Savage Love Letter of the Day: Where Does a Straight Lady Find Gay Men Who Are DTF?


I'm going to have nightmares about her!
Isn't desire to be with a woman pretty much the one disqualifier for being gay?
Yet another LW who doesn't realize that they're describing a Pet, not a Person.

Except in this case it's a Fuckpet, a little more gross and degrading in my opinion. But seriously, this is what Craigslist is for.

And by the by, there are quite literally millions of dudes who fit the description of your "best sex ever". I don't go for the "chicks with dicks" thing, but that's a very prominent genre of porn indicating that it's a not-uncommon desire. Furthermore, I can only surmise at least a similar number of guys who like fucking women are also into anal. Finding a guy into anal with a trans-woman fixation shouldn't be the hardest thing in the world.
LW, the concept you're missing or avoiding here is 'bi.' Embrace bisexual men, literally and figuratively.
Is there a magic key to get want she wants? Money honey. That's always been a magic key to getting what one wants. Pay for it.
The quality and quantity of gay men here are fantastic!

Quality? What the fuck does she mean by that?
Sporty @ 3
LW certainly comes across as naïve, possibly fake, yet why what she wants is so much more “gross and degrading” than an ordinary “fuckpet”?
@4, seriously. It almost sounds like a big part of the appeal for her isn’t the boy-on-boy sex, but rather that age old Twilight-seque female fantasy in which she is the rare exception, the one woman who is so special, she attracts a man who is usually closed off or unavailable somehow, but simply can’t resist her and her alone.
@5: Well, that's always an option I suppose, but folks don't always want to go there.
@ 9 - When your fantasy is so inordinately specific, you HAVE to be willing to go there... unless you want it to remain a fantasy.

Best answer, Lava @ 5.
Mx Wanna - Please don't.

As poorly as I think of LW for wanting to degrade and probably cause legal damage to an entire sexual orientation just for her own jollies, I think even worse of any gay man sufficiently warped to want to accede to her request. Such a person should be required to marry her and remain monogamous in perpetuity.
And such an inconsiderate person is most decidedly not a lady.
@5: * "what she wants?..." my brain must have frozed up.
Thanks Ricardo..
jeez some people. Is this girl for real? Wtf is her problem.
Gay men don't want a vagina haver around, LW. That's why they are gay men.
Venn@ 11- “Please don’t” in regards to ... subject matter/ LW’s fake or not/sportlandia’s assertions?

Speaking of fakeness, I read the letter again and sensed a huge disparity between LW’s knowledge and assumed sexual experience, and the seemingly stupid and naïve questions.
It sounds to me like the LW wants two people-with-cocks, not two men, most of all.

And secondarily, she wants those two people with cocks to be truly, deeply, very much into each other sexually and possibly romantically even.

She comes across as unnecessarily mercenary by insisting on the "gay" part of the equation, but it seems naive and a bit thoughtless rather than anything else.

I empathise to a certain degree, as I had a period in my life of serious obsession with a MM(F) setup, with d/s elements (though my ideal scenario was mmF as I have dominant rather than sub tendencies ;) And in this ideal scenario I wasn't the focus of the interaction but a director/instigator of what otherwise was a pure MM sex.

The good news for the LW is: it's a thing. It's a HUGE thing, in fact, a common fantasy and desire among bisexual men, whether leaning het or homo. It's an even bigger thing for bisexual men with submissive leanings, so if you can see yourself topping rather than subbing you might substantially increase your chances.

But as Dan and everybody else said: BI men. Honestly. Gay men are, well, gay. They don't want women about. And even if you get off on the idea of being humiliated on the grounds of being an inadequate boy (or whatever female equivalent to a male submissive sissy slut into humiliation is), it's still BI guys you want to play with.

I have no experience with trans women but I suspect that not that many would be into being fetishised by another woman for having a dick.
Ugh! This letter disgusted me as much as the straight men who hit on lesbians. Gay means gay, woman! It means the guy does not like women!

So, yes, DUH, you're much better off seeking out bi men than gay ones. Don't fetishise trans women. They're not gay men and they would NOT appreciate your treating them as such.

Get thee to Fetlife -- or indeed Grindr -- and post a profile stating what you're into. And stop thinking a triad like the one on Sense8 is something you can reasonably expect to happen in real life. (Remember that their third essentially blackmailed herself into the relationship by threatening to out Lito. Oh, and if you haven't seen this Netflix series... do. Particularly episode 6 of series 1. You will thank me for it.)
Lava @5: Excellent point.

Dadddy @6: What would you mean by "quality women"? Attractive ones, no doubt. No big mystery there.

CMD @7: Obviously, it's more "gross and degrading" because it's men who are being objectified. Not surprising that this is the opinion of someone who uses the term "chicks with dicks."

Schmacky @8: Either that, or man-on-man sex is hot and transgressive from the female POV (it is, for many females), and she's just too dumb to realise bi men have man-on-man sex too. You'd have to ask the men into "lesbian" porn what the appeal is for them; I bet the answer would be the same for this LW.
... Or, the clue is in her PS, she doesn't like vaginal sex, and she assumes a bi man would want to have vaginal sex at some point. (Wonder why, having found one straight exception, she rules out finding another?)
I’ve never seen someone set out to be a fag hag before. “Straight for Pay”? Is that a thing?
Ms Fan - What is "gross and degrading" is a straight person's fetishization of SS people who would not welcome them instead of those who would, and sense of entitlement to use those people for their own jollies. What arguably makes this worse than the usual variety is that LW is in a group that basically controls the rights of the people she wants to use. This may be slightly less disgusting than the straight men who drool over lesbians, but not much.
[I did mean the "them" and "their" as plural for all or any straight people and not a singular "they". It was poorly constructed; I took out part of a sentence too many.]

Mx Wanna - Please don't assume your own preferences to be good for everybody?

You may have slightly misinterpreted Mr Landia. He said LW belongs in a class of people who want Pets instead of other people, only this LW wants an F-pet, which Mr L thinks to be worse than an ordinary Pet. You ask why what LW wants is worse than an ordinary F-pet, a question that doesn't match Mr L's statement. I infer Mr L to be saying that F-pets in general are more gross and degrading than ordinary Pets, not that this sort of F-pet is worse than other F-pets.
Fan @18 I think you're really onto something there, and I think it's not just about logistics of anal/vaginal. The more I think about it the more I believe the biggest clue is the signoff and the PS. She wants to be "fucked like a guy", or/and possibly watch/serve a male couple from the sidelines but she doesn't want to be treated/focused on as a woman (or maybe better: as a female) but to roleplay a male bottom... she does mention "gay presenting bi men", which again, suggests to me that she doesn't want the het side of those bi men to be attracted to her...
Venn @20: Thank you for your view on why this particular situation is more "gross and degrading" than others, although you were not the person who originally asserted it, and I highly doubt the original poster's reasoning would be the same as yours. (See my initial paragraph @16 -- I agree with your take.)

Skeen @22: Yes. She wants her partners to see her, or at least treat her, as a gay man. She appears to be fetishising the gay male lifestyle and wanting to be a part of it. She doesn't just want to fuck gay men, she wants to be one -- in the bedroom at least; I'm not suggesting she's trans.
@2 biggie. Idk, I think it's pretty queer for a gay man to want to be with a cis woman, maybe to try it out to see what it feels like. Isn't queerness about a willingness to place our usual boundaries (including the boundaries of our identities and self-conception) under different sorts of pleasurable and challenging pressure?

It _is_ my view that the people who peddle the line 'our space', 'gay men only' about Grindr are 'douches'.

I don't think the LW is naive; she's certainly not ignorant. If the letter is fake, what social group is it written to delegitimise or discredit? Straight women who want to have men? Maybe straight cis women who want to remain comfortably cishet while taking a walk on the wild side? The motivation would be a bit contorted; and maybe it's more plausible that FLAG is writing out of genuine needs and real enthusiasm.

I'm (what would be called, what would 'pass as') a gay man who has enjoyed having sex with women in the room. This has primarily been in a content of grouping. There have been women who have seen me getting fucked by my partner. I enjoyed the whole scene (a lot)--I understood it that I was having some form of sex with the onlooker, according to specific and defined rules. Yes, she was only looking; but to me this was not sex with my partner, with the bare add-on of a spectator, but a very different and integral kind of 'threesome'. So I would not think that the presupposition voiced by FLAG, of 'only looking' ... comfortably wanking in the background, is one that would correspond to how many men think of this kind of self-exposure.

The LW thinks of many scenarios but doesn't seem to think (beyond a reference to bathhouses) of non-spontaneous groups.
@21 she didn't "may have" misinterpreted new, she did so intentionally and is playing dumb. That's nothing new, she's consistently interpreted my statements 180 degrees from their plain meaning, probably so she can feel like a better person, I dunno.

But yes, the gross and degrading part is the comparison between pets and fuck pets.

Generally speaking, I find the trend of white women who've get their revolving door of gay male friends and black female "spirit animals" to be tokenizing in the extreme. LW probably had the lyrics to I Will Survive on her wall somewhere.
@24 the letter isn't "fake" - it doesn't claim any events occurred, just describes a fantasy. If it is fake, it's written by a nominally straight man most likely, but about their actual fantasy. Or I suppose it could be a plant by a bi activist type trying to "prove" Dan's biphobia?
@11. Venn. Instinctually and temperamentally I would not want to do to FLAG what she wants a gay man to do to her at all. Nor would I be what she wants. One aspect of gay sex she likes is the maleness of it--the dicks going into anuses; she enjoys and comes close to fetishising gay masculinity as such. Insofar as women form any part of my sexual scene or sexual identity, it's in understanding sex as a kind of sharing, a communal bounty, that has little to do with gender (but does have to do with politics).

The very rare occasions I've topped a woman have never been in a relationship, nor have been like (felt like) any (re-)assertion or -assumption of gender roles. Rather like a variant in being queer.
Venn- I get where you come from and why you are so uncomfortable with what LW has in mind.
I think there are some differences between you, a gay men feeling fetishised for his preferences by someone you have no interest at and probably also despise, and some others who seem to be extra grossed because her attraction entails MM action.
I also noticed “chicks with dicks” in Sportlandia’s comment, though he does follow with trans women and may have only used CWD as a way to point to a porn genre.
What I do find telling though is the need to insert a totally irrelevant to the argument “I don’t go for” statement at the very beginning of that sentence.
Ya'll srsly need a chill pill. The LW has a harmless fantasy, and she's looking for people to make it happen. Big freakin' whoop. That's not threatening anyone. She didn't just bomb Yemen.
Sportlandia @ 25
Is "she" a reference to BDF or myself?
@30 BDF. You're incorrect as well, but I suspect honestly so.
@8: The ol’ True Blood “magic pussy” which creates exceptions to all rules and desires and arrangements wherever it appears.

@25: “But yes, the gross and degrading part is the comparison between pets and fuck pets.“

The issue here isn’t the degrading and then”fuck pets”, both of which exist happily in number.

The issue here is that she’s wanting to fuck exclusively around the “exclusively homosexual” end of the Kinsey scale and intentionally excluding the bi males who’d be more happy to receive her affections.

It’s much less difficult to find trans women interested in dating other women, especially in larger cities. If she doesn’t know how to meet one or get her to play along, there’s some other undercurrents here only teased at by her desire to “convert” others to interest in her.

She does sound disrespectful and unwelcome, but only because her degradations aren’t exclusively sexual. She’s a guest in their world but feels entitled to star and displace.
LW's hopes/intentions have snowballed into way too much complexity.
1. She wants her ass fucked? Lots of men like fucking women in the ass, and if she wants to keep that primary, she isn't going to have all that much trouble finding a partner.
2. She wants to watch gay men fuck? There's this new thing called 'porn.' All the kool kids know about it.
3. She wants to play maid for a couple? ...I'm sure that's possible but combined with 1 and 2 this seems like a bridge too far.
Sportlandia @ 25, I don't feel it's tokenistic in the way "gay best friends" and "non-white spirit animals" are, I don't sense superiority there, more a desperation to get into that magic (and very fetishised by LW) world.

Fan @ 23, yes, I don't think she's trans either but autoandrophiliac (gay version) - I realise this term is mired in controversy but it's also a very handy label for a real fetish and this is how I'm using it here. I totally get it as a fantasy/fetish, and I really believe she could find (I'd def start with FetLife etc, NOT predominantly gay spaces) bi playmates who would happily participate in her scenario. How easy it'd be to construct a relationship triad on such a basis is a diffrent matter.
@26. Sportlandia. I wouldn't think the letter was fake either. If it is, the group it's written to underline would be straight cis women who want to have sex with gay men. 'Gay' before 'gay men' was the word I missed out from my earlier post. It would be anti- that antique and prejudicial figure, the faghag, and probably written from the position of a straight man enraged that he wasn't good enough for straight women.

I'm dismayed by the identity-policing on the part of gay men and their other gay/queer supporters. 'A gay man wants to be with gays ... no vaginas within a 100 yards radius' ... have that if you like, and it's the dominant and to some degree still politically embattled form of gay maleness, but it's not 1976 anymore.... Queerness has happened and is a thing. You can be a gay man and have some sort of interest in cis women, or include such people in some capacity some of the time in what you do for sex, without having to identify as 'bi'. Straight sex can be queered, as necessarily in something like pegging, depending on the scene or context, the nature of the acts, and the histories and orientations of the participants.

It's as if a bisexual person (suppose a man here) is 'straight' in bed with a woman and 'gay' (whether topping or bottoming) with a man. But we know this is a simplification.... We know this skates over human variety.... We have all these other terms and identities and practices we've developed since then, to get away from reductively simplistic conceptions of a person's sexual 'type'....

I'd guess the reason FLAG didn't advert to the possibility of being in a triad with two bi men was that she does not want to be desired as a woman. She doesn't want her tits, vagina etc. to attract either man, other than perhaps in an incidental and preliminary way; the interest of the sex would be in her being buggered. Fwiw, I thought she was self-insightful in this regard, because she doesn't want some variety of MMF with two bi men (as I would understand it characteristically playing out) at all.
@29: “The LW has a harmless fantasy”

The fantasy is harmless in her head, of course. It’s the way she’s suggesting it should be executed that get more “I don’t give a fuck what people think about my public behavior/intrusion” levels of harmful.

“and she's looking for people to make it happen”

She wants persons who aren’t interested in making it happen OR watching it happen, or else accepting bi-identifying men and finding a venue that is more friendly to opposite-sex play.

If she was actually putting her interests out there and seeking out interested parties the response would be more positive. And Dan does go out of his way to suggest ways to make it happen IRL without targeting gold-star men, at least.

Hopefully she can work within reasonable, respectful constraints.
Undead @32 -- she doesn't ONLY want to fuck around exclusively homosexual end (which yes, is disrespectful and entitled and plain stupid), she just wants a man who's "gay enough" to treat her sexually as male. That's where she's majorly misguided - she really needs a man who's into women like her, not even neessarily a man who's into men at all...
@34: “I don't feel it's tokenistic in the way "gay best friends" and "non-white spirit animals" are, I don't sense superiority there, more a desperation to get into that magic (and very fetishised by LW) world.”

Perhaps tokenistic in the drunk bridal party feeling obliged to touch and harass strangers at a club sense? Is entitlement not a sense of superiority? Especially when concern for their comfort and feelings of safety/community is being willfully/selfishly suppressed?

Every one of her interests can be attained within respectful means, if she chooses. The framing is what sucks, and what’s keeping her from any willing takers.
Harriet @35 -- yes, exactly that, she doesn't want to be desired as a female and thus doesn't want a "standard" MMF with heteroflexible/bi guys. I still think she'd do best with two bi male subs, but I might be biased.
Undead @38 -- yes, that's what I meant and you expressed it clearer than I managed to.
@ 31
Incorrect because I thought you may have not used "chicks with dicks" as a degrading term, or because of your eagerness to state your straightness?
This woman has been overdosing on slash fan fiction and now wants to experience it IRL.
The LW lusts after homo men. Why. Not just because she enjoys anal more, but because these men don't gaze at her, show any interest. And the quality of these men, ohh, she wants some of that.
@15: "I have no experience with trans women but I suspect that not that many would be into being fetishised by another woman for having a dick."

Depends on the trans woman and her relationship with her body, how she's been treated with respect to identifying as a different gender than that which she was assigned, whether her penis (if she has one) is a particular point of dysphoria, etc. Under current dominant cultural conditions, I, too, suspect that trans women who are into the way that FLAG is potentially into them would be a minority; she's likelier to have success with bi cis men or non-binary-identified penis-havers.

@17: Concerning why men are into lesbian porn, for some it's the simple reason that men who like watching women have sex like watching two women have sex even more. You're assuming that everyone watching porn is getting off on a fantasy self-insert into the porn scenario, but that's not really true - a lot of people get a vicarious sexual thrill from other people getting off (voyeurism is common, even if it's not most people's PRIMARY sexual preference), and for people who get off on women getting off, lesbian porn doubles (or more) the pleasure they get. There are also plenty of men who imagine the lesbians as bisexual (and, hell, they might be, or even straight porn actors doing a 'lesbian' scene), but that's not the only reason, and as far as I can tell, it may not even be the primary reason. There are also the somewhat more socially problematic desires to 'turn' a lesbian straight, be such a special man that even lesbians want to fuck one, or even what is effectively a rape fantasy with a homophobic twist - a desire to have sex with someone who definitely is not attracted to one at all. The voyeuristic impulse seems much more common to me, though it's difficult to get hard data, becasue we can't read minds and thus rely on self-reporting for studies, which is subject to social desirability bias.

Regarding the actual letter, I think Harriet and Skeen have it. I would argue that FLAG is genderfluid to some degree (and maybe "trans" if one considers genderfluidity to fall under the umbrella of gender transition or transgression described by that label, as some do, though not all) - she wants to be treated like (as?) a man, in a particular way in a particular context. She's looking for men who are attracted to that masculine sense of self. In practice, I think this is a distinction without a difference - the behavior, which is the only thing she can actually observe because she can't read minds, could be identical no matter how the other person is or people are thinking about her. What she could find most easily is a straight or bi man (or men, or masculine-presenting non-binary-identified penis-haver(s) - she says she's more into men than trans women with penises, so I suspect a masculine presentation for her partner(s) is part of her desire) who's willing to engage in whatever specific behaviors suggest to her that it's her masculinity rather than femininity that's attractive. It might also help if he's/they're willing to lie about the nature of his/their attraction/s. She'll be served well by some degree of willing suspension of disbelief.
I don't read she's wanting her masculine energy to be fed John H @44, I read a entitled brat who just doesn't get it. Gay men don't want to fuck a cis woman, and if they did they wouldn't be gay.
@44: “There are also the somewhat more socially problematic desires to 'turn' a lesbian straight, be such a special man that even lesbians want to fuck one, or even what is effectively a rape fantasy with a homophobic twist - a desire to have sex with someone who definitely is not attracted to one at all. The voyeuristic impulse seems much more common to me, though it's difficult to get hard data, becasue we can't read minds and thus rely on self-reporting for studies, which is subject to social desirability bias.”

To that end, I wonder is “Baitbus” still around? It seems like something LW would appreciate.

In a riff on the mainstream have-sex-while-others-drive cliche, men are offered sex with a willing woman, and “tricked” (terrible actors, of course) at the last minute into sex with other men.

Nobody is fooled, nobody hurt.
@45: I do see a potential sliver of truth in @44 and wonder if she’s considered gay trans men as potential interests, though agree with your post @5 that would appear to be a great way to be “treated” as she desires, and within respectful bounds.
@35: “I'm dismayed by the identity-policing on the part of gay men and their other gay/queer supporters”

Or her more narrow fetish that requires good-star “gay” conversions over bi partners that prefer men?

Everything that she desires is attainable, but her framing keeps her unsuccessful. Why can’t any bi male “treat her like a male bottom”? What do most gay males even have in common with a trans woman, which was her alternate choice?

This subject would do better with an elaboration from the LW, though again Dan’s advice wasn’t terrible as-is.
Emotionally she prefers gay men. What? And wonders if she could be the female partner to one. Again, what? she wants to barge into gay spaces because women are allowed, yet can't see how intrusive this is. How is it any different to trump barging into female changing rooms when he ran the Miss Something or other, because he could.
A rude and insensitive young woman, who needs to pull her finger out and realise that No, these men are not and never will be available to her, sexually.
Sporty @25: No, I skimmed your comment, as I didn't expect it to contain anything of value, and relied on CMD's interpretation. I see you're drawing a comparison between non-sexual "pets," whatever those are, and sexual "pets." A fair point to make.

I've had a mostly-straight female friend who had a fetish for gay guys. She convinced another friend, a straight man, to butt-fuck her while she fantasised that he was the gay dude she was crushing on. This letter is not likely to be fake.

Skeen @34: Thank you for the new vocabulary word!

Harriet @35: And thank you for pointing out that while actual gay men would have no interest in a woman sexually, many gay-identified men -- ie bisexuals who are rounding themselves up -- would. So she's not barking up the wrong tree. But she'd probably cause offence if she tried approaching gay(appearing) men in gay spaces, so she should stick with posting an ad online and seeing who approaches her.

Undead @47: Cock, and receiving anal, seems to be a huge part of FLAG's kink. I don't think a trans man would do it for her.
Not addressing Sportlandia didn't last long, Fan. Such an obsession you guys seem to have for this one poster.

Words have meaning. A gay man is not a bi man, and this writer specifically says she wants to have sex with gay men. She knows bi men exist, but they are potentially available to her. Gay men are not, and that's what she can't abide, as I see it.
@50: “Cock, and receiving anal, seems to be a huge part of FLAG's kink. I don't think a trans man would do it for her.”

But also the “gay bottom treatment” which she assumes that trans women would be able to deliver but your average bi male wouldn’t?

It’s a bit confusing as stated.
If this letter was from a straight man wanting to fuck lesbians, this letter would have been dealt with pronto. Funny you all seem to bend over backwards to help find a woman solutions for her offensive wishes.
What exactly are you angry about here?

That we’re unimpressed with her request but not mean enough to her by offering ways to make it happen safely and respectfully to the other party?
I see it as getting more response not because it’s perceived as any “better” or more acceptable than the swap, but because of the novelty/complexity of the scenario.
I suggest she find a bi guy who is happy to pretend to be gay to play to her fetish/fantasy. That has to exist?
@34 IMO, you've described tokenization to a tee.

@35 straight cis women who want to have sex with gay men.
Is that a big enough population to be considered a "group" of people? My intuition is no. I'd say the straight women who make a point to hang out with gay men are a group (and a group that is ripe for a takedown or two), and it seems not unreasonable that a goodly portion of those women would like these dudes to fuck them (to whit: "all the good men are taken or gay" meme and I'm sure there are plenty out there hoping to convert Adam Rippon et al), but is it a "thing"?

@41 Neither. C w/ D is the porn genre. I suppose "trans-porn" is out there but that's a different thing. Mostly it seems to be conventional porn looking women (collagen and silicon everywhere, stereotypical small waist big over-inflated tits porn style) who have a penis instead of a vagina. You were incorrect in surmising there were two different categories of fuckpet in my post (versus "regular pet" and "fuck pet")

@45 Bratty is a good word. Reads like a rich girl who didn't get the right gifts at her bat mitzvah.
@Sportlandia, Straight women who enjoy watching gay men have sex and who fetishize gay men is very definitely a thing, as even a quick glance of slash fan fiction will show you. Also straight women interested in gay porn as described above. I alternate between thinking it's because straight women like men so the more the merrier and between thinking it's because it allows the woman to remove herself from the equation which can be liberating or serve a voyeur type fantasy. There's a little bit of both in my own sexual interests. I'd say what's more common is for it to stay in the fantasy realm or else extend to MMF sex or MM voyeurism.

Straight women who actually want to have sex with gay men, who want to actually be fucked by a gay man, who want to serve a gay man, who want to go to gay male spaces and look for gay couples, well I suspect that's a much smaller population, but I don't see why this can't be a responsible and respectful fetish like anything else if it is approached that way. This woman's tone doesn't seem to be there yet (I agree that she sounds naive and/or offensive) but she is writing Dan to ask about it, so I'm willing to give her the benefit of the doubt. If she's on a learning curve to figure out how to handle her fetish in a respectful way.
The LW sounds naive and unintentionally offensive, and Dan is right to correct and redirect her. But the thing she actually wants isn't that big a deal- and she's asking how to get it. For a community that recently fielded questions about motherfucking and worms in vaginas, I think some of the responses here are a bit judgey.

Her problem isn't her fantasy. It's that she wants her fantasy to be real. Once she accepts that it's just a fantasy (a gay couple is not going to lust after her and she should not go to gay spaces looking for that), then she would be fine. So it's not making the thing she wants happen that is weird- but rather the way she's blurring fantasy and reality. And that's why it seems so offensive and reductive- she wants to make real people into the thing she has in her mind.

But she's asking questions, not making demands, so I'm willing to believe that she's just on a learning curve.

She's going to have to accept that the guy(s) who play with her will be bi (one at the least) and that she's going to have to be respectful of gay spaces, etc. But they don't have to admit that they are bi. Just seems like they need to arrange everything up front as in any fetish/role play.

I really doubt it would be very hard to find a bi guy in a relationship with another guy who would like to role play as totally gay in exchange for getting a female maid that he gets to fuck in the ass.

Lava @ 51- I didn’t get the memo re boycotting Sporty.
What I do get though is someone pulling another mother goose in the name of protecting “a young man trying to understand and be a better man.”
And speaking of…
Sporty @ 57
You never addressed your need @ 3 to state “I don’t go for” while discussing trans women, which was totally irrelevant to the discussion.
Yet being a Holocaust expert made you realize LW, which we all seem to agree is an inconsiderate asshole to some degree, is not only a generic entitled white woman but also Jewish.

@60 Call it flavor. In any case, how would not being into a porn genre that's plainly directed at other straight men be an assertion of my own straightness? W/r/t @57, it's called a simile. I don't particularly think LW is 13 years old or has rich parents either, but those seemed to sail right by uncontested. Por que?
Your Holocaust denying comment was also "flavor" and apparently contested, though not by me.
If Sportlandia wrote a comment denying the holocaust; that is unacceptable and the comment was deleted. He should be banned for such a comment CMD? Then do your bit and write Dan about it.
Mizz Liz - In an ideal word, maybe LW's getting what she want wouldn't do any harm, but she wouldn't do her partner or gays in general any good in the world before us now. I'm going to give you a massive slice of benefit of a tiny portion of doubt and assume you are too young to remember when the common assumption was that Gay = Sleeps With Anybody. That is not an era I have any desire to repeat. Just LW's crowing about her "gay" boyfriend would do harm.

Isn't the standard answer for women's interest in MM that it bypasses how women's bodies are policed? That's another thing that in an ideal world might be innocuous but in practical terms is not Good for the G (and as I am, if anything, a GRA, Good for the G is going to be my first point of consideration).
Mx Harriet - If I ever succeed in bringing about the secession of the G, you are welcome to the full contents of the LBTQ+ basket.

I think I'm allowing for your being in possession of a glimmer of truth, but want any gay (or, to please Ms Fan, gay-presenting) man interested in LW's fantasy to be forced into monogamy with her to remove him from the path of other gay men and eliminate his chance of doing them harm. It may be the thinnest edge of the final wedge of FTWL.
Oh, I am going to downgrade my opinion of LW for "I know gay men lust after straight men". This puts me in a bit of a conundrum, as she now goes into a category of not even deserving the gay men interested in her whom I'd want to prune from the G in general. No wonder I sleep so badly.
@ Venn

There is perhaps a subcontext here that is homophobic but I'm not so young as to not know about those sorts of stereotypes. The assumption I'm making here is that the LW is very young - she reads that way- and I don't think it's fair to analyze one person's kinks in the context of an older generation's prejudices and struggles. (Not to say that those prejudices and struggles are totally over come, but certainly there is a very different approach to open sexuality among younger people).

I have no idea about policing of women's bodies- I'm sure there are women who are into seeing two men together for that reason. For my own self, it's much simpler than that. I like men. I like their bodies. I like to see them get off. Give me two to watch, and that's double the hotness. Etc. I assume it works similarly for straight men who like to see women together.
Our desires are often tied up in taboos. I think what is problematic is when people fetishize real people in the real world or impose their own fantasies, fetishes or desires on real people, which is what this woman is very close to doing. But she's asking questions, and for that reason, I give her the benefit of the doubt of being naive / inexperienced rather than intentionally disrespectful. In any case, an appropriate response is to help her figure out how to fulfill her kinks in a respectful and consensual way that doesn't perpetuate stereotypes in the real world rather than getting all mad at her for having the fantasies in the first place.

Loads of people have submission fantasies. Loads of people have voyeur fantasies. And she wants to be treated like a man- in her case a gay man, but it's a gender role swapping fantasy that I don't think is too far off from other scenarios that we see more commonly. If she wants to find a male couple that will let her watch them fuck and that will treat her like a maid, she'll very likely find it. And she wants to be fucked by one of them too, and she'll likely find that. MM4F ads online often contain this scenario- bi couple seeking F third. It's not altogether unusual. But she's going to have to get over her fantasy that this is REAL- that she can just start approaching gay guys and they'll be into her, etc. She's looking for a bi couple or at least a bi man with a gay partner, and because her fantasy is so specific she'll have to spell out what role play she wants.

I think it's perfectly appropriate to do that if she's honest and respectful and keeps her fantasies separated from her realities. And if it has deeper more subconscious roots in societal understandings of sexuality or masculinity or gay stereotypes, I think you'd be hard pressed to find desires, fetishes, fantasies that aren't wrapped up in societal issues around gender and sexuality including history that might be painful for some of us. Which is why it's so important for people to be clear about their fantasies and what they are looking for and to be able to compartmentalize those things so that you aren't really running around treating X group in a certain way outside of the bedroom. To me, it's not too different from other conversations we've had about sub/dom fantasies or abuse/humiliation role play, etc- women could make the same argument that you've made about past abuse and current prevalence, etc.

What this woman says she wants is to watch dudes fuck, be fucked like a man by a dude, and to be treated as a maid for a gay couple. She can very easily achieve all of that, and she's asking how to go about it. The problematic thing is that she needs to tease out her objectification of gay men from real life gay men and separate what is fantasy and what is real.
It's possible also that she's willful in her objectification and it does spill over into real life in ways that are harmful and extend to gay men in general. I'm assuming she's young because I'm thinking of teenage and young adults on Tumblr with all their slash fan art. Someone up thread mentioned Twilight. And I assume she just needs to get a grip on the real world.

I have some crossover interests with young people in those subcultures (steam punk and scifi fiction in my world) and in recent years there has been an explosion of what seems to me to be very naive fetishizing of gay couples. And this includes a lot of stuff about 'straight' guys who have sex with their male friends- and rather than it resulting from stereotypes about promiscuity, I think it's tied up in alienated young people's expressions of vulnerability and desire for intimacy moreso than anything sexual, plus gay culture is a hip thing to them and fantasy relationships are easier than real ones. I think this sort of Tumblr fetishization is for certain young women what porn is for certain young men, and both I think come partially out of the problems with a generation of extremely online isolated people who don't know how to handle adult intimacy, but that's another topic. I bring it up to give context to how I read her letter, but it could be more malicious than that and I'm way off mark.
Oh shit, I promise I didn't break that post up into two just to win the 69- I didn't even notice until afterwards, and if I'm disqualified, I'll not grumble.
Lava @51: I offered Sporty a truce and he refused. *Shrug*.

Undead @52: Yes, I'm a bit puzzled about where the trans woman thing comes in. Perhaps it's a separate kink altogether, or perhaps she's conflating gay men with trans women because she's watched too much RuPaul's Drag Race? I don't have any solid theories there.

Lava @53: As Venn says, this sort of exploitation is inappropriate in either direction, but it is worse when it's straight men fetishising lesbians, and I'll tell you why: A straight woman hitting on gay men is annoying. A straight man hitting on lesbians is threatening. Have you ever heard of straight women subjecting gay men to "corrective rape"? And anyway, I'm not advising FLAG to hit on gay men; just the opposite. I'm advising that she post an ad and let them come to her. A straight guy into lesbians could do the same thing. Though FLAG will probably have more luck, as her fantasy is less common and therefore (presumably) less tedious to the rounding-up-to-gay men out there who might share it.

Emma @58: Another reason straight/bi women like gay male porn might be because they like to look at men's bodies and don't like to see women being "exploited" for the male gaze, as is characteristic of straight porn.

Emma @59/@68: Great take. I agree FLAG seems young -- she's just moved to DC, she sounds fresh out of college, and she's like a kid in a Dupont Circle candy shop. I remember those days! Good point about fanfic proving that man-on-man fantasies are indeed very common among women. And congrats on the magic number, I think you won it fair and square!
Mizz Liz - In the truest spirit of FTWL, I echo the view that you should feel completely entitled to take the full extent of whatever enjoyment you derive from making the 69th post.

You see youthful naivete; I see entitlement. I don't like it when people whose fantasies are Harmful To Gays receive even partial YGG receptions.

Ms Fan's statement to you - [Another reason straight/bi women like gay male porn might be because they like to look at men's bodies and don't like to see women being "exploited" for the male gaze, as is characteristic of straight porn.] is another way of phrasing what I meant by body policing. I could go on at some length about the harm done to gays by the plethora of bad MM fiction penned by women (I was going to say OS, but I'm not positive that lesbians are that much better), but I'll summarize it by saying it tends to result in wanting gays to fit into some variation on Fifty Shades thinking and becoming just what women want us to be. It's on the same plane as the line of thinking that insists that Gay Porn Degrades Women, because it always includes a "substitute woman" - an entitled and insulting viewpoint.

Can we reconcile our takes on, "I know gay men lust after straight men"? There's a lot of subtlety there. Is LW implying ALL (or even MANY) gay men, inviting the inference, or unaware that she's inviting the inference? I suspect you'd say the last. I have gone back and forth on this, and am currently on the interpretation that she is willing to invite the inference because she thinks it will help to get her what she wants. That the inference has done a good deal of harm in the past and continues to do so, perhaps in a lesser degree, does not concern her. Then there's the choice of "lust after" instead of "find attractive" or "are attracted to". I think "lust after" implies a certain volition in largely the same way one sees in Death on the Nile when Poirot suggests that Linnet deliberately set out to take Simon from Jackie. Now, this ties in as well to why I think that Straight Chaser ought to be treated as a completely different orientation from Gay because the ideals for which they advocate are so different, and largely harmful to the other. Now it's highly plausible that LW just selected "lust after" because she lusts after many gay men, but that would make it all the more imperative for her to make it clear that she was not generalizing about gays. Then there's "straight men" - does LW restrict that to the Full Kinsey Zero, or is she including "straight-presenting? She does use "gay-presenting" in the letter at least once. And then there's the amount of frequency. Here I think LW may be unaware that she's inviting the inference that gay men exclusively or primarily lust after straight men - or, really, even just frequently, but I'm not willing to go from "may" to "probably is". My overall take is that she's at least fine with people's inferring that gay men in general tend to think about straight men the way she thinks about gay men - a harmful view to perpetrate, though likely not with deliberate malice.

(Well, that was a lot to glean from one short sentence.)

I'll suggest that LW isn't sufficiently close to being in good working order to be able to fulfill this fantasy of hers in a way that will not do harm to gay men, either her partners or gays in general. I take slight exception to your suggestion that she can easily fulfill her fantasy; if that is so easily done, then it means that gays are already severely under siege (the unwitting part of Mx Harriet's agenda). Now it's possible (proportionally more so the better the world becomes) that LW might find her [non-appropriating substitute for unicorn] and that the two of them might enjoy a fifty years' marriage without ever doing harm to gays at all. But I don't find it all that likely. This is the sort of kink that ranks with that in those MM couples whose sex lives consist significantly of encounters in which Partner A rains homophobic slurs down on Partner B. That kind of thing can remain strictly confined to the bedroom, but it so easily and so often leaks out.
Ms Fan @71 to Ms Lava - I'm going to split the difference. While you're loosely generally correct, I think it's important to note that the LGs are closer to equivalence than straight men and women are. Many lesbians equip themselves better to deal with male advances, and I've met numerous twinks in my time who found disagreeably close encounters with an amourous female quite threatening enough, albeit more often psychologically rather than physically.
Lava- I’m not following your rationale. As long as The Stranger does not expel Sporty no one is allowed to challenge his views?
As for being pathetic, I sadly agree. After all I trusted and defended you for years.
You still have some good moments, but the disconnections seem to grow.
@64 I made a half-joke about someone else being a holocaust denier. It went over everyone's head.

I completely agree with you regarding her entitlement, as well as the larger societal problems around fetishization of gay couples for mostly female consumption- it's objectification and when mixed with entitlement it can be harmful. That's why I made the analogy between that and the representations of women in mainstream porn and how this also becomes a problem when it normalizes misogyny or male entitlement, etc. The existence and/or extent of gay men who lust after straight men, well I don't know enough about that to speak to it but I'll take your word for it. But yes it's a theme in fanfic type gay couples- and from that point of view, which is obviously different from your own which involves the men themselves- it's usually more about vulnerability which I think is a response to rigid masculine gender roles. But you are correct that her wording could imply a wider nastiness.

In any case, we aren't disagreeing about the LW's attitude. I'm just adding that it's pretty common for people to have fantasies and kinks that are rooted in deeply problematic and even abusive societal attitudes around gender and sexuality. So it seems like the best advice for her is to grow up a bit and separate what is real from what is fantasy and figure out how to get what she wants in an ethical way- which means she can't go about in real life treating entire groups of people as if they are her fantasies- that's objectification and entitlement as you say. She can however recognize the difference and get the thing she wants. It's the same advice I'd give a man who wants to treat a woman roughly or as she is depicted in some porn- recognize that this is a fantasy representation of women and then seek a woman who wants to play this fantasy too. Don't go out treating women in general this way or making sweeping generalizations about what they want, etc. Gold stars for people who realize that their fantasies are rooted in problematic social histories of different groups, but I don't think that sort of wider understanding is necessary to treat people with respect and still get kinky.
@BDF yes about the porn thing, and yes also to what Venn was saying about body policing. Though there is straight porn out there that is not made from that POV, it's easier to just watch gay porn at least on the free sites. Though I think there's also just an element of enjoying the male body for some of us straight women anyway, especially regarding the conversation above about how we don't all insert ourselves into the scene. When I watch porn, I don't usually fantasize that I'm doing the thing in the porn- it's just hot to watch other people. But women don't do anything for me, and since I don't imagine that I"m in the scene, I don't really want to watch the woman get off, even when she's clearly having fun. I want to see the dude. So I'm sure there are all sorts of deeper societal issues at play, but on the surface, you just get to see more of the guys. I do like amateur straight porn but I watch it differently- it's not just hot fantasy, instead I find myself thinking about what I'd like to do myself etc, and that's a different experience. I think there's something liberating in just being able to watch something very hot that exists entirely in fantasy for me since it's not something I will ever possibly experience, and I can't be alone in thinking this way since so many people get into manga and furries and all sorts of things like that- these kids today.
@44. John Horstman. I would think 'gender transition' rather falls under the umbrella of 'gender fluidity'. A trans man is a man, but a man who shows that there's a variety (of styles of gendered embodiment) within maleness. Gender is 'wider bandwidth' than the sexists have assumed.

The LW may find it hard to get what she wants because she presents as female, and maybe more importantly because she thinks of herself as female, rather than as genderqueer/non-gender/transitioning. Understandably many gay male tops are not going to be drawn to someone who is ... well, female.
@48. UndeadAyn.
"Or her more narrow fetish that requires gold-star “gay” conversions over bi partners that prefer men?"

But does she want to 'convert' these guys? How female will she be to them in taking it up the ass? Very female? Insistently female? Incidentally, you-know-I'm-a-woman sort-of female, if they really think about it?

From my perspective, it's just not the case that a 'gay man' is someone who's shy of having sex when a woman's within a 50 yards radius. Yes, of course, there are many gay men like that. It's the whole culture of solidarity and political identity. LukeJosef's response @1 (supposing this is the 70s-type gay male response) merits nothing more than a smile and a 'yeah, right'. But it is not the case that no gay men do anything sexual with women; that the men who do things sexually with women are bi or straight. There are ways to be a gay man that take in a catholic range of sexual practices that include women as participants and spectators. We all know this. The identity police are talking about another era ('a gay man does not...'). It's interesting that a lot of people making this assertion are not in fact gay men. I would think, in fact, that they're engaged in some form of gender-policing.

Your suggestion, that the original LW might reframe what she wants, so it doesn't seem that she wants to have straight sex with gays, is a completely correct and welcome one. Can she be explicit about why she doesn't want a triadic relationship, or just threeways in sex, with two bi men? Is there something about the identity or the supposed sexual practices of gay men she values? Or has fetishised? You, along with many people, seemed to find the framing prejudicial, maybe identity-erasing, maybe homophobic. I didn't find that. I wouldn't think that Dan found that, either, in the careful way he combed through her ideas point-by-point.
Things seem to have reached stability. I did omit to look up countries that punish only male homosexuality, but it's not of great import now.

Maybe I should give myself a deCourcy Award when I feel too much in the mode of Lady Susan's lover Reginald dC, who always requires the minutest particulars in explanation of whatever he hears in his disfavour (although his mistrustful streak turns out to be correct) instead of, as is the habit of her more-agreeable-but-married lover Mainwaring, harbouring the deep belief that whatever she does must be right.
@50. BiDan. But we're splitting hairs over naming. At this level of specificity, I think it's right just to accept the self-label of the person in question.

There are slippages between how people self-ascribe ('I'm gay') and what they do (e.g. occasionally kiss women or have some kinds of sex with them). For whatever reason, some men in this category won't think of themselves as 'bi'--because they understand 'bi' to entail some equally strong or consistent or non-person-specific mode of being attracted to men/women; or because they take it to mean an equal openness to relationships or cohabitation with both; or because it would tally for them only with a certain sexual history, which they don't have; or because their identification with a culture (of socialising or dating) is with that of gay men ... and so on, and so on. I don't think it's necessarily biphobic for these gay men to see themselves as 'gay'.

As for my primary identity, it pivots between a queered gender-identification with femininity as a man (this is strongest) and a sexual one as a mostly gay man. (I'd see the bi-ness sexually as being a reversal of my usual gender identification--but 'too contorted' for most). I'd take it badly if someone said to me that I hadn't 'made hard choices' in my identification when I call myself sexually 'gay', rather than 'bi'.

I agree she shouldn't launch herself at gay men in gay spaces. Of course!
@57. Sportlandia. Are there enough 'straight cis women who want to have sex with gay men' for them to be a socially identifiable group? No, not really (this seems to be your answer, too). My idea was that, IF the letter was fake, this was the group that it was written to undermine. It was written to discredit, in the mind of this supposed trolling letter-writer, women for whom straight men are not good enough (straight women, that is; women who want sex with men, not bi women or lesbians).

I don't think the typical prejudice about 'faghags' (a derogatory term back in the day) is that they want to have sex with the gay men they hang out with. The prejudice is that they want to exempt themselves from an inevitable element of 'sex war' friction and antagonism insofar as this is a normal part of men and women dating (this is a prejudice, a misogynistic prejudice, in my eyes).
@66 Venn. This is the politics of a bygone era--the gay (gay men, that is) for the gays for the gays.

If the LW finds a partner of her chosen sort to be monogamous with, as she describes it, it will be second-best for him, because he will be a gay man wanting, presumably, a gay male butt.
Sporty @ 75
That's not what you told us a week or so ago.
@79: “But does she want to 'convert' these guys? How female will she be to them in taking it up the ass? Very female? Insistently female? Incidentally, you-know-I'm-a-woman sort-of female, if they really think about it?”

Well, her intentional exclusion of bi men with experience because she feels they wouldn’t treat her the same?

“You, along with many people, seemed to find the framing prejudicial, maybe identity-erasing, maybe homophobic. I didn't find that.”

And that’s fine, my take isn’t the only possible, and even considering my take I’m open to elaboration on her point. She does not currently appear to be trans or GQ, though elements may be present. I’m not unhappy with Dan’s answers, and I’d be curious to see an elaboration or dialogue with her about her interests and initial framing.

While it can be taken as all those things at face value, a more nuanced discussion can be had.

Sadly, the letter ended there and concerns raised by it aren’t explained. But, again, it’s possible that more charitable interpretations are correct (and I don’t find them implausible) thus, again, good on Dan for giving good direct advice.
@81: “But we're splitting hairs over naming”

Not because of our concerns, so much as what LW states she is looking for.
@75: Sportlandia; no jokes or whatever around the Holocaust. And watch it with the cultural stereotypes. I can assure you, bratty girls cross every colour and creed.
@85. UndeadAyn. She asks, somewhat naively on its own terms, whether bi men don't also hang out in the gay space? And then she asks what she can say to gay-presenting bi guys who might like to have sex with her. So on the last score, I'd think that her exclusion of bi men doesn't express an animus or prejudice against bisexuality as an identity.

She does seem to think that gay men have anal sex a certain way. Like you, I'd want to suspend judgment over whether her fantasies (or desires!) are prejudicial or not.

I kind-of get the feeling I've historically had anal sex in the way she sounds like she wants it ... and it wasn't being 'fucked like a man' to me. If anything, it was feminizing....
@74 what's pathetic is that you're upset with lavagirl even though she doesn't even really agree with me. How narrow minded can you get? Like, it's bad enough that you can't tolerate anyone not towing your line on some idea, but you even get upset at people who think that accommodating more than your mainstream opinion might be worthwhile. It's like the Bill O'Reilly show with y'all screaming to cut off the mic.

Frankly, if you challenged my views, that'd be cool. We wouldn't agree any more often but that's how it goes when your willing to voice your opinion. But 9 times out of 10, you don't respond to what i say: just question my 'right' to say it, question my motivations for saying it, assume that i must be making up some anecdote, whatever. You challenge me as a human - but one thing you rarely ever do is challenge my views.
Sporty- you are challenged on your views and on the way you communicate them. When your lies and inconsistencies exposed you cry kindergarten bullies. When kindergarten bullies don’t work anymore you cry racism. When racism doesn’t work anymore you just keep lying.
@84 A week ago I didn't remember the comment at all - someone else remembered and mentioned it. But it was still a joke no one got.
And when lying doesn't work it was nothing but a joke that once again no one got.
@88: Sure, all valid.

@89: Your J.A.P., Holocaust, and more common random bitter jabs at women are unnecessary, unfunny 4chan trash in search of a punchline.

Hiding behind “it’s a joke!” / doubling down suggests your motivations for them suck, lazy attempts to rile at best.

Nobody here is biting on the “you should email Dan to ban him!”, I don’t care beyond commenting that this regressive punch-down manbaby stuff belongs on Reddit and 4chan, not on a site ostensibly more aligned with inclusivity.
Mx Harriet - You are free to advocate for de-gaying the Alphabet Soup as much as you want, a drive I have seen from many other letters in the soup bowl and one which just strikes me as further proof that many people of all societal persuasions just cannot stand MM and have to bring it down any way they can. But there are many gays who are noticing this, and are as happy to leave the soup bowl as most of the other letters would be to see us go - if they could keep our cachet and resources. If you think that the trends within the soup bowl reflect success for Team Q-the-G, I contend that instead lots of us are just leaving instead. And I must state that, having conquered right-wing conversion therapy, I shall resist it from the left wing just as strenuously.

You deserve a house of your own. Please stop trying to take over mine while demanding that I keep living in it. Buy it at a fair price and I'll leave, or build another and we can perhaps be good neighbours.

As I've explained, LW is not in sufficiently good working order to deserve fulfillment, or to bring it about in a harmless manner if she achieves it. Perhaps with a bit (or a good deal) of work, she could attain sufficient working order, but she does not have it now. Any gay-presenting man interested in her as she is now would be a hazard to gay men and should be removed from the pool. As you point out, it's not a perfect solution, but at least what he'd be getting would be something on basically the same plane as what he deserved. I should think people would be pleased that I can be as harsh on the home team as on the away squad.
CMD, you are seriously crossing the line here. If the whole group felt Sportlandia was some sort of ogre, he'd know that by now. So just back the fuck off or I'll be reporting you for bullying. If others see issues, with this poster, they'll let him know. Fucking enough already. We're trying to hold out all the bullshit in the world and have some intelligent discussions.
Oh mother superior
Lava- This is what sanguisuga wrote couple of weeks ago:
“Lava, perhaps not *everyone* agrees with undead, but I believe that quite a few people do. I don't see their (undead and BDF) retorts as being bullying in the least, they're simply standing up against broadly overreaching and offensive statements. I personally don't want to yank on the snake's tail simply because I haven't the time nor the energy to deal with snide bullshit. But I also feel compelled to point out that I've noticed a pattern of you jumping in to defend those you view as poorly-maligned individuals, especially those that identify as male. For all your blustering about bringing down the patriarchy, you seem curiously invested in protecting fragile little male egos.”
Harriet @81: If self-identified straight men can be into forced cocksucking, then I don't see why [some] self-identified gay men couldn't be into occasionally fucking a woman's ass instead of a man's (there's not much difference from behind, really), or having a female voyeur -- some might find that a turn-on in an "I can have him but you can't" sort of way. And I do know self-identified lesbians who have casual sex with men when they get horny enough. Diversity is great. In other words, I agree with you!

Harriet @82: Straight women who want to have sex with gay men may not be a "group," but straight women who objectify/fantasise about gay men, either via gay porn or slash fic, are definitely a group. Most members of the group know what "gay" means and understand that this fantasy is that and that alone.

Undead @85: I don't think she's excluding bi men; she seems open to them as a more realistic means of realising her fantasies. They'd probably have to be pretty camp to satisfy her cravings, though.

Harriet @88: Different people experience the same acts differently, and get different things out of them. If I'm roleplaying a gay man in my head while the cis man I'm pegging roleplays a woman in his, what harm does that do if we both enjoy ourselves? This LW clearly associates anal sex with being a gay bottom, and if that's what she finds hot about it, so be it.

Sporty @91: "A joke no one got" probably wasn't funny, and in this case, you've been told, was offensive. A decent person would apologise. But no, you told the joke and you meant it to be funny, so that's all that matters. But I don't remember the comment, I'm not Jewish, so I'll say nothing more on the matter.
@94. Venn. In response, I think that 16 year-olds who would have been G (or L) a generation ago are Q now; and that it's broadly a good thing.

All these other Alphabet Soup letters (with the possible exception of the L) are or were added not as things that deserved the same protection as the G, that rightfully claimed shelter under the same rights umbrella, but as things that Gs were as well. As the names for practices that Gs got up to. Maybe as Qs ... but no, let's not go there. Unnecessarily complicated and, as you imply, anti-G. If a man in the early 80s wanted to dress up as a woman and bottom, irrespective of his/her later reclassification per the queering of gender, he, on the bottom, was G, and his lover on the top, was G. It had a certain simplicity.

The last thing I want to do is take away M only (gay male) spaces from gay men. I think such spaces are politicized anyways not under pressure of some demand for queer catholicity from the left, but by the homophobic religious right. I'd accept as a desire the hope they could be depoliticized, that they could be only for MM fucking. (But it's implausible).

The range of things gay men do is too broad not to need amplification and specification by the other letters. If I call myself gay rather than bi (it's only ever likely I could be involved with queer women), I get accused of biphobia. But all my formative experience was gay--my first 25 years of having sex. How could I not call myself 'gay'? Would you really want, on political / identarian / different-practice grounds, to excise me from your community of men?
LW here. I am 33 not 13. I am half Black, half Jewish. I work 70+ low-wage hours/week, entitling me to DC foodstamps and medicaid. So you all are only half-right about me!
I am somewhat gender fluid (like the idea of "passing" as male but not enough to ever pursue it), only had one D/S partner (best sex ever, mentioned above), and I've never even flirted with a gay man. This is fantasy/idea land, so I truly appreciate everyone's advice on how to move forward in reality...
@6 @17 Yes. Quality = Looks.
@5 Hell yes. Bucket list!
@18 He isn't really straight. His ideal partner is a hermaphrodite or totally natural looking M2F. He detests many female qualities, and when I get high with him I know he is repressed bisexual.
@33 I want anal ONLY. This is very hard to find from hot, hetero, and dominant males.
@42 I never heard of slash before, but will google it shortly.
@43 Exactly!!!!!!!
@51 I am/was confused. I think of bi men as extremely rare, since all the ones I've met are closeted about loving men.
@59 Thank you!!! Best advice other than Dan's.
@67 I should have written "some" gay men. Dan and everyone else has successfully thrashed me into reframing the fantasy. Don't lose sleep!
@68 Thanks for the benefit of the doubt
@Everyone: I promise I will never "invade" gay spaces.
Now... Onto my hunt for Dominant, openly Bi-sexual, males/couples, who groom impeccably, and eschew pussyl
@100: "I want anal ONLY. This is very hard to find from hot, hetero, and dominant males."

I think you can certainly find someone to make this happen, so long as you make this clearly known from the start and everyone's on the same page.

"Now... Onto my hunt for Dominant, openly Bi-sexual, males/couples, who groom impeccably, and eschew pussy"

Good luck! Glad to hear you've listened to concerns and not taken too much offense when we had a limited set of information to work with.

Now, there are perils with any dating site, but have you considered perusing Fetlife groups for local Doms who might be interested in your arrangement? You can at least get a good scan of their interests (or place in the local community) and what they might have to offer you. There's less fully "gay" members than straight/GQ, but that subsection may be more willing/experienced in realizing your fantasy.