1517598297-1516999045-savage-letter-of-the-day-stamp-2018.jpg

I'm a single hetero-romantic pansexual fairly masculine male in my 60s. (I'm a lingerie boy, too, but not full-on CD/TV, which I rarely like aesthetically.) I've wanted to develop a regular, long-term safe FWB arrangement with another fairly masculine man with whom I'd feel compatible socially, culturally and lifestyle-wise as well as sexually, someone I'd like as a friend and be able to share dinner or a movie with as well as fun sex. (Caring but non-romantic sex — massage, yes, smooching, no.) Not an easy task, Dan, and made worse by losing Craigslist, as my sexual non-negotiables are fairly equal versatility, no STD's (including herpes 1), and the ethical freedom to be involved. Once I've weeded out the bad cultural fits, the heavy sub bottom boys and exclusive tops and the hopeful herpes folks (I want to be free to safely engage in fluid-sharing), I'm inevitably left with het-married guys who are essentially cheating. They say they are in long-dead marriages and have a DADT "understanding," but then are paranoid about being found out, so the "understanding" seems limited or only in their heads. I don't want my FWB to be someone with poor boundaries or an unclear head, nor do I want to be with someone with a cloud of anxiety hanging over what I want to be freely fun times. I certainly don't want to be part of any breakup. Am I unrealistically looking for what seems to be a kind of unicorn? (FYI, I am open to romance with someone else, but ideally would want to keep this FWB going, transparently.)

Betting On Your Savviness

That's quite the long list of deal breakers you've got there, BOYS.

Your ideal/idealized FWB has gotta be masculine — and into lingerie, but not too much lingerie. He's also gotta be someone you click with as a friend — and so far as you're concerned, BOYS, that means someone "with whom [you'd] feel compatible socially, culturally and lifestyle-wise," which I'm guessing rules out guys of other races, faiths, and socio-economic backgrounds. He also can't have any sexually-transmitted infections because you wanna engage in fluid-sharing activities — which means your ideal guy is someone willing to swap fluids with a casual sex partner (that would be you) but who has somehow managed to avoid contracting an STI from any of his previous sex partners, casual or otherwise, despite his willingness to swap fluids.

And you're gonna be Goldilocksing this guy on the top/bottom thing — he can't be too soft (bottom) or too hard (top), he's gotta be just right (perfectly vers) —  and if he's a married straight-identified hetero-romantic non-kisser who's disease-free and digs your lingerie and is a match in the social (white), cultural (white), and lifestyle (white) departments... he can't be sneaking around on his wife. Because you want transparency.

Here's a quick-and-dirty practical suggestion for you, BOYS, and here's some less-quick-but-potentially-more-helpful advice: if you want to find someone with whom you can swap fluids while you're still spry enough to crank those fluids out, BOYS, you're gonnawannamaybe shorten your long list of deal breakers.

For instance, BOYS, sometimes sexual attraction can bridge divides — racial, religious, cultural — and two very different people drawn together over a shared interest in wearing lingerie and/or not kissing quickly realize they have more in common (emotionally and sexually) than they initially realized. It's also possible for vers guys — guys who enjoy both topping and bottoming — to hookup with guys who are tops or bottoms exclusively. You might not get everything you want from a guy who's exclusively one or the other, BOYS, but you'll be getting some of what you want — and that's more than you're getting now, right? And, I'm sorry, but herpes — for most people — isn't that big a deal.

As for those anxious married guys...

Many if not most DADT arrangements — "You can sleep with other people but I don't want to know about it" — are tense compromises. One partner isn't interested in sex anymore (sometimes with good reason, e.g. their spouse was a neglectful shit and/or a lousy lay) while the other partner refuses to lead a sexless life. So the partner who's done with sex tells the partner who isn't that they can do whatever they need to do — so long as Partner Done With Sex never finds out about it. Since "telling" doesn't just mean opening your mouth and saying, "I'm going to meet a nice man for a little fluid swapping," a functioning and, yes, ethical DADT arrangement can entail a little sneaking around, a little covering of tracks, a little creation of plausible deniability. Being indiscreet (about your FWB) or inconsiderate (failing to hide evidence of your FWB) are also potential tells — tells that can open old wounds and generate a lot of unnecessary conflict. So your FWB with the DADT might tell his SO that he's at the gym, for instance, instead of telling her he's balls deep in your ass.

Take a fresh look at your long list of deal breakers, BOYS, and see if you can't eliminate some of them. If you can, you may find someone. If you can't, some assembly is required.


••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

Listen to my podcast, the Savage Lovecast, at www.savagelovecast.com.

Impeach the motherfucker already! Get your ITMFA buttons, t-shirts, hats and lapel pins and coffee mugs at www.ITMFA.org!

Tickets to HUMP 2018 are on sale now! Get them here!