Older Gent Seeks a Non-Kissing, Disease-Free Vers Masc Guy For Ongoing FWB Arrangement (Must Be From Same Social and Cultural Background)



If you want someone ordered off a menu who's only around when you feel like it and doesn't ever want anything inconvenient, you generally pay for that (sugar baby, escort, etc.) Real life relationships are more difficult.


That fiberglass mannequin is a rather peculiar shape in the nads department. Like some bras give ladies a uniboob, that guy has a uninad.


Open your wallet, close your eyes, and make believe, friend.


And c'mon boy, you already got herpes 1.


This letter made me feel so much better about myself. Keep 'em coming fellas.......


This is what Amazon hath wrought: a bunch of self centered horny guys who think they can order their perfect blow-up doll (now with real life SPUNQ™ fluids to swap!) online.

BOYS, you darn well better be rich, because someone your age with your attitude ain't gonna get very far on either looks, charm, or personality.


Mmmm, get some of this sweet sweet entitlement

Also i fucking bet he wants that guy to not be 60. People in their 60s don't get "breakups".


Why would somebody who has good boundaries and a clear head agree to no-condom non-exclusive sex with you?
And I second the idea that HSV-1 as a non-negotiable is going to rule out, oh, let's call it 50% of the population.


Also, fuck, i have the almost exact same guy in my local dating pool
late 50s, thing for lingerie\feminisation, a long list of demands and donts. messages every bi\swinger couple once in a few months.

I always figured he was just getting off on the demanding this shit
Always giving himself plenty of ways to decline an offer (that never comes) probably telling himself that he just wasn't perfectly compatible with this 30yo couple on the fine details of sexy maid attire.
I blame feel-good ideologies that tell people there's someone there for everyone. There isn't. Or they charge by the hour.


Dan, you were way too nice to this guy.

You should have led bluntly with, “Yes, you are asking too much, and you don’t seem to be offering diddly.” I know that probably breaks the advice column rules, but wow, the entitlement/cluelessness is overpowering in this one.


FFS! I am selective, but that is an absurdly long and detailed list of criteria! Stop being so fussy, or resign yourself to never getting laid again.


And I thought MY list was long!


And Dan, he doesn't deserve to be called a "gent", which is short for gentleman. He's more of a self-centered demanding brat than either gentle or a man.


The sex-hysterics really have screwed the general sexual population by making an atmosphere that led Craigslist (and others) to delete their sexual hookup categories. I have friends who haven't managed to replace the easy platform to hook up with their desired specific casual partners, i.e. "straight guys looking for blowjobs" et al.


Guy has obviously never watched House Hunters.
Allow me to spoil the ending of every episode for you: No one ever gets every box checked on their wishlist.
I am going to disagree with Dan on the guy's desire to swap fluids, however. I think he's actually really paranoid about fluids (see HSV 1 comment and not wanting "smooching").
Finally, this guy's lightly veiled racism made me throw up in my mouth a little. Blech.


Rookie @ 15 - The LW does say "I want to be free to safely engage in fluid-sharing", so what's wrong with Dan's take?


Just FYI; generally speaking STI panels these days do not even test for herpes. To get a test you usually have to show symptoms. So a lot of guys have herpes without even knowing it and never have an outbreak.


@16 Ricardo,
Dang. I must have skipped that parenthesis (and I even read it twice). Chalk it up to being a newbie maybe? Now seconding Dan.


I think, maybe try FetLife... You can post your list of must-haves, prefers, and deal breakers... And maybe you'll find someone who fits. Maybe someone might need to relocate, not sure. But I bet this needle in a haystack is out there for you, I'm sure of it.

I just kind of feel for you cause it feels like you might be missing out by letting all this other stuff fly by without indulging in any of it ☹️


Other commenters - don't be mean. There's no need to be mean. I can't begin to understand where BOYS is coming from, ok, but that doesn't mean I can shame them, call them names, or otherwise try to make them feel like shit. Prbly took a lot just to write the question and ask. No one's got all the answers, maybe they'll find what they desire, maybe not, but they don't deserve (as far as I can tell from this letter, anyway) to be lessened because of what they're asking.


Sounds like the LW is looking for a self clone. Maybe sit with that a moment and see if that's really what you want.

As for herpes, yes you probably aren't going to have non monogamous sex without a condom and somehow also not have to worry if you contracted herpes, sorry. Even if you find Wonder Boy and he's herpes-free, there's no way to guarantee he'll stay that way.


Moon @ 20 - Have you never heard of the concept of entitlement? His letter reeks of it, and it's not pretty. The point is not whether he deserves or not to "be lessened"; for his own good, he needs to be brought back down to earth. (Besides, It's Dan's job not to lessen him; the rest of us here are commenters, not advice columnists... so we comment, according to our feelings.)


I like eating salmon. Specifically salmon spawned in Bear Creek and caught 150 miles due south of Seward, Alaska. It has to be placed on ice within 47 seconds of being caught, immediately airlifted via private helicopter and jet to Minneapolis and cooked by my favorite chef in a fire brick oven with mesquite from Sedona and hickory from Knoxville. It also can’t cost more than $13.95 per serving. Surprisingly, I’m having a hard time finding this dish. What am I doing wrong?


What is up with people wanting really, ultra specific types of people, monogamy (he doesn't want his partner to have a wife, he wants to be able to swap fluids), and 'caring' sex but not be willing to have a relationship? Like honestly, he is not going to find any of that outside of a relationship.


Good luck, dude


Yeah, I saw an ad for an egg donor with almost as many specific conditions on the Daily some years ago! Jewish, light skin, white blond hair, cornflower blue eyes, 20-24, 5'6 to 5'8, IQ > 130, GPA > 3.8, SAT > 2000, from intact Ivy League professional upper class family, no health problems including allegies, plays piano, violin and guitar, soccer and tennis....Well, you get the picture.

We wondered if they ever found their donor.


With or without pubic hair. Own teeth and head of hair.. these are not issues? Enjoy your life mate, not a whole lot of good yrs left. Then you know, bits break down. And I second getting on fetlife. It’s not a straight dating site but people find ways..


@28 At least there's four to five figures of $$ involved in that though. Gives them a shot.


This letter brings to mind a line from an old tv show: "You're looking for tailor-made in an off-the-rack world." Or something like that. LW needs keep in mind that we're all a walking bundle of dealbreakers for most people.


Okay, here's something else that struck me about this letter (the rest of you have covered most of it so well): why is the lw insisting that this relationship stay FWBs, while he's also looking for love?

“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.) . . . FYI, I am open to romance with someone else, but ideally would want to keep this FWB going, transparently.”
Why is he only open to romance with someone else? Especially since it sounds as though he hasn't found anyone yet?


I couldn't begin to tally how many profiles I've read on gay male dating/hookup sites, but I know how many of them I've seen that mentioned herpes. Two.

Or, as my gay male doctor put it: "Do you know what the herpes rate is in sexually active gay men?" (Me: "No.") "One hundred percent."

Sure, that was mildly hyperbolic. But the point is, LW, your chances of meeting a suitable guy who satisfies that one criterion is essentially zero. And the rest of the otherwise-suitable ones will roll their eyes when you mention it.


I understand why people are saying that he should find an escort, but even then, the fluid sharing aspect is going to be a problem. As Dan said, "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."


With respect to issues around BOYS kinks, he will be better off cutting down his list of dealbreakers for any given partner by accepting men who meet certain requirements and others who satisfy his other interests.

@20/electric3moon: I don’t think people are being unduly harsh. BOYS doesn’t have one dealbreaker concerning something that won’t limit his dating pool too significantly, he has multiple dealbreakers for things where the dating pool is already small. He has reach his 60s, without realizing that if you want sex, finding someone you think is hot and enjoys at least one thing you do in bed can be a fair bit of work, and being unreasonable will make that task impossible.


@32 I thought that the "romance" part of his letter was a bit contradictory or confusing. He opens by explicitly stating that he is "hetero-romantic," and doesn't want to do romantic things with men -- "Caring but non-romantic sex — massage, yes, smooching, no." But then he states at the end that he is "open to romance with someone else." Does he mean having a romantic relationship with a woman while keeping this male FWB? That wasn't clear to me.


^ Bah, can't edit. If he does mean a relationship with a woman while keeping this male FWB, good luck keeping that free-flowing fluid swap going. And if he's not going to disclose that with said new woman, then I hope he never sees another dick or vulva ever again.


ncn @32 "Why is he only open to romance with someone else? Especially since it sounds as though he hasn't found anyone yet?"

Because he is apparently "hetero-romantic" (opening sentence of his letter).
The whole thing seems pretty impossible, but it is his life and his call if he wants to compromise regarding his dealbreakerss or not.

Mirea @31 " keep in mind that we're all a walking bundle of dealbreakers for most people."

Gold star comment.


I feel much more sympathetic to BOYS than e.g. @5 Gaydor, @6 corydon & @7 yasunori (though they are funny). In his frustration at not having a person, he wrote a checklist. But he does want a person.


The advice would just be to look for the person you want to be with where the person can be found. BOYS wanting a background of social compatibility implied, for me, that he was looking for a FWB of the same educational level. But even this would be a little obtuse: by the time you're an adult dating a 60yo, you can go to the art gallery even if it wasn't your thing at whatever college you went to.

Everyone will have their own tripwires for what is entitled about BOYS's request. For me, it's wanting a guy in women's underwear who doesn't feel equally compelled to put on a skirt or bodyform. And the herpes thing. One could infer that he wants occasional gay sex without vulnerability or open-heartedness.... But he does want to connect with someone ... and why should it not be casual? Be sensitive to people and not dogmatic in terms of types ... and good luck!


nocutename@32: because he's confusing "FWB" with "escort/mistress." He wants someone that puts emotional effort into him, on his terms (shows up regularly, is affectionate, keeps him company, looks good on his arm at social events, is exactly the right level of romantic-sexual) but he doesn't want to reciprocate - so this person needs to understand that he'll never be a long-term romantic option and never want anything more from LW, while still always being available when LW wants. That's something you pay for.

IMO, that's why he doesn't want a married man - not because of the ethical considerations, but because it would be an equal relationship of "we both have our lives and our romantic priorities elsewhere, but we mess around with each other when it suits us."


The answer to @32 nocute is that he's heteroromantic. This is a bi guy's letter.

Gay men understand that we're in a pool that's culturally well-assorted but brought together by sexual proclivity. And the proclivity is often overwhelming ... and it's often been reprobated, or just not well-understood, in our original communities, and can't be gratified by them.... So we easily reconcile ourselves to dating odd matches in terms of interests, thinking we will get those filled in some other way, either by casual partners or, for the time being, not having those feature as part of our dating life. But a bi guy can come to the scene differently, looking for just one thing, and feel baulked in his being unable to 'order' it. The perception of homosexuality, too, is that the sex is more casual, more a matter of political solidarity or brotherliness, than among heterosexuals. So BOYS will be asking--and, to a degree, will be within his rights to ask--'why can't I have that?'

It also crossed my mind that he was a widower or divorcee i.e. of a straight menage. He might want to get back to gay sex as a way of grieving, of getting back into sex at a low emotional temperature or for lower stakes, or to explore the lifestyle of his younger days. Sure! Is it impossible for him to find something casual?


You and your scripts Harriet. He could be an old Batchelor who used craigslist and what, he believes those guys were herpes free? Now he doesn’t want infected men because he’s not fussed with condoms, yet he’s probably infected himself. Deluded and entitled.


I read tumblr is stopping letting profiles put up racial or size preferences.. no fat no Australians no fems, that sort of thing.
LW, you can’t order up people like you do a meal. How did you get to be a sixty yr old man and still be so superficial in your understanding of human connections.


He is rounding up the actually available guys to cheaters in his head based on evidence which, as Dan has pointed out, could be related to the DADT nature of their ability to be nonmonogamous. Given his demanding and limiting criteria, he should give those guys a shot if he ever wants a relationship again.

I’m a bi guy, and I think other bi guys that don’t kiss are gross, regardless of self-proclaimed heteroromanticism, a claim which seems strained in this case given the desire for dinner dates, movie dates, sociocultural compatibility, romantic touch, and an emotional connection. It’s very off-putting and usually seems to me to be fueled by residual, generational homophobia, especially if the guy will kiss women.


Nightscrawl @36/37: Yes, that was how I read it. "I want a male FWB with whom I can have the sort of sex I want, but I don't want to have to KISS him, ugh. I want to have unprotected sex, and I don't want him to have any STIs, and I also want to leave the door open to having another partner, who is female, and with whom I would also presumably want to have unprotected sex while continuing with this unprotected FWB who is not having sex with anyone else." Dude, listen to yourself. I agree that what he wants is a fantasy, and his reality options are escort (for whom he'll have to drop the fluid-bonding desire) or boyfriend, who, sorry to say, will probably want to smooch. He needs to do what we all do: take his checklist and decide where he's willing to compromise, or accept that he's never going to find the ultra-specific -- and in his case unrealistic -- thing he's looking for.

Lava @43/44: Nobody beats your no-nonsense analysis :)


and his reality options are escort (for whom he'll have to drop the fluid-bonding desire)

Are full-time escorts a thing?
Like, you both get tested and you pay a person a hefty sum to be essentially your exclusive sex-slave in a non-bdsm sort of way for some limited period of time.

I mean, i would get the perspective of a sex-worker in this scenario, if the offered compensation offsets the need for a portfolio of clients.


Yasunori @47: I think what you are talking about is a person I would call a "rent boy." I hope that's the correct term? I suppose BOYS could find a broke college student, if he has sufficient means. But then he'd have to rule out the "compatible socially, socially and lifestyle-wise" component of his unicorn hunt. I'm also not sure how BOYS would police the exclusivity clause, given that he's looking for someone he sees only occasionally. He'd have to have lots of money indeed to pay someone to remain celibate outside of their arrangement -- and he'd have to find someone both willing to have sex for money and be honest about not fucking anyone else, which seems as tall an order as anything else BOYS has come up with. I'm thinking sex robot is the only way he's going to tick all his boxes, as what he seems to want is a clone of himself!


Here's an idea. Why doesn't he look for a M/F couple to occasionally play "unicorn" to? If they're otherwise monogamous, that might be a way to tick his boxes.


Nothing new under the sun. This is a soliloquy from Shakespeare's "Much Ado About Nothing:"

...but till all graces be in one woman, one woman shall not come in
my grace. Rich she shall be, that's certain; wise,
or I'll none; virtuous, or I'll never cheapen her;
fair, or I'll never look on her; mild, or come not
near me; noble, or not I for an angel; of good
discourse, an excellent musician, and her hair shall
be of what colour it please God. Ha! the prince and
Monsieur Love! I will hide me in the arbour.


Lava @ 43/44 - I second BDF @ 46: "Nobody beats your no-nonsense analysis".

Truly, how did he get to be a sixty year old man and still be so superficial in his understanding of human connections? My view is that he's always had enough money to buy anything he wanted (and has therefore grown to see people as commodities), and that's what he'll have to do in this case, too.

Yasunori @ 47 - "Are full-time escorts a thing?"

Think Melania.


BDF @ 48 - Finding a man who's "honest about not fucking anyone else" is the tallest order of them all, IMO.


Lava@44~ I am so tired of hearing, “Men” being used in that derogatory, all-inclusive way. I have a lot of male friends (in fact, almost all of them) who treat women (and other men) with respect. Are there idiots out there? Sure. Are there women I’ve come across that are equally unappetizing? Of course. But I don’t hold all of womankind in contempt because of them. Please stop stereotyping.


No offense, BOYS, but I hope you understand now how your immensely impractical list of requirements looks, to those of us who read your letter, pretty funny. (Not because you feel you need all those things [that's something but funny isn't it], and were open with us about that.)

"You can't always get what you want
But if you try sometimes you might find
You get what you need"

It's never too late to grow, BOYS.

@24 DonnyKlicious
I really enjoyed that!


Donny @ 53 - I've been in enough sexual/romantic (for lack of a better word) relationships with men to generally agree with Lava's stereotyping. Maybe you lack that sort of experience with men to understand what she means. And maybe women as a whole aren't as bad, which is why you're not drawn to stereotyping them.

Besides, as I've always said, stereotypes exist for a reason. They sometimes (perhaps often) reveal a lack of understanding or a misinterpretation of behaviours, but there's always a basis for them.

Please, Lava, don't stop.


@38: Thank you, Reg Eur. I hadn't even noticed that.


@19 electric3moon: Fetlife is not a place where you can post your list of must-haves, prefers, and deal breakers... and have the perfect fit magically appear in your mailbox. You also have to post a list of your assets and what you have to offer - which BOYS omitted in this letter, leaving an impression of entitlement - and then actually engage with living, breathing people - warts and all.


@and everyone else who read more carefully than I had.
So he's open to falling in love with a woman, but wants a FWB relationship with a man who must meet a lot of requirements, yet must know that he will never, ever be under consideration for a romantic relationship.

I wonder if he has as many "must haves" for the woman of his dreams.


@49 BDF: A man who's willing to play with a M/F couple is not a "unicorn". Unicorns are rare to the point of mythological. Willing and obliging men are as abundant as Herpes 1, and M/F couples who want a male third are likely to have their own long, long list of deal breakers. This arrangement would require the services of a trained mediator.


Donny @53: Good point, echoes Philo's on the main thread. It's okay to make these jokes about men as a gender, but it's misogynist when Dadddy or Sporty does it about women. I think your #notallmen is warranted here. The "men" parting shot would have been better left off.

Fubar @59: Yes, that's why I put the word "unicorn" in quotation marks.
I don't know. If you were an older M/F couple seeking a "gent" (again with the quotation marks on purpose) who is pansexual and versatile, and looking for not just sex but dinners and date nights, STI free and willing to get tested, apparently well-off, with similar kinks, they might feel they'd won the lottery with a Special Guest Star (better term?) like BOYS. Much more so than a single or poly man who's expected to be that committed yet offered little in return, as Nocute @58 says.


@60 BDF: I do think that men looking to participate in MMFs are not uncommon; however, I see your point. Fetlife might indeed be the place for BOYS to advertise, if he could put it in such appealing terms.


Mr Ricardo - Agreed that LW does not deserve the G word in any sense other than his likely membership in a country club, but, as there seems to be no reduction in the general willingness to bestow upon undeserving parties the L word, this will at least begin to even the ratio.


Correction. Some Men.


My requirement that friends be somewhat responsive to texts and be clear about what they want out of the friendship seems much less excessive now than it did 20 minutes ago.


re: the "men" argument. Culture is a thing. For centuries, men have had mail-order brides, prostitutes, and a society that often forced women to choose between ostracization and starvation, or finding a man - while letting men opt out if they chose. Small wonder some men still feel that they can have their partners made to order. Women, on the other hand, have never had that luxury, and so generally don't think like that (they say shit like "must have job, not hit me, and I need to be attracted to him" and everyone goes "bah gawd, woman! You can't be that picky!").


I usually think the #notallmen stuff isn't helpful, considering that women are usually talking about personal experiences in patriarchy. But in this particular case on this discussion forum, I agree with Donny. We are talking about relationships, and it's good to generalize at times and it's bad to generalize at others- best to be clear about which we're doing when. But since we are talking about relationships- the good and bad things people do to one another- I don't think it's helpful to stereotype men any more than women. Lava's point was fine as something that some men tend to do, but I agree with Donny and BDF that it's not fair in a forum like this to stereotype men in general as behaving that way, and it's also not true. Though I didn't think that's what she was doing, if thoughtful men like Donny do, then it probably has that effect. Also I agree with @65 Traffic, and it might even be helpful for context when we are talking about a man like this in the same way it's helpful for context to discuss why/how women have been socialized for centuries to dress up, etc. But I don't see how this contradicts Donny's point that these things shouldn't be applied as a stereotype to all men (or all women in the reverse as BDF says). Unless I misunderstand, Donny isn't objecting to discussing this context and how it affects loads of men, just objecting to the wider "Men!" in general as if this is a behavior that applies to everyone, and I can see how that would get tiresome too.


Yes yes, I was wrong. It just seems everywhere so many men are being exposed as rapey.
As Hannah Gatsby said, #notallmenbutalotofthem


This LW’s apparent lack of emotional depth is indicative to me of how some/ many men are. I think that’s what brought on the ‘Men.’ A momentary face palm moment. Sorry Donny.


Right on the money, EmmaLiz@66, thanks, Lava@68, and fuck you lucy1122 for stealing our 69. And might I add, not all men but the fucking few that get the spotlight (Cosby, Kavanaugh, Trump & every other old, white Republican) and give the rest of us a black eye thereby prompting otherwise rational people to say, “Men!”


@69 lucy1122: thanks for sharing.


Traffic @65: You have a point. "Men" in this instance was a shorthand for "male entitlement". And the LW is displaying an attitude that is typically male. Not that men as a gender are inherently entitled, but they have been socialised to be. There are also women out there with extremely detailed checklists, but in general (yay for generalities), a woman that picky would just remain single. This gender difference has been shown not just with dating but with jobs; men will apply for jobs where they meet some but not all of the specifications, but women won't apply unless they meet all of them. That's because men have been socialised to believe they deserve to get what they want, but women have not. See the recent discussion on online dating: many men believe they're entitled to responses from women who are far more attractive than they are. That the women are entitled to their own preferences doesn't seem to enter their minds.

There's a fine line between calling out male entitlement and implying "of course he's entitled, he's a man." Agree with Donny, the rightful winner of the Lucky @69 award, that it's the awful men who spoil it for the rest.


If more of us were bisexual, there would be fewer "men!" and "women!" type comments, as more folks would know that people of all genders are capable of behaving appallingly in relationship situations. :)


@20 (and everyone else, really) - I think sometimes it's in the way the text is read, not always necessarily the way it was intended to be inflicted. LW could just be a matter-of-fact, straight up, blunt-type person, and wrote their letter in this fashion, which would then be interpreted as "entitled" to all who won't look at it objectively. Just a thought on another possibility, is all.

@57 thank you, I am well aware of FetLife and everything it offers, I've been there. That's neither here nor there tho. You CAN post what you're looking for in your profile, you can disclose your own quirks - or not, and you can sift thru the onslaught of responses following at will until you feel like you've found "a good match", or whatever. My objective of sharing that was that maybe they can use a tool like FetLife to help find what they're looking for, rather than deciding they'll never find it and give up completely.


BDF @72 "men will apply for jobs where they meet some but not all of the specifications, but women won't apply unless they meet all of them. That's because men have been socialised to believe they deserve to get what they want, but women have not. "

? I don't think this has anything to do with men believing they "deserve" the job, but rather with them believing "nothing ventured, nothing gained".


Lava @39 (obvs not @43) may have provided the pinpoint answer Dan did not: Fetlife.

@46. Bi. They're all cribbed off mine ;) 'You can't order up a person' ... 'A bi guy ... may feel baulked in not being able to 'order' ... just one thing'. Good word-choice!

@60. 'Men' was fulminating, rather than stereotyping. It was funny. Lava can speak with exasperation because she is speaking from personal experience of these clueless guys. No need to take it back.

@65. Traffic. Good argument. 'Men!' often means 'no wonder men are like that!'


RE @75: You may be right, but there is still a gendered difference because women do not take this attitude. They take the view of "the ad is asking for X and I don't meet that requirement, therefore I obviously don't have a chance." Whether this means women should have more chutzpah or men should be more realistic, or a bit of both, is an open question.


@72 @75 @77 as someone who writes job ads, I can assure you that the expectation - and not just mine - is that not all the specifications will me met by any applicant. I wonder if that's why we receive fewer submissions from non-men persons? I'd always assumed it was because high tech. We're starving for qualified applicants.


BDF @77 I'd say in this case women should have more chutzpah. "The ad is asking for X and while I don't know X, I do know Y which is somewhat like X so I will try to convince them that I willl be able to learn X pretty quickly" is a reasonable way of handling these things, for realistic values of X and Y obviously.


Wasn't it an old showgirl maxim always to say one could anything about which one happened to be asked, as there was always a chance one could learn before having to prove it?


I generally balk at a job ad that states ' X experienced required '. Well, I don't have that requirement, so I'm not going to apply. If it said something like X desired, or appreciated, then I might put myself out there. Why apply for something I know I'm not going to get? It's a waste of my time.


Fubar @78: It's probably a bit of column A, bit of column B. I'd suggest rewriting your ads!

Sanguisuga @81: Exactly, why waste your time? Circling back to the dating arena, for me it would depend on how far off the preference I was. If an ad's stated age range was, say, 30-45, then I might reply anyway, but lead with the fact that I'm two years out of the stated range so they know I'm not being an entitled prick and/or can't read. If the stated range ended at 35, I wouldn't bother. Loads of men do.


I might add that my @79 is strictly about employment advertisements and does not translate to the dating arena, in case anyone was wondering.


Fuck me, there's no magical way to make my perfect hypothetical partner just show up on my doorstep? I give up on life.

@78: I loathe that practice the most out of any standard practice for job advertisements. We have the categories "required qualifications" and "preferred qualifications" to address exactly the difference. By entertaining people who don't meet required qualifications, you're biasing your applicant pool toward entitled assholes who think that the rules don't apply to them. Be fucking honest about what is actually required and what is simply preferred. It's a bad-faith practice that I think should be illegal (in cases where it isn't already - REQUIRING credentials, experience, etc. that are not actually necessary for a job violates civil rights law if there are racial or gender biases in the population that possesses that credential etc.). (My second-least-favorite is not listing pay or pay range - the work has some set value to the company, which might have some variance depending on the skills and experience of the person hired, but the general range of value should definitely be known in most cases, and jobs that have a set rate of pay should always list that in the advertisement in order to avoid wasting the time of applicants who need more money and recruiters who have to screen those applicants only to find out they won't take the job becasue they need more money.) There's actually a major advantage to recruiters in writing honest advertisements: anyone applying who doesn't meet the REQUIRED qualifications can be immediately dismissed because (in no particular order of importance) that person a) didn't actually read the ad, and you don't WANT to hire someone that irresponsible; b) read the ad and applied anyway, and you don't WANT to hire someone that entitled, as such a person is likely to cause problems for your company (entitled people are rarely entitled in only one way, and entertaining such people means you're more likely to wind up with someone who will sexually harass or assault other people because of sexual entitlement, feels entitled to steal from the company, feels entitled to push zir work off on others, etc.); and/or c) actually isn't qualified for the job. I see no upside whatsoever to listing qualifications as required if they're actually not required, as the only outcome will be to screen out honest, forthright people who actually are qualified for the job. Do better.


Yikes. Only 5% of the population is HSV-free by their 60s. That requirement alone is very limiting.


If you have an ask that is going to be a dealbreaker for most of the target demographic (lingerie is a big erection-killer for most gay men), you are going to have to be willing to compromise. Also, what's up with the guys who will bump uglies and swap fluids but won't kiss because it's too "romantic." "Pretty Woman" must have done a number on them during their formative years.