose that an implicit consent to a fantasy game can be taken for granted in this context (strict straight Dom messages a guy on Grindr). bouncing said that many vulnerable men would not understand the terms of the game. On the facts, I think Alison more likely to be right, while in terms of sympathy and concern for someone getting hurt, I think we have to weigh bouncing's words more.

Wow, the thread really blew the fuck up this week. I don't have the time or energy to dig through every comment, especially since it seems to have gotten derailed by a certain sometimes provocative somebody. Clearly the issue with LW1 is the lack of consent. Humiliation/degradation kinks are all fine and well and good * when folks have consented to that arrangement. * The LW is (in no small part) getting off on the fact that he is duping these men, getting their hopes up and then dashing them. And I don't know that ALPHA is interested at all in getting this itch scratched ethically, though he professes to feel guilty and conflicted.

Fantastic@157
"Clearly the issue with LW1 is the lack of consent."

Given that, many including Mrs. Fox would have been better as the Guest Expert or advice columnist for this letter.

Though one can understand how some could be distracted by the deafening psychological ill health of the false ALPHA.

@157. Fantastic. 'Provoke' people to think, maybe. Otherwise, no. Supposing you accept that consent can be implicit, the issue is whether the set-up of a strict straight Dom sending dick pics to chubby subs on Grindr is signposted, by that very set of circumstances, as a humiliation game.

All ALPHA told us is who * he * contacts ("seeks out"); he says nothing of what information (beyond what "I look like") he gives anyone about his intentions.

He doesn't even say he's looking for subs (let alone subs desiring humiliation). In the sentance after he says he's contacting men with a "big ass", in the next sentance he says he's contacting men who are "thicc bottom boys".

While maybe he just used 'bottom' to avoid repeating the word 'ass' in consecutive sentences, later he says he's a top so I bet he is contacting men who are (perhaps simply) coded as interested in playing the role of bottom.

Now, he does speculate that his wished for 'targets' are looking for a Dom. But not only, as I understand it, does the role of bottom not automatically imply someone is a submissive (correct me if I'm wrong, respected knowledgable individuals), but even if it does, being a sub (as someone IIRC said upthread) does not as I understand it automatically imply the desire for humiliation.

So it seems that both "sub" and "humiliation" are inventions with no basis in the letter.

I had an eerie, uncomfortable feeling this week, as if something very bad were about to happen. And then Griz @147 confirmed it: somehow, after all this time, the TERF is back.

@161 fubar: TERF?
Have I stepped into something vile and brown again?
sigh

With the exception of an otherwise nice birthday and plenty of sunny driving days for me and my VW this just hasn't been a good year for Griz. For some inexplicable reason throughout my life, every year ending in a 1 has been crushingly disappointing and / or totally fucked up. Thank the powers that be I have VA PTSD therapy again this week and another session with my VA rep.
I think maybe I should just rejoin the SL comment threads on New Year's. ;(
'
'

Griz @162, take care of yourself. If you need to take a break from the playground for your own mental health, that's understandable! Those of us who have your e-mail address will check in on you. I hope your therapy session is productive. Hugs!

Griz @162: Sorry, I should not have made that comment. I will send you a private email.

BiDanFan @134: I pieced together my memory of having been a cat toy, which involved me having disclosed something about my children, and not wanting to add more, and I remember you did in fact speak up, albeit to no avail. Thanks for that.

Mr. Venn @149: Thanks for clarifying. I had completely misinterpreted your post @140. In re-reading, I can't disagree that subcultures, or even fetish groups, ought to be permitted their own Codes of Consent, provided everyone gets a copy of the rules upon admittance.

LW1 seems to have waved his dick at the straight-servicers, but the jury seems to be divided on whether or not that fetish automatically includes humiliation and degradation. The kiddywinkles may need to come up with even more terms!

My initial thoughts were that ALPHA was definitely being a shit, but after considering Alison's and Harriet's comments I've come to see the situation as more grey. So for me it basically comes down to what exactly is meant by "I don't go through with the meetup".

If they agree a time and a place for a RL hookup, and then ALPHA cancels at the last minute or is a no-show, then yeah, he's being a shitstain. Being stood up sucks.

But if he approaches these guys "in role" (which seems to be the case), they respond, and then they have this erotic online exchange with some vague promises of meeting up, before ALPHA disappears into the ether - then meh, I'm ok with filing this sort of thing under "well-understood masculine storytelling convention", as per Alison @60. I've had some virtual exchanges where there was much heavy-breathing talk about hooking up for real, but it was clearly just online fuckery. I don't regard these experiences as unethical or non-consensual because no one actually said "oh btw, I'm gonna talk about meeting up but have no intention of doing so". It's usually pretty easy to tell the difference between someone who's looking to meet and someone who's only looking to wank, because in the latter case there's no serious out-of-role discussion of logistics, limits, STI tests, etc., and there's always some reason why they can't meet this week but definitely soon. Is this what's happening here? ALPHA does mention role playing ("I can play that role"), but I'm not sure how much to read into that.

I still think that he's coming from a place of (probably internalised) homophobia, which causes him to frame these exchanges in a pretty dehumanising way. It's probably a good thing he's not meeting these "thicc bottom boys", because it sounds like he hasn't yet learnt to separate kinks from reality. And I do also appreciate bouncing's and cbu's points about how the proliferation of this user mentality on the apps affects the more vulnerable gay men and the community as a whole.

@163 BiDanFan: Many thanks, Bi. I appreciate hearing from you. Big hugs, positrons, and VW beeps coming right back.
It''s rainy and stormy here; now that my beloved VW, however sadly missed,
is tucked safely away in hibernation I am back to scoring, arranging, and
playing music--at home, if not in public. One lovely takeaway is that my
surrounding neighbors seem to enjoy it. This is very therapeutic. I played
music last night and worked on my latest based on Stephen King novel score.
It was just what I needed. My biggest challenge will be how to cope without the
seasonal automotive company of my emotional support vehicle.
XOXO, griz

@164 fubar: Thank you for your kind email. I have responded, and send big cyber hugs, positrons, and VW beeps from my beloved Love Beetle and me. XOXO, griz

fubar@164
"straight-servicers"

To expand on my @164 about "All ALPHA told us": I've now re-read the damn letter yet again, and it is not stated that he * presents * as seeking "straight-servicers".

He tells us he's contacting men with a "big ass" who (I think) are bottoms. (And as I understand it, bottoming isn't necessarily submission or 'servicing'.)

The whole rest of the crazy letter could easily just be his inner dialog which he's paraded before us. Given everything we know about the guy, I see no reason to project any * communication * of his introspected fantasies. (And if he is offering to top bottoms, the letter says he absolutely doesn't intend to.)

In fact, he says:

"I feel like I’m doing them a service because A LOT OF gay guys are looking for that..."

My point being, he does not sway that THESE gay guys are looking for that!! In other words, in the letter it looks like he's just saying that some of the guys that get caught in his untargeted net are seeking it.

A very great deal of effortful imagination has been employed upthread, which I think has increasingly confused the actual letter.

Ok, and now I've re-read it yet again.

Other than who (big ass and maybe bottoms) he contacts, he tells us absolutely nothing about what he tells them about who he is or what he wants. We know nothing of how he presents to them. Er, it does look like he also tells them he's straight (but I'm astonished by how much has been projected into that).

We only know that he presents to us a rambling and disordered inner dialog. From that I'm not eager to assume there's anything honest about how he presents to them.

(Particularly given the clue in that sentance I highlighted @167 where he refers not to THESE gay guys, but to A LOT OF gay guys.)

I think I've re-read his damn letter enough. I think not everyone has.

I mean, since all we (pretty much) /know/ he says is that he's straight, and that could just sound to his contactees like bait for ANY kind of sex and roleplay. (Given that I've learned here that some gay men find the prospect of getting with a straight guy attractive, so that some other gay men list themselves as straight. Which ALPHA is doing too but unintentionally.)

It is a uniquely strange letter in how easy it would be to let oneself be confused by it, in that (please give it another read) there is almost no actual information as regards his interactions, it is almost all a inner dialog his disorder is proudly displaying to us.

@169 Curious2: WA-HOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!! Congratulations on scoring this week's highly coveted Double Whammy (Lucky @69 + Big Hunsky @100= @169) Award numeric honors! Savor your double prizes and bask in the glory. :)

Will we reach the Double Hunsky this week? Stay tuned!
Tick...tick...tick...

Meanwhile, back to Griz's forever therapeutic musical drawing board. Windy and rainy weather outside helps serve as a reminder that my beloved Love Beetle and I are both fortunate to be indoors if not together until Spring 2022. Time for creative juices to bubble and simmer once again. As Griz remains a work in progress, so is her music.

@165. Lost. Well, if we're concerned to ascertain the facts, how has ALPHA been sucked off, quite a few times, it seems, by men? Are these some of the 'thicc bottom boys' he's messaged--meaning he doesn't always cancel the meet-up--or has he gone to gay bars, or has he contacted a whole other category of men for sex?

I think he is perhaps confused and troubled--in a more impossible-to-ignore way than Alexander Cheves, who is familiar with the straight Domming/gay servicing culture, does. I said I thought he deserved our compassion not because I thought what he was doing was venial, or understood, but because he was honestly putting everything out there, with his 'heavy' and 'please answer my question'. If his question is whether he's acting homophobically, vindictively towards gay men, I think the answer is 'yes', he is--unless of course he is sure he has obtained their consent to a humiliation or denial kink.

Harriet @172, there is no "quite" preceding ALPHA's "a few times." I took these to be experiments, two or three times, it seems, and yes probably with the men he contacted on Grindr, before he concluded he's not physically into men -- the rush is cerebral only; the thrill is tied to teasing and "resisting" these men, thus "proving" he's straight.

"If his question is whether he's acting homophobically, vindictively towards gay men, I think the answer is 'yes', he is--unless of course he is sure he has obtained their consent to a humiliation or denial kink." Which is what the rest of us have been saying this whole time. Glad you see it now.

I swear I remember a column where the person writing in had a partner that would start touching them and get them all wound up sexually and then didn't follow through. They just stopped leaving the partner unsatisfied. Dealing with something similar and would love to find it again whether in one of the books or online. Could have been a different ongoing column too, but I don't think so. Does anyone else remember? Anything you can do to help me find it would be appreciated.

James@174
I don't remember a column like that, but your situation doesn't sound great. I think there's more than one reason that a partner could act like that.

One reason that occurs to me because I encountered it personally, is that your partner might have some significant sexual hangup that freaks them out of being in a space for continuing. (Do they look very distressed when they abort the session?)

Of another reason would just be to for some reason cruelly eff with you. (In this case, maybe instead of looking distressed, they'd look quite pleased.)

I think I'd feel like the first reason would be more conducive to addressing. Good luck there in Kansas City!

James @174, perhaps you should write to Dan? Sounds like a more interesting issue than a few of the letters we've had lately.

Curious @175, another possibility is that Partner A does not intend this touch to be sexual in nature, they're just giving their partner a kiss or a cuddle, but Partner B invariably gets turned on and wants to proceed to sex Partner A isn't in the mood for or doesn't have time for. Partner A's letter might read, "I enjoy cuddling my partner but it always gets them horny, and that makes me feel pressured and used. How can I express non-sexual affection in a way that doesn't leave them feeling like I'm winding them up and not following through? Or must I resign myself to providing maintenance sex with every snog?"

BDF@176
Good point, all that James says is that his partner is "touching". I see I jumped to the conclusion that this touch was sexual. And I guess I did that because we're only hearing from James, and because James didn't even ask for advice.

It would be great if when people did ask for advice we always had the opportunity to interview all the principals.

It is sexual touch. I didn't ask advice actually. I asked if anyone could help find the column.

James @178: Ask what day it is around here, and you’re gonna get advice.

I don’t remember the column you’re looking for either. Good luck in your search!

James @178, then I agree with Curious. Either they are being a cruel tease, or they have unresolved trauma issues with penetrative sex. Or possibly physical issues, such as being rushed into PIV before they are wet enough, in which case the answer is to stop rushing and let them lead the pace, or if PIV is generally painful they might want to speak to their doctor. Step one is, of course, talk to them -- not in the moment but when you can have a calm discussion.

Lots of us are happy to do Dan's job for him. Few of us are happy to do a Stranger intern's job and google that for you. Try googling "Savage Love touch frustration" or key words you think you might remember. Honestly though, you'd probably get an answer in the column quicker.

I'm pretty much ready to wander the Earth looking for people to give advice to.

James' partner could be this week's letter writer ALPHA.

I wonder if ALPHA has a set of Nazi plates like the nextdoor neighbor in 'American Beauty'.

James @178 - I don't recall an SL letter regarding the problem you described, but Slate recently ran a letter from the perspective of the person whose touch was turning on their spouse more than they wanted/intended to. Not sure if it's relevant to your situation, but I've provided the link:

https://slate.com/human-interest/2021/06/husband-libido-affection-impossible-advice.html

BDF @180 and Curious @181 - indeed (to doing Dan's job for him and wanting to dish out advice). The quality of letters submitted to Dan have been very "meh" lately.

Mrs. Fox @184: We can really only judge the quality of letters Dan has chosen to answer here. He could be saving the best ones for his next book.

No that isn't it. I agree cuddles are nice. Even with a little fondling can be nice. This is clear sexual touching of the genitals and then once the person is all warmed up it just stops. I believe the columnist used the word "cruel" in the response, or perhaps "torture". Yes, I know how to Google and have tried. Does anyone know how to exclude the Savage Love comment sections from searches? That would help a lot I expect.

James @186: "Does anyone know how to exclude the Savage Love comment sections from searches?"

It sounds like you and your partner are equally clueless and inconsiderate. Good luck with your search.

@fuber @187

Jesus dude. I'm trying to find a particular column, but there are a lot more words in the comment sections, so I'm getting a lot of results from the comment section, when I'm trying to search the columns themselves. It wasn't a dig at the comments. It just not what I'm searching for. Or... what are you reacting to? Jesus. Have you checked the mirror lately?

James @188: You're demanding Google help in the comments section of a sex advice column. Clueless. Nobody cares if you find the non-existent column you're looking for. Go have an actual conversation with your partner. Jesus. Use your words.

Hey try searching on the columns on the new site under construction at https://savage.love/
Maybe they've only moved the columns and not the comments (since we can't comment there yet).

As for here, I think there's a way to exclude words from a google search, but maybe not URL structures. If you compare the URLs of the comments sections and the columns, though, you will se a pattern.

steps into quiet chat room and looks carefully around....
Ok, now that Spock and McCoy are done with their arguing that took up a good portion of the comment section in an epic battle of "TL;DR: A Typical, Though Not Entirely Unexpected Quagmire" (sequels are being produced in their minds at this very moment!), I have a couple of thoughts:
1. I ultimately believe that the source of the fighting here comes down to a simple fact: You can't do much about people like this except fight academically about it. He's not doing anything against the law except that in his head he knows he has no intention of showing up and unless he forces himself physically on someone or anything else illegal, he is free to engage in this behavior. I suppose you could encourage your children and the youth of the world to "Do Unto Others", but that doesn't exactly hit the spot, does it? So, Harriet gets pedantic and academic about it, which infuriates Curious because they are reeling in the unjustness of someone treating other people that way. From my point of view: You're both mostly right and you're both somewhat wrong. I'll leave it to you to hash out the details, I'm too exhausted after reading most of the exchange.
2. Well, I guess I just had one thought, really. I tried to Captain Kirk that the best I could. No one asked me to, I just stepped up to the plate. You're welcome. Tips appreciated.

Mrs Fox @183: Wow, what a spectacularly terrible answer to this question. AON never said her husband is pressuring her, or expecting sex. She said he is happy to masturbate if he gets turned on. The Slate columnists just said what they both already know -- that he's not entitled to sex and that he should masturbate if he wants sex and she doesn't -- and slagged him off for having a sex drive. Slut shaming much? Dan would never have replied that way, nor would his readers (except for Raindrop). They HAVE talked about it; he ISN'T pressuring her. I guess this is one sex column I won't be reading! I am tempted to join the comments section. They clearly need my sex positive view! ;)

One thing they don't seem to have thought of is to cuddle AFTER he masturbates. She's happy with him doing so (and rightly so -- she should be writing this column, not the sex negative people who are writing it!), and they are both happy to schedule sex, so maybe they could schedule post-wank cuddles so they can both get the physical touch they want without his boner intruding. And they could take Dan's advice to expand their definition of sex. Does his boner always insist on PIV, or could she lend him a hand with masturbating as another option, in addition to sex and platonic cuddles? I have sympathy for them both; making a twice-a-day and a once-a-fortnight mismatch work is a very tall order indeed, and it sounds like both of them are sensitive to each other's needs, so I wish them luck.

James @188, I have to agree with Fubar. We are a comments section, not googling experts. We don't know how to improve your google fu any more than you do. If you want to interact with us, you're welcome here. If you just think we are going to perform a difficult task for you for free, you're barking up the wrong tree. And if you come in literally saying "I don't want to read what you lot have had to say about my problem," you can't expect that to help your cause. (Normally, when I search I -am- searching for past comments; excluding them is not something we would do.) All the advice you've received so far has been good, and if you exhibit behaviour this entitled and bratty with your partner, they should take the common Dan advice of DTMFA. On behalf of the half dozen people who helped as best we could: you're welcome.

James: "Thanks anyway" are the words you were looking for, not "Jesus dude." Again, you're welcome.

@153 CMDwannabe: Welcome back! You were missed. :)

@193 BiDanFan: Thank you for your kind email. I responded and will have new music via MP3 available again soon. :)

BDF @192 - I'm not always impressed with the advice given at Slate, but it's my other advice column I wander to when I get bored with the present week's SL and comments (which has been lamentably frequent lately). I feel like Slate gets consistently more interesting/nuanced letters that we the commentariat would have a field day with. The letters Dan has been choosing to publish lately have been underwhelming, and his advice more "ehh, do whatever I guess." Personally I was over ALPHA's letter the day it ran.

Well I thought maybe Savage Love fans would be likely to remember the column. I didn't bring up Google first. You did. I'm sorry for following up to see if you had suggestions on your advice to Google it, which I had already tried, but thank you for your input.

I'm not demanding anything. You are free to move along instead of getting pissed off.

I do appreciate the attempts at helpful advice, notwhithstanding that I pointed out I didn't actually ask for it. Do you dispute that? Did I ask for advice? I didn't dispute it's not surprising in this forum I got it anyway, because I agree: it's not surprising.

You guys are doing the whole internet thing where because you have anonymity you get hostile with strangers for no reason you would be friendly to in real life. If you don't have advice on the question I did ask, if you don't remember, you're free to move along. You're free to be hostile too. I mean, it's all about how you want to spend your time I suppose.

James @196, if you want to see hostile, stick around. We did not get hostile with you. Fubar only got snarky after you failed to live up to your promise to appreciate anything we could do to help you, and insulted us all by stating that our comments were worthless to you. Did you expect anything but snark in response to that? Welcome to the internet. Now you know, our only suggestion is the thing you already tried, Google; we didn't remember the column off the top of our heads. Sorry you came up blank, but you too are free to move along, now you see that we are not the Encyclopedia Dannica. Have a good day.

I'm sorry you hallucinated that I said your comments were worthless to me. I hope your hallucinations are nicer to you in the future.

@174: It's called 'edging'. If that helps with your Google search.

It's not always unwelcome and is a kind of orgasm control and pleasure enhancement. Obviously better with both parties consent.

Holmes@199
"It's called 'edging'."

As I understand it, edging is repeatedly approaching, but stopping before, orgasm.

What James described just sounded like 'stopping' to me.