An Update from This Week's CREEP and Last Year's BUTT

Savage Love Letter of the Day: Reader Advice Round-up



I wonder, how did that caller expect the population of Gay Pakistan to sustain itself? By kidnapping gays from the free world? I can only imagine the immigration issues that country might have. How are you going to be sure that immigrants are gay?


you already have a nation-state. it's called San Francisco, DUH!


The caller's framing was horrific and treated appropriately. I don't think Mr Savage's response accomplished the good he probably intended.

I could say a lot that might resonate with many others of various groups among the assembled company about permanently having to live under enemy-set laws with no opportunity ever to set and maintain the norms ourselves, but I shan't.


I didn't post this when CREEP wrote because I was caught up with the issue at hand, but was CL really that good for hookups? It seemed to me like an insane crapshoot. Even when I posted missed connections posts the amount of nonsense that came my way was high and I'm a guy. I just thought that 99% of the women posting in the personals were men so never bothered trying to use CL for hookups.


I'm surprised that more traditional dating sites are entirely failing women looking purely for NSA sex. Tinder might not be the right app, since many people will swipe along without reading about you, but OkC should give women ways to signal their NSA interest, and one would imagine attract enough attention to identify someone suitable. FetLife is obviously meant for kinky people, but there are definitely classifieds people use to find NSA sex. And I have never heard of the site used by CREEP, but she is obviously having a lot of sex.

It is good to read about another satisfied reader who tried all that anal sex advice and confirmed that even someone who found anal sex painful could learn to find anal sex intensely pleasurable.


Clicked on the link for Doublelist and it says this:
"Doublelist is for the straight, gay and curious looking to connect locally right now."
Fuck off then.

My last point on CREEP is that she seems to be viewing it the wrong way: "he doesn't deserve his super-coolness to be repaid with behavior that I would not appreciate if it were directed at me." The question is not how you, a woman, would react; it's how he, a man (a specific man), would react. From the comments, a majority of men stated that they would not in fact mind being contacted the way she envisioned (while the vast majority of women said don't do it). She's made her decision now but it's a principle worth bearing in mind.

Re hookups staying over: would good hookup etiquette be that either you let them stay the night (in a different bed if necessary for sleep purposes) or pay for their taxi home? Or if you do have trouble sleeping, shag at their place, then you can excuse yourself and leave.

MYFBA is a great acronym.

Surfrat @4: Craigslist was great for people looking to hook up with men.


Is that person saying clitful thinking isn’t a thing or isn’t allowed? It sure is a thing and they can go jump if they are saying the words/ concept isn’t allowed.


Yeah Ex-creep. Sounds like you’re having fun. In a bookstore, eh?


@2 SFO seems overtaken by straight rich tech people. NYC* still has pockets of radical queers who haven't been priced out, yet.

*excludes Manhattan south of 125th and many parts of Brooklyn, which are now 1%ers, 0.1%ers or billionaires only


SLOGgers - is Doublelist any good? It needs a sign-in to browse.

CL was great for scheduling ahead specific scenes / kinks / hookups for those of us with busy work lives and little free time. One could be very descriptive, planned, and with anonymous CL email over a few days / weeks, weed out the flakes and just-looking-until-my-wank-finishes guys.


Re: Hookup Etiquette. I think if you invite someone over for sex, you should be clear in the invitation if this does not include an invitation to spend the entire evening. I do not believe someone is unduly imposing to assume that they can sleep in your bed if you have invited them over for late night sex. Even in NYC, where taxis and the subway run 24/7, it would never occur to me ask that a sex partner leave, because late night, a 30 minute ride home could take 90 minutes or more, and at 1 am, that is no fun. Being asked to leave happened only once, and confirmed in my mind that it is incumbent upon the host to make clear that they do not have sleepovers with new sex partners. I did have one regular casual sex partner who always opted to return to her apartment, even thought it routinely took her over an hour late at night, but that was entirely her choice. I think that @Dan's suggestion is reasonable compromise, host your sex partner early enough in the day to allow them to make the trip home at a reasonable hour. If that doesn't happen the host should be gracious enough to follow @BiDanFan's recommendation of paying for their cab ride home.


Re: CL

Both in this comment section and the last, people kept mentioning "missed connections". The LW did not mention that. Missed Connections was more like "Hey I saw this woman on the train at this time/place" and I can't imagine that it was very successful, but who knows.

CL personals included regular dating ads like you'd find anywhere and also the "casual encounters" section which was people looking for NSA sex in their area. Yes it was effective, yes there were loads of creeps, yes (for women anyway) one of the benefits was that you could be extremely specific about what you were looking for. I don't have any idea how good CL casual encounters were in recent years but back in its heyday - before dating apps and when the Internet was shiny and new- CL was a really good place to find just about anything you wanted and meet up with people, sex included. In more recent years, I have only used it to find people to exchange fantasies and pics with, but my experience was similar in that the advantage was that you find people who are happy to play along with really specific scenarios. The advantage of CL over sites like FetLife in my experience is that you get SO MANY MORE responses and the barrier to entry is really low- no need to sign up for anything or create a profile etc. I think it was sex workers who were hurt most by its demise.

My experience was like Delta's.

As to Sublime's point, the problem I see with the modern iterations (dating apps, dating sites, etc) is that they usually link to something like your phone or other social media accounts so it's a lot harder to be anonymous. Until a few years back, you could create an anonymous email address that is not linked to your phone (back when iPhones didn't exist) and use that account for sex stuff so there really wasn't anyway to connect you to anything else. Reddit provides that now, but it's not as locally active as CL and it appears to have a lot more men who are angry at women as active users- though this might be an impression since I'm not on there looking for hookups and may just not know how those who are navigate it.

I've thought a little about this after our "sexual economics" conversation a few weeks back. Remove the stupid and misogynist red pill language and resentment and look at the fact that there are fewer women looking for random or kinky hookups than there are men who are happy to accommodate them. And it seems that the conditions required to get these two groups together are very different from the conditions required for more traditional dating. And what makes non-sex working women who want hookups feel safer is similar to what makes sex workers safer- that is the ability to operate somewhat anonymously and with little moderation and to screen potential partners themselves and make arrangements accordingly. It seems dating sites prevent this straight out by requiring your accounts to be linked to other things or else requiring you to become a member of the group (so that your activity is under one account, one of the nice things about CL is that you could be anonymous afresh each time). Of course this is exactly why sex workers used it and exactly why it was shut down.

Cockyballs, in my experience (non gay of course) it depended on the context.


In short, all the gay men I know, even the ones in ltr, have grindr accounts. They don't seem to mind that other people could see their accounts and know they are out looking. I've found it's different with Tinder. A good friend of mine received a call recently from a mutual friend who wanted to let her know that she'd seen her husband's profile on Tinder- of course you can't read everything, but she saw it. She was honestly concerned that he was cheating, a benevolent busy body?, but it put my friend in a terrible position of having to explain about their sex life which is really none of their business. Maybe this doesn't happen to gay men or maybe it does and they don't mind? Anything remotely public like that is going to prevent a lot of women from being as open about seeking NSA sex. I think most women would be far less likely to make the front page of their Tinder account something like: "I'd like to try a threesome for the first time" etc, and if she did, I'd guess she'd have a harder time later looking for more traditional dating. Because of both stigma and actual safety, the specificity matters.

Also, I think being able to write a specific ad saying what you are looking for EACH TIME is better for women than a general profile that has to be the face of your account. That makes the sifting more difficult and far less likely that you will find what you want. Finally if it's a community then other people who can potentially talk to one another know when you've had good experiences- it's one of the things I dislike about some of the Reddit hookup sites. If you don't create a new account each time, users can post that they successfully had an experience with another user and then, unfortunately, this will skew what sort of responses and attention that user will get. As Delta mentioned, the ability to follow up and plan with people over a few days made things safer and more successful in a way that you can't really do as easily on something like Tinder.

My friend (the same with the husband who got found out on Tinder despite the fact that they have an open relationship) and I brainstormed a while back about what a brothel or a bathhouse designed for women seeking sex with men would look like. Fascinating thought experiment if you ever want to play at it, and I think it would make our society a lot healthier, sexually, if such things existed. Of course the women who best know how to navigate these things are by-choice sex workers, and we keep taking all their safety and control away from them. I don't think it's any accident at this is happening at the same time as so many states in the US are passing such draconian laws to control women's bodies.


On the topic of women's concerns on dating apps: I've used Tinder in my conservative home state and the state I moved to. After swiping on a guy back home and reading his profile more closely, seemed like he was married, and that's not my jam.

So when I ask to confirm that he's married, he freaks out and says it's almost guaranteed I've "hooked up" with attached dudes before, and that it's a bonus because he won't be emotionally invested. Told him that wasn't a bonus and made him sound life a psychopath, and unmatched.

The dude FOUND MY REAL FACEBOOK (I have an unusual first name) and sent me an UNSOLICITED MESSAGE shaming me for being single... I'm fine being single! I'm not the one in a sexless marriage! Jesus.

Too bad it was from a burner account, this is one instance I'd have no compunctions outing him.

Tinder seems better in my new state, and I've also picked up a great date at the gym, but it is terrifying that some men have such porous boundaries. I've never stalked someone who made it clear he wasn't interested like that. Ugh


DC exactly. Anonymity helps prevent all these situations. In the first place, you'd be unlikely to know the man was married anyway. In the second place, it'd be harder for him to find your real life social media. It's exactly these barriers that make it easier to be in control of your own boundaries, and it's again why I went so hard on beating the dead horse about why the LW last week should absolutely not contact her CL anon four time hookup at work.


CL also worked for me. Although it took them awhile to establish a t4w category in the "casual" section, and of course I still got hit mostly by men regardless, I will forever cherish some very fond memories.

BTW, it really started getting too commercial before they closed that section. My own dead horse is meeting in a public place before any shenanigans take place. The one time I didn't follow my own advice I ended up with someone in my living room who asked for money, telling me I agreed to it all along.


Very enlightening posts. Thanks for sharing about CL v. dating apps.

@EmmaLiz: I was the one who posted about Missed Connections but there was a small but key word in my sentence: even. Even Missed Connections seemed to lead to creepy responses. For example, I once posted something about seeing a woman in overalls covered with paint. She was stunning. I received about 20 emails from guys posing as women; it was obvious. So, even missed connections led to insane responses, so I could imagine hookup requests led to a barrage of insanity.


Surfrat @18: No, I was the one who posted about missed connections. You suggested she stalk him in person!
Naively, back in the 90s days of personal ads on paper, it never occurred to me that people would use "missed connections" to try to meet people by giving some generic description ("lovely brunette on the train in a red scarf, give me a call"). I hope I am less naive these days.

Agree with EmmaLiz on everything that was great about CL. No need to send a photo unless someone sent one to you first, which did make it feel much safer. No way they could track you down. No way for anyone you knew to judge you for having some specific fantasy or preference. I agree that men (seeking women) had a very different experience due to the comparative numbers of men vs women seeking casual sex, and sex workers posing as women who were not. The women-seeking-women experience was for me somewhere between the two; the women I encountered who were seeking other women seemed mostly married and closeted and/or cheating, which isn't my jam, and the lower numbers of single women seeking truly casual sex with each other (including myself; my preference has always been for an ongoing FWB) meant I had less success in the sapphic department. As has always been the case, no matter the setting :)


Oh and I agree with Cocky @12: Any invitation to come back to mine with sexytimes in mind, unless by prior agreement, has been understood to include crash space afterwards. A night of poor sleep is an acceptable price to pay for sex.


FYI — there is a gender neutral sex club outside Chicago called the 15th Avenue Adult Books (in Berwyn). It’s theoretically for straight couples who are swingers but there’s all types there. The number of actual women is a bit low, though, so any woman who turns up gets plenty of whatever she wants. You’re welcome.


@18 yes, even on m4m lots of nonsense, but you could weed through pretty quickly by how carefully they had read your ad and whether they took the time to say more than wassup.

Another great thing about CL was being able to post ahead of time when traveling to a geographic area, and wanting to pre-arrange a kink hookup at a particular date and place. Apps are GPS-bound unless you set to "travel" but they are all built around swiping or browsing profiles even recon. CL you could scan a hundred titles / put exactly what you wanted in the title. Super efficient for people who like to read and write.


BDF @ 19
"The women I encountered who were seeking other women seemed mostly married and closeted and/or cheating"
I'm told there were also plenty of men in that section, posing as women and phishing for pictures and fantasy scenarios. Some would even show up to designated meetings, saying the wife/gf had to cancel at the last minute and asked them to go meet the other person and deliver the message.
Did I say meet in a public place first?

As for the m4w section, I once estimated that due to the infinite pouring posts each poster could hope for about 15 minutes of viewers' attention before 25 others came in.


What was the best option when women were looking for FWB: (1) posting your own message and filtering through the replies or (2) reading through the messages posted by men and contacting the guys who seemed most interesting?


CMD @23: Agree 100% to the meet in a public place first. I always specified that sex, if it happened, would not happen on the first meetup. That weeded out a few too. I did meet a lesbian who was initially wary of me because the last bi woman had brought her boyfriend to their initial meeting. I would not doubt that there were men hiding everywhere. They were usually quite easy to identify because they used sexually desperate language which no woman would have a need to do.

Surfrat @24: I would say posting my own ad was better, as I could specify "send a face pic." The vast majority of pics posted by men were of their penises, which was useless to me. That said, the only ongoing FWB I found on CL had posted a specific ad which I responded to. My usual CL modus operandi was, be horny, page through several pages of ads, become disillusioned and call it a day. ;-)


@6. Bi. Any of your possibilities would be good (or better) hookup etiquette. My thought was that it would be awful to say to anyone at e.g. 11pm, 'right, you have to schlep off home; I'm a light sleeper'. Maybe a woman would only feel comfortable hosting--in which case the answer probably lies in better scheduling.

@5. Sublime. OKCupid does? Looking for 'hookups'? It's very easy to see who is just looking for a shag (in many cases and not exclusively, very short profiles, 'bathroom selfies' or photos of themselves on a night out).

The difference between forming 'intentional communities' (of any size) and questions of national self-determination for a people is that gays, or any minority, can just go ahead and do it. You have my blessing if you really don't want to speak to people of another gender. The comparison with the historical experience of Jews or African-Americans is ill-conceived.


@11. Sublime. Indeed. I'd think something like, 'don't sleep round indiscriminately if your casual partner can't sleep over'. An underlying point might be, 'acknowledge your problem as such and don't seek indulgences or any special dispensation for it--as if it were a disadvantage arising from others', or from structural, prejudice'. Here the problem is being unable to get to sleep with an unfamiliar person in your bed. It’s a problem insofar as it infringes negatively on your hookup. A preference for casual sex, or any sort of sexual orientation, kink or peculiarity of object-choice within legal bounds, is not a problem. The fact that it's been taken as such until recently isn't grounds for conflating issues of functioning or psychosocial adaptation and structural disadvantage.


M?? Harriet - The point is primarily self-determination. (I'm actually going to hit the caller from the other side and call it anti-gay to think that we only deserve the right to a place of our own if we can prove we've been as mistreated as other groups.) Some people might prefer never to speak to anyone of another gender, but it's much more about laws, and the effects go deeper than it appears at first glance. A homocentric country wouldn't be for everyone in the soup bowl. But in such a place, I'm sure I'd be able to afford insurance, for one thing, as there would not be such a plethora of "pro-family" and "family-friendly" policies that effectively amount to a Gay Tax, or, for those who think a handful of gays being in such a system disqualifies the term, make gays into the equivalent of donor states.

I emphasize centricity over composition, in part because there would be bound to be a good amount of crossover and in part because people could go where they'd thrive. In my working model (New England would secede and set up as the QSA), you'd have plenty of options, with each state being run by and for one of the subgroups.

It was rather clever of Mr Savage to be careful to say he wouldn't want to live there and to invite the inference that such a place should not exist without actually saying so. At least that way he didn't have to put an open stamp of approval on a system where we have to be dancing dolls for the pity or amusement of the straight world in order to get anything, however well he personally happens to thrive in such a system.


Jizzreal is hilarious. I laughed out loud at work.

Even if you get past all of the obvious issues Dan and commenters pointed out, how would one preserve Jizzreal's gay identity? What happens when gay couples have kids who are straight? I haven't researched exact numbers but if we were super conservative, 75% of children in Jizzreal would be straight? Yes you'd have some ongoing immigration but still, those children aren't likely to leave their homeland. In a few generations, you'd have a state that was mostly straight anyways.

The idea is ludicrous on every level.


@29. Venn. I don't see the difference, in moral or practical terms, between a 'non-minority' or 'all-types-inclusive' country, which has passed effective anti-homophobic legislation e.g. making insurance available to gay, straight and bi applicants indifferently on a basis purely of individual risk-profile; making mortgages available to all couples and polycules on a basis only of ability to repay, etc., and a 'minority' state that (naturally) winnowed the pool of applicants likely to be favored on homophobic grounds.

I think, similarly to you, the question, 'in which country would you prefer to live?,' does not arise as morally germane. One could say either and I'd respond (mutatis mutandis, always mutatis mutandis), 'you go, girl'.

32 Ms Robinson said to weakest link RuPaul.

Those appear to be your standard for your personal choice, but then you like being a marionette for the S.