I think there's a decent chance the girl on tinder could be a SLUG, but that shouldn't change your judgement, LW: If she wants to get with you and dump the gf, that's life. As long as you meet your own ethical guidelines w/r/t where you're at, enjoy. If you were to hook up with a guy and "turn" gay, it'd probably because you were gay all along, not that someone came through and took away your straightness. If brainwashing and electro shock therapy can't stop a teenager from being gay, it's unlikely you're gonna do any better. So breath easy.

As to how to make the experience as comfortable and fun as possible? Well, the same way you'd do for a straight girl: No one knows.

A SLUG?

I love Savage Love.

Something Lesbian Until Graduation?

@2 @4 sorry, regionalism: Smith Lesbian Until Graduation. "LUG" is the generic term...

@5 so you're saying if I hop onto Tinder after May 20th I could have my pick of the crop of newly-minted straight girls looking for the D? *sets calendar reminder*

I have a feeling that if all those post masturbation pre sex coffee conversations and negotiations and birth control and how to proceed and what and what not and respectful and no improv indeed go right and everyone is having a great time, that we are indeed going to hear about it.
At the New York Times Sunday edition Sunday Styles section “Modern Love” featured story, or at the very least as a yet another one of those “vows” at the end of that section.

Dear Penthouse Forums,

I never thought this would happen to me...

Generic advice that won't ever go wrong, WADDAAP...nice and slow and easy.

She's never banged a dude. Okay, has she kissed a dude? Been fingerbanged by a dude? Sensual massage maybe with her shirt off but her bra on by a dude? Given a dude a handjob?

If you meet over coffee and go ahead, there's nothing wrong with setting ground rules that explicitly exclude PIV, anal, maybe even oral. Maybe have a pants-stay-on rule for the first time. Maybe she gets to play with you, but you don't play with her/she plays with herself.

One thing, though, if you DO do this, ask her what gets her off. If you're trying to make it a fun experience for both of you, and she really likes her Hitachi, tell her to bring her Hitachi (see: she plays with you while also playing with herself). Or whatever else she really enjoys. With that, if she decides she doesn't like teh cock, she can still leave after an orgasm and hopefully a nice time otherwise.

And, of course, wear a condom AND pull out. Campfire rule, yada yada.

Dammit @Knat you beat me to it. Previous quickie phone read made me think it was a legit LW but "butch" in quotes, sure looks sketchy... Or maybe he's real so I say have fun and use condoms. But anyway...

Dear Penthouse Forums,

I never thought it would happen to me, but boy-o-boy it sure did! For the record, I'm 28, straight, ginger hair, 6'4, 190# workout fiend, (washboard abs). I've always been turned on by the "butch" girls at the gym, but they never gave me the time of day. Last week I just happened to be checking out Tinder, and holy crap there was this mega-hot dyke on there! We swapped some texts, wishing we were swapping spit instead! Thought it might be an issue with her GF but she got permission... under one condition that I bought "accessories" for our meeting...

@8 @10

It hasn't happened yet.

Yeah, "butch"??? So, when you have a convo with her, find out whether this "butch" normally tops, or whether she has been penetrated before (dildo, strap-on, fist, etc.) and did she like it? Because having to deal with making penetration fun and non-ouchy for a first-timer is more complicated.

I dunno. I feel there's a fake vibe to the letter because - as we all know /sarcasm - there are all these butch lesbians around who get hall passes from their girlfriends to experience a real (not silicone) cock as well as all the other male body parts, different textures, etc.

These kids now days! Holy shit, Batman, you’re just gonna get together and fuck! Does this all need to be planned out to the nth degree? No. Have a nice dinner. Have some good conversation. Then have a good pregnancy/std-protected roll in the hay. Be respectful, just like you should be with a straight girl.

HOWEVER, if this is all true, and if she hasn’t been going full-on with strap-ons and other assorted toys with her girlfriend , be prepared that you’ll be deflowering a virgin... go SLOW, it might be painful for her. It might get bloody, so have some towels handy. Listen to her. Take your cues from her.

Actually, this advice applies to pretty much ANY dating situation.

@5 - oh. Where/when I went to school, we used to call that "visiting Oberlin."

@13, seriously, Have you ever heard of fingers, how exactly do you imagine lesbians have sex? My fingers are more proficient than a cock and can become more filling at a moments notice. Unless this guy is John Holmes dicks are weak sauce compared to lesbian fingers.

You say you don't want her to get into anything she won't regret later ... you are a big part of that, in not thinking this respectful, casual sex is something it's not. Make sure you understand that it's for once (or a few times) only, that it won't be something to brag about, that her committed, genuine relationship is with her GF.

Yes, arrange condoms (probably) before. As for who's topping, I wouldn't worry too much about that or pre-script it to the nth degree. If you enjoy being together, there are things--touch and oral sex--you're likely to be exploring naturally, in a fun but tentative way, before you get down to penetration. It’s possible that she, rather, has definite ideas of the sex she'd like; and if these are not of the 'languorous exploration' kind, it would help you to know of them. Yes, then--this is a discussion you should have beforehand. The last thing is that it's possible that the penetrative sex won't go through: that one of you will change your mind; she'll want your bum, but won't want to give you anything of hers; she'll want to touch but no more than that etc. If so, this is still sex, of one form; it can be good sex, and just accept it's the form of sex you're getting.

Maybe it would be a good idea to borrow a trick or two from the Lesbian Playbook for this encounter. Since most women find it difficult to orgasm from intercouse alone, giving her a helping hand by using your finger(s) on her while In her may help yield satisfactory results.

Well, it's a good thing he hasn't got any plans to turn her straight. (How on earth is he anticipating he'd do this, even if he wanted to?)

Dan's advice is great. I wouldn't rule out meeting the girlfriend, if he wants to be 100% sure he's not in a cheating scenario. I also wouldn't rule out an "if it seems too good to be true, it probably is" situation. What straight guy wouldn't jump at this chance? Women know this; perhaps she's actually a straight or bi girl who feels insecure about her butch appearance, and knows full well that if she pitches herself as a previously gold-star lesbian, guys who wouldn't otherwise be interested will beat a path to her door. But even if she's roleplaying a lesbian, if WADDAAP follows Dan's advice, he can't go wrong and both of them should have an enjoyable experience.

JuanMas @17: Or if he's sincere about his desire to "not turn her straight," he could give her the sort of quick wham-bam-thank-you-ma'am that will convince her she's not missing out on much! ;)

Commie @18: Bicuriosity is a thing for some people who are otherwise straight-identified and some who are otherwise gay-identified. Being curious about cock does not mean Ms Tinder "chose" to be primarily attracted to women. She's young; either she'll realise she's actually somewhat bi or the experience will convince her that she's missing nothing by forgoing inferior puny penises (and more likely, the hairy sweaty bodies they're attached to).

@9 "wear a condom AND pull out"

huh?

Commie @21: Not at all like that, but you're welcome.

Oh, @18. I've also written about all the lesbian-identified bisexuals out there.

@25) Sadly, no antidote for "Innate Dumb Cracker" exists for you.

@25 - Not unlike left-handedness. I am so deeply and innately left-handed that I can't get a spoon to my face with my right, but my boxing/kickboxing/martial arts stance is that of a right-handed fighter. I never had any luck with ostensibly "left-handed" scissors, so I cut with my right. I use the mouse at a computer wherever the last user left it. Being left-handed, then, isn't one, set thing; it's an innate proclivity that finds different modes of expression according to circumstance.

We often don't know who's attractive to us until we're attracted, or what acts attract/repulse us until we've done them enough times to know whether we were doing it right. And ask ... just about anyone who's not a virgin, and you'll find that it's sadly not all that rare that people engage in sexual acts for all kinds of reasons not directly tied to strongly felt attractions - testing our proclivities in the best of circumstances, settling or self-protecting or succumbing to force in the worst.

I'm offering this explanation as though you have an actual desire to learn, and aren't being deliberately obtuse. I write the time off as a thought exercise.

Humans have been playing doctor with each other in all possible combinations for millennia. Boys with girls, girls with girls, boys with boys, hermaphrodites with everyone..... All kinds of perverted touching and probing by all varieties in all cultures more times than can be counted. Nothing new under the sun. Dykes on cocks, meatheads on cocks... and we are still alive to talk about it - nobody was sent to the penalty box.

#25 does not have the mental faculties to deal with this type of information - it blows apart his narrow mental trip-tic when other humans exist and live outside his dumb cracker rule book. If you are gonna be Gay, you gotta be gay by his rules or you are Gaying wrong!

@29 in that case, you're free to come up with a new set of words to represent sexual orientation on one hand, and another set for sexual behaviors on the other. Problem solved!

Oh no. Even Dan himself is falling victim to Commentor's homophobic provocations. No wonder he's confused: trolling is both something he does and something he is. Commie, you clearly don't want to understand; any explanation of Kinsey scales, identity in a political sense, "rounding up" or layer cake (google all of these terms if you actually do want to learn) would be a waste of pixels. Go forth and research sexual orientation. Hopefully that will keep you off the boards for a few blissful hours.

Janell8me@15 ~ Point taken.

@33 sure, but what's that have to do with anything else we're talking about here?

Side note, w/r/t to "Butch" (@10 @12) - LW may be "rounding up"if they aren't, uh... a connoisseur. I've always thought that the androgynous look is the hottest thing in the world - Amelia Earhart was (and remains) my long-time celeb crush. She was never femmy, but also not butch. There's a lot of women around today that have similar styles, that me, straight man, find unironically attractive.

@36 - I can't change my left-handedness. I can train myself to perform some tasks with my right hand; I can do exercises to improve dexterity on both sides. As a martial artist and personal trainer, I have managed to get both sides more or less equally strong, and to get the right side faster and a little more precise (I wouldn't likely miss if I swung at you with a right cross, and the blow would probably damage your brain considerably ... I mean, for instance). But certain fine motor skills will never work out on one side as well as on the other. The proclivity doesn't so much limit my ability as it circumscribes it so I have to find different avenues, different directions, from the usual to create a highly individuated mode of proficiency.

I would say that sexual orientation might change, but cannot BE changed by or through external imposition or effort. It might, though, be more accurate to say that it can be further revealed, rather than changed. That is, one may find oneself attracted to individuals unexpectedly. Rigid definitions fall more easily to the challenges of living in (and as) dynamic systems.

Talk is good, yes. Planning is... OK. But don't talk or plan it to death. Let the sex be at least a little bit of an adventure. And, assuming PIV, I'm going to recommend wearing a condom, but not pulling out when you come. If she wants the male/female experience, don't shaft her on the male PIV orgasm... or, I guess, do shaft her on the male orgasm.

"Dear Penthouse,

I never thought it would happen to me, but..."

:>)

Mr Hound - There are plenty of famous examples in both directions - Sr Nadal, Mr Mickelson, either Mrs Court or Ms Connolly.

I learned golf right-handed because there weren't left-handed clubs for elementary-school golfers at that time. I did acquire some later, but never became as good left-handed (although it was useful keeping a left-handed club in the bag). In racket sports, I can't really hit a consistent one-handed backhand right-handed. When I bowled, I averaged in the 170's LH and the the 140's RH.

Mr. BB Netanyahu at several posts- sadly it is too late as your son made the news not too long ago. That said, please don't have any additional children.

-2 for Mr Savage: far more often per capita it's straight women who go full psycho on exploring gays. This has become fairly mainstream(both versions of QaF, for instance), and she gets the sympathy, as if he's terribly at fault for not turning bi for The Love of a Good Woman. (This reminds me of that television series that had Mr Savage over the moon in which the interesting male character completely lost his edge, but Mr Savage loved the series because the female character was genuinely well-written.)

Personally, I think the Silver Star crowd ought to be open about it. One could even make a case that they're the most secure; I could quite happily take the brief on either side.

I don't know if this letter is fake or not, but I had the pleasure of being on the receiving end after a certified organic lesbian grabbed my ass during some event.

@36: Okay, Commentor Boswell, I'll play along.
Yep, let's say that being gay is, as you put it:
"Exactly like that,
not a set thing, but a proclivity,
that expresses, or doesn't express, in various ways,
and can be changed."

So?

Let's say it is a choice. You don't have to choose it--and it's none of your business if someone else does.

Someone else's being gay doesn't affect you at all. No one's going to make you suck a dick.
Why should anyone anywhere give a shit what you think about whom they love or whom they want to have sex with? Who died and left you in charge? And even if you were in charge, what's it to you?

No one is being harmed--I'm certainly not, and neither are you--if the person who lives next door wants to have sex with someone who has the same kind of genitals.

@22...it's a reasonable precaution when you're fucking someone who may or may not be on reliable contraception: have a primary form of BC and a backup. A lesbian in a relationship with another lesbian or a bi woman has a higher likelihood of NOT being on prescription BC than a straight woman/bi woman with a man would be (unless she's taking it for non-contraceptive purposes, and even then, what kind is she using and does she use it properly?).

The condom is primary BC + STI protection. Pulling out is secondary BC. Critically, both are BC that this dude has control over.

@45, continued.
I'm going along with your premise that sexual orientation is a proclivity that "can be changed."
If someone of their own volition wants to change the expression of their sexual attraction, that's fine. And if they don't, if they're happy the way they are, then that is fine, too.

If, sadly, they are unhappy with their "provclivity" but find that they can't change it, what would you have them do? Be miserable and self-loathing? Because surely you are aware that for centuries, hundreds of thousands of people have tried to make themselves change and were unable. That can't be a good way to go through life. I would rather that someone in those circumstances find a way to make peace with their wiring and find happiness and self-acceptance. I can't see what the benefit is in wishing misery on anyone.

You, however, apparently do wish misery on people. You want them to hate themselves; you want them to do something that is unnecessary and usually impossible. You want to deprive them of self-acceptance and the joy of a partnered life. I can't figure out what is wrong with you to make you want that for another person. But I'm sure you're going to tell me it's because you are a Christian. Jesus, if I remember correctly, was all about condemnation and self-loathing and stone-throwing.

Commentor @48: So then, who would you deem "healthy role models" for heterosexuality? Bill Clinton? Harvey Weinstein? Donald Trump? You seriously gonna claim hetero moral superiority here?

Would you say that you were born straight? Could you choose to live the life of a gay man and enjoy it, just to prove your point?

Bub@48 ~ You are spewing ignorance in a particularly vile and Trumpian manner (sorry, that was redundant). When overwhelming evidence tells us climate change is a real, clear and present danger, or when the vast majority of psychiatric canon declares that sexuality is hardwired from birth, you shout, “Fake news!” Because if you say it loudly and repeat it enough, it must be true, right?

Per@49 ~ Any gay or heteroflexible guys out there willing to let Bub suck your cock? I bet he’d swallow it all just to prove he wasn’t born straight, just chose to be that way.

Commie @52: Just like women are "hardwired" to want to take care of children, etc, as you keep alleging? Can't have it both ways. (No one thinks you're a repressed gay. That's an insult to gays.)

@48: Bub Boswell, formerly Commentor Commentatus, formerly ., perhaps formerly Seattle Blues, possibly formerly Loveschild: Here's you:
"If sexual proclivity is malleable, especially from an early age, providing healthy role models will steer many individuals who are on the margins into more satisfying lifestyles.
On the other hand, a Wild West hands off free-for-all attitude toward sexuality, especially one that celebrates and glamorizes ever more bizarre contortous forms of social-sexual interaction, breeds confusion and chaos in social structures whose stability has enormous social benefit."

"More satisfying lifestyles," how? The unsatisfying thing about gay "lifestyles" was/sometimes still is not being to live freely and openly as who you are. People don't need to change who they are; they simply need to be allowed legally and socially to live with the same freedoms that straight people enjoy without ever thinking of them as special rights: freedom to not be discriminated against; freedom to not be arrested for gathering at a bar or having consensual sex in their own homes; freedom to not be mocked or beaten or ambushed or raped or murdered; freedom to not have to pretend to be who they're not; freedom to marry, to adopt children, to patronize businesses; freedom to serve in the military; freedom to be loved by their families and to have their life partnerships affirmed by their families; freedom to not hear themselves condemned from church pulpits as being some sort of abomination; freedom from not being coerced or forced into attempts at brainwashing that sound a step below something that violates the Geneva Convention and which furthermore has been proved to not work. etc. Those freedoms would lead to more satisfying lifestyles.

I take umbrage with the assumption that gay people are "on the margins," living in society. They're here; they're queer; they're loud and proud. Look around: they're all the way integrated--and nothing terrible has happened. They're only marginalized if society marginalizes them or if they are terrified to move to the center--terrified because of people like you who would prefer to push them deeper into the shadows, while pretending that you're doing it for the greater social good.

I look around and I see plenty of gay people who are not "on the margins" of anything--who are happy, productive, healthy, contributing members of a society that gets "enormous social benefit" from their contributions to it. I see loving families: kids getting security, and homework help, and sports coaching, and being tucked in at night; I see people doing their jobs, volunteering, singing in choirs, participating in weekend shoreline cleanups, paying taxes, donating to disaster relief funds; I see people being caring children, devoted spouses, committed partners, loving parents, good friends. I see computer programmers, software engineers, teachers, doctors, grocery store cashiers, restaurant workers, police officers, construction workers, accountants, custodians, biologists, homemakers, librarians. As far as I can tell, they're not breeding "confusion and chaos in social structures," but helping to add to its "stability."

I suggest that you take a real look at the world as it is, not as it exists in your imagination. Sure you'll find unhappy people in it--of all genders and orientations and marital status. But you won't find confusion and chaos anywhere but in the minds of people who insist on seeing dysfunction where there demonstrably isn't any. The man whose column you hijack for your outdated, invalid platform is by every metric a refutation of your basic stance. He's in a long-time, stable, loving marriage; a committed father, brother, son (and presumably son-in-law). He has a job in which he helps people get information they need and sort out problems in their lives. He supports the economy. He donates money to social causes. He has friends. He seems happy. The only person who is unhappy with his existence is you. And why should he care to make you happy by crawling into some dark place so you can say "see how unhealthy this lifestyle he has is."

If you refuse to see what reality plainly shows you, then I can only conclude that despite your worthy-sounding goals of providing healthy role models for satisfying lifestyles, you want exactly the opposite for reasons you are afraid to articulate, probably because they are not nearly so seemingly lofty and helpful as you want to pretend them to be.
Your vision of a society in which being gay isn't discouraged in every possible way is like some sort of 1950s Hollywood epic of Sodom and Gomorrah--all sex and depravity, all the time. It is as realistic as the depiction of the behavior of kids who smoke cannabis was in Reefer Madness. And it would be merely funny if people like you didn't try to ruin the lives of others based on the ridiculousness wrongness of it.

Your logic is faulty, your conclusions are invalid, your purported goals are suspect. No one is "glamorizing ever more bizarre contortous forms of social-sexual interaction" or breeding "confusion and chaos." There's nothing inherently unhealthy about being gay. Just because you seem to think it is unhealthy doesn't make it so. Someone else's marriage or sex life doesn't have any impact on your own unless you wish it to. And it doesn't have to have any impact on society, either. People are still just people.

@nocutename: Hear, hear!

As the investigation team led by nocutename exposing his shticks, B.B. Netanyahu’s desperation grows hence the shooting all over the place.

Bob Bosewell is just another Right-Wing, homophobe, racist, sexist, bigoted asshole that gets his rocks off by trolling. Don’t feed the troll. People like him will never face the facts and prefer to live in ignorant bliss. People like him are the reason why our country is so fucked up. To the LW. Just be prepared and tell her what kind of experience and stuff she wants to try out. And stay safe, of course.

@62: That's your response?
Come back when you have something to really say.

@Bub: You like to decide what's healthy for a lot of people, don't you?
I am perfectly healthy, thank you for asking. You didn't get under my skin. What I thought I'd do instead of hurling insults at you, was to try to honestly engage with you. The fact that you don't have any response at all is telling.

Bub, you seem to think that if we accept the fact that some people are gay that everyone will want to be gay, that the only thing keeping the human race going is some sort of prohibition against homosexuality.
The vast majority of people are heterosexual--they could just as easily "turn" gay as homosexual people could turn straight. If the concept that anyone at anytime could simply change his sexual orientation is so obvious to you, it suggests that you are suppressing your own innate orientation. In other words, you are most likely homosexual and trying to make yourself be heterosexual. If you have at all succeeded--not in becoming actually straight, but in not having sex with the bodies and gender you truly desire; perhaps even in having sex with and children with a woman--you think that most everyone could be "turned" because you assume that this is how straight men feel. That's not true. Most straight men have no interest in having sex with men. Most of the men in the world are heterosexual. And anyway, we don't need to make as many humans as possible. The planet is overpopulated as it is.

I'm going to leave the sexism and "traditional values" crap out for now.
The world is indeed a messed-up place, and I understand looking for a solution--something that would fix the numerous messes. But, my friend, trying to force people to be who they're not and trying to shove a regressive social stance onto society isn't going to fix the problems. You mentioned the problem of violence and mass shootings. God knows this is a horrific problem that needs solving and the problem stems from multiple causes. Poverty and a feeling of helplessness; anger and a sense of entitlement; frustration; rage; and access to weapons. But insisting on adhering to strict gender roles won't change any of that. It's something easy to grab at: the mistaken belief that in some golden olden times, things were right. There never have been better times. We are lurching our way towards better times, in fits and starts. Believe it or not there is less violence in the world now than at any point in history. We need to go forward, not back. Nothing is that easy, and nothing is that reductionist.

+3 to Ms Fan for the conclusion to 56, which is why Mr Savage would if wise stop baiting Dr Bachmann.

On reflection, the kindest thing LW could do would be, despite all the respect and consideration in the world, make OS sex about as appealing as one of Hyacinth Bucket's Candlelight Suppers. Leave her feeling glad she did it once but Never Again.

Commie @65: Thank you for admitting to your hypocrisy. Fear not, with seven billion people in the world, if even the probably overstated 10% of them were gay the species would be in no danger of dying out.
Has it not occurred to you that "traditional heterosexual marriage" has fallen out of favour because many people are not so "hard wired" to accept restrictive gender roles as you might think?
Go crawl back under your rock. No matter how much rhetoric you spew, you're not going to convince anyone to be your cavewoman.

venn @68

On reflection, the kindest thing LW could do would be, despite all the respect and consideration in the world, make OS sex about as appealing as one of Hyacinth Bucket's Candlelight Suppers. Leave her feeling glad she did it once but Never Again.

I don't know what "Hyacinth Bucket's Candlelight Supper" is, but I suppose that it is not appealing. I understand that you would prefer that if the lesbian Tinder girl has sex with the LW, that she does not enjoy it. Why, exactly? Isn't it better for people to enjoy the sex they have?

Mr Registered - Hyacinth Bucket, played with great aplomb by Patricia Routledge, was the social-climbing menace of a protagonist of Keeping Up Appearances. She was constantly inviting people to "elegant" Candlelight Suppers which nobody wanted to attend.

I'll stick a Not All onto your last sentence. Here it's not so much the sex but the experience. It's possible, for instance, that Hyancinth's guests might enjoy the quail's eggs; it's Hyacinth herself as a hostess who's the problem. This is not an exact comparison, as they may well go on to other supper parties.

Mr Savage says this could go spectacularly right, but how? What's his Best Possible Outcome? The only thing that comes to mind is that GF is secretly bi and is hoping Curious will like this so well that they open the relationship to men. I suppose that could count as a spectacular gain. My version is that perhaps Curious enjoys the sex, but mainly that she looks back on it in future with a feeling of great gratitude for partnering women. I'm thinking of Rumpole at the end of Rumpole a la Carte. Having gotten the great chef Jean-Pierre O'Higgins off on a charge of dirty and dangerous practices, Rumpole and Hilda are treated to dinner at La Maison Jean-Pierre (where his first encounter with the great chef had been to receive a lecture on the subject of mashed spuds until a mouse was found on another diner's plate). Jean-Pierre has made the superb sacrifice of preparing for Rumpole his absolute favourite, steak and kidney pudding. But Rumpole tells Hilda that it's, "Not a patch on yours!"

That's my best stab at "spectacularly right". Granted, it's not exactly easy for LW to bring about.

OK. I would say "spectaculary right" = they both enjoy it and look back upon it fondly.
I don't feel the need to imagine a novel based on this letter. O schwöre nicht und küsse nur.

I imagine novels about all kinds of things. I wouldn't qualify that for "spectacularly", but understand if you do.

"...A high percentage of the generations coming up now are a burden rather than assets to the species and hasten the collapse..."
– Joseph Goebbels, Nazi Minister of Propaganda

To those with seething resentment at the sexual fluidity women enjoy in our society without social censure - yeah, it's great. The only way you guys are going to get to play with whatever gender you feel like that day is to go out there and openly do it. Why get all angry at the women when you should be following their example?
I only know one straight woman who hasn't been w a woman and only one lesbian who hasn't been with a man. I am sure that works the same for men if only culture didn't convince you there was so much bullshit hardwired in.
Purely straight or purely gay people are a smaller percentage of the population than those less purely either and this would be obvious if we lived in a society that wasn't so afraid of sex, or perhaps more specifically women or LGBTQA+. Also, what woman out there hasn't at least messed around with a gay guy? No one's out there calling those gay dudes insulting names. Your jealousy, it is showing. Go fuck a dude if you want to fuck a dude guys, no one's stopping you, it's super easy!
The example you need to use re hardwiring is not people but other primates. You have to eliminate culture as a factor which means you have to use animals as an example, and specifically you have to look at behavior.
Why are so many men angry at women for being able to be freer than they are? It's pure cowardice, especially if you live in Liberal land. I'd think it would be reassuring to know you have potential sexual value even to women not particularly attracted to you.

Sporty - bet the undergrads really appreciate all the assistance you're giving them, why the resentment? You're obviously pulling incredible amounts of 18 year old tail, why else would you need/use the acronym? The only people who get pissed about it are LFL's, a group you seem not to belong to. The women you describe are a guys best friend - unlimited FWB plus very high percentage chance of threesomes and more. The men I knew in your position were doing exceedingly well.

@no: I'm a straight woman who's never had sex with a woman or a gay man (whom I knew was gay, anyway, either at the time or later), and I have a lot of friends who could say the same thing.

@no: Not to land us in another statistics discussion, but your sample set may be biased. Like nocute, I've never had sex with a woman (nor want to, although they're lovely to look at), or a gay man (ditto). Nor have most of my straight female friends.

I agree that men let social definitions of masculinity stop them from doing all sorts of good stuff. That said, there's also lots of research to indicate that the sexual fluidity you mention is truly more prevalent in females--arousal measurements (which do not rely on self-reporting) tend to show men are much more strictly aroused by the things they claim to be attracted to (straight guys like girls, gay guys like guys, etc...) and not other things, whereas women show arousal to a much larger set of things, despite claiming a lack of interest.