We Want to Hook Up With a Friend But Not His Husband and They Only "Play Together." Is There a Workaround?



Jesus WATSFAF. Imagine if you got together with a couple of hotties and it went about the same as you described your encounter and then later they invited your husband to play with them by himself because they didn’t find you attractive. Let how that would make you feel guide your thoughts, words and actions in this situation. /smh


What a selfish me-me-me-me-me attitude. Why not pretend to get off on your friend's husband and maybe the actual feelings will follow? That's what Dr. Laura advises.


This is a scenario where LW should have led with "[My husband and I] are both in our mid-20s...", correct?

To answer the questions:
1) Were we wrong to hook up with them knowing that we might not like being with both of them? Not at all - you gave it a shot. You aren't obligated to be attracted.

2) Is there a middle ground here where we can still fuck with my friend without, like, touching his husband in that way?
Yes - if you're brave enough to say the words to your friend (and, inevitably, his husband), then you've got a chance.

3) Is there even a way of proposing this without being offensive?
Short answer yes, long answer, not really.

4) Or should we just stop seeing them?
Up to you. Maybe you'll like the guy. Your friend who you respect does, maybe his personality will win you over. Or it won't, in which case, no loss.


No, don't tell the friend why. You'll be admitting to your friend that you are false (having just faked to be into the previous hookup, which is really a huge insult to them if you think about it). You will also be burdening him with knowledge that he either has to keep secret from his husband or tell him and hurt him.

Just invent a white lie to not play with them again. There are enough strangers in the world that you really don't have to risk friendships on this.


Don't stop hanging out with them. They’re, ostensibly, your friends. If they’re not your friends, then don’t hang out with them.

Do just say that this was a one-time thing with them if they make advances again.

Do not say that it is because you aren’t attracted to the husband.

Do find another couple to whom you’re both attracted to both.

Do open it up should the couple break up. But, Do not be awkwardly frank about why you didn’t want a repeat. Just say it wasn’t happening.


@3 Is there even a way of proposing this without being offensive?

Short answer: No.



"So half of the time I was worrying that he would feel left out, worrying that he would notice that I wasn't interested in him, and being kinda disgusted for forcing myself to be with this person that I didn't want to be with."

Your open marriage isn't going to work out if you can't even be a fucking trooper.


@chilifries, @1, your attempt at evoking empathy is admirable. The LW is so disturbingly lacking in it that no discussion could possibly go well here.

Cuckolds coming out of the woodwork, perfectly fine! Trying to conjure a wish fulfillment cuckold with your words? Seriously Dan?


Thank you Dan for that Slate column on abortion laws. Highly informative.


L-dub, stop being a clueless dick.


I’ve been that not-hot boyfriend in a 3-ways. Fortunately, I was enough of a voyeur to enjoy being somewhat less involved in the 3-way (but not uninvolved, so not a cuckold), and appreciate that I got to have naked time with a guy I’d never otherwise get to be with.

But while our ground rules weren’t “only play together” and he had plenty 1:1 encounters without me, I’m glad I at least never overheard the other guy saying “I’d like to be with you again as long as your boyfriend isn’t around.” If any of them said anything like that to my BF, I’m glad he had the good sense not to repeat it to me.


The attempt by the Alabama State Legislature to impose Sharia Law will certainly be struck down as unconstitutional, not because of Roe vs Wade, but because of the "Commerce Clause" of the US Constitution! The new law makes it illegal for pregnant women to seek medical services in other states. Alabama certainly deserves it ranking as the 50th worst state for its public education system in the US and it shows.


...'you attracted to his husband'...--no, 'you AREN'T attracted to his husband'. Otherwise I'd have little to add to Dan's advice.

@4 cocky. He didn't get an erection--you don't think the other couple might have formed the idea he wasn't fully into it--maybe was just shy, maybe didn't feel an attraction? I think the lw and his husband can ask for just the old college friend, but they're unlikely to get ... and will have to accept this graciously.

The other thing is that maybe this mixed experience will encourage the lw and his partner to try another foursome with another better-suited couple in future!


Having been a swinger for 15 years now I'd say it's hard to find 4 people that are all sexually attracted to each other at the same time. Sometimes if you want to fuck one of them badly enough you'll fuck the one you're not that crazy about. But if they say they only play together you need to respect that and go find those people you ste your husband are both attracted to that are dtf both of you.


If LW feels okay about putting serious strain on his “friend's” relationship — and how strong could this friendship be, if LW is still even considering this — sure, go ahead.
There's really no way to “work around” this without seriously disrespecting the parameters of the other relationship.
I am inclined, however unfairly, to seriously question the LW's priorities.


Everyone is envious of gay men for their endless sexual opportunities.

As for the ongoing war on women’s rights, I think some of those warriors agree with me that where women are treated as equals eventually so are LGBTQ+/- “alphabet soup,” as nicely coined by Mr. Venn. This is why those warriors want to nip it in the bud and place women where they think they belong.
I hope we can unite.


Nice simple question from a gay man, one who is being really insensitive and self serving.
Funny @6.
What is going on for women in the US re their agency over their own bodies is frightening.


I agree with Dan: respect the boundaries. I disagree with Dan: don't tell the friend that you're not attracted to the husband unless objectively the husband is attractive and you're just not feeling it. If he's likely been turned down a fair amount because objectively he's not very attractive you don't need to pile on.

These fucking zealots are going crazy. They want abstinence only education, they want to remove birth control from insurance plans, and they want to ban abortions. They act as if women are running around trying to get knocked up so they can have the pleasure of having an abortion. I would like to see some politicians put forth bills requiring vasectomies for the purpose of preventing abortions and see how that one goes over. But in all seriousness, if the fucking Democrats can't get their shit together and run a sensible moderate who can appeal to white suburban women amidst this fucking insanity then we're all fucked.


And its time that people start being much more active with boycotts of any companies located in these states. Take your money to companies that are located in states that aren't fucking with people's rights and companies that have a track record of not supporting the nuts who are voting for these bills.


I think it is gross that WATSFAF and his husband are looking for ways around the ground rules of another couple's open relationship. These friends are not the only gay couple with whom they can possibly have sex. And I would strongly disagree with @Dan's advice to explain why you will not be having sex in the future, in the lame hope that this couple will let WATSFAF and his husband fuck their preferred half of this couple. As an aside, does anyone think that WATSFAF and his husband could abide by any new rules around this couple's kinks? Ethical kink play requires honoring someone else's rules, not looking for loopholes around a partner's limits. I am not sure that WATSFAF and his husband are up for that responsibility.

WASFAF should politely decline future invitations from this couple, if any are forthcoming, and if pressed, say they didn't feel the necessary chemistry to continue meeting for sex, but hanging out as friends would still be fun.

I also have to say that finding mutual chemistry among four people requires 12 yeses, and WATSFAF and his husband will have sex with more people if they can have a more open-minded view of the attractiveness of potential sex partners. WATSFAF wasn't able to maintain an erection because of this guy's looks? Who was this fourth, Quasimodo? People are restrictive, often too restrictive for their own good, when judging the sexual attractiveness of potential sex partners. For me, one thing that was liberating about having sex with swingers was experiencing sex with a wider array of sex partners than I might have otherwise if I were looking for a monogamous sex partner.


Jeez, Dan, that conversation you suggest seems a terrible idea to me. High risk, low benefit. Risk: many people in the friend's position would feel more distant after that and the LW presumably values the friendship. Benefit: the LW might get to be lazy and not seek out other dick to his taste.

DICK IS PLENTIFUL. Yes you'll have to filter through some bozos, but this is about as easy as any "I want to find sex" problem ever gets.


If you talk to the friend about how you aren't into his husband, you're obviously hoping he'll suggest a way his husband doesn't have to be in the bed. Because otherwise you'd just say a friendly no to repeats.

Communicating the hope to this degree isn't like you're actively pressuring his boundaries, but it's transparent enough that some people will feel it as an overstep. It's a fairly "Ask culture" move though not as Ask as, well, asking flat out.


Yes Dan, what were you thinking? There is no way round this rule, and here you are suggesting manipulative dialogue.


Sure, there’s a workaround: destroy your friend’s marriage. Make his husband feel deeply unattractive, while simultaneously encouraging your friend to violate one of their ground rules. That’ll get Mr. Sweet But Ugly out of the picture permanently, and then you and your husband can swoop in and get your rocks off! /sarcasm

Dude. Just...no.


What is all this repressiveness about re women, and it’s not just re abortions. It’s pregnancy and birthing as well. The US has a high rate of mortality of just mothers, just after birthing, up there with third world countries.
All these strong powerful intelligent sexually independent American women have to be brought down! Such fear of women’s sexuality and freedom.
As if any of them care about a foetus, hypocrites they are. Lock up children at the border, some of whom have died, where is their outrage about this?
It’s about control, getting back control of women. Like it used to be when there were only backstreet abortions. Women knew their place, then. Get yourself knocked up, well girlie, that’s your look out.


LW, what is your definition of a friend?
It needs to be reset, because no matter how much you and your partner might fancy him, notice you two play together, you are thinking to undermine his commitment to His partner, and that’s not what friends do to each other.


@6, @ 3: Quitters! WATSFAF could simply say:

"Listen, _, we had a great time with you last night, but neither of us want to play with your husband again. I mean, he's REALLY nice, but we're not into it. We TRIED to be, but, yeah, to reiterate, we had a really great time with YOU last night, and we'd BOTH rather play with you and you ONLY. So how do we do this? "

Ummmm.... yeah, how about... NOOOOOOO. I feel like if the hot hubby is a stand-up guy he'll do the walking away to salvage his husband's pride.


Dude, did you not for half a second put yourself in the position of the husband here!? "Yes, sounds like great fun to play with a couple who only want my partner and are obviously barely tolerating my presence." They've stated their rules -- both of them or neither. I'm afraid it's neither for you, pal.


Now that is some truly dickful thinking and I am disgusted that Dan played into it.


WATSFAF is being presumptuous by assuming either of these two will want to play with -him- again, given his lack of an erection.
Wouldn't it just be poetic justice if these two approached WATSFAF's husband and asked if the three of them could hook up together sometime, sans WATSFAF? :)


All the correct comments here are just longer, less funny versions of #6. You win this thread.


Mx Wanna - Not in my book; I've encountered more anti-gay stuff from women than from men.

The rightful complaints about anti-abortion laws deserved its own separate post.

Ms Fan - #30 certainly would seem to be poetic justice. Mr Savage does seem to be trying to nudge gays into becoming rhymes-with-bucks; I'd rather not speculate about why.

I thank LW for validating my Schlessinger rule of taking against any seeker who opens with, "Me and my husband..." as the subject of the first sentence.


Venn @ 32
It’s not about women being more accommodating than men. My observation is that in countries/societies where women are viewed as equal, gays and trans often enjoy more freedom as well.


Venn @32: Schmucks? :) Yes, you may have a point. First, it was don't bother telling your potential hookup buddy you're married. Now, it's no harm in disrespecting someone's marriage and insulting his husband for the sake of getting your rocks off. Moral compasses and empathy are for squares and straights, perhaps? Surely one can be gay AND an ethical slut.


@harriet, lots of guys don't get erections during sex for many reasons. Total bottoms very often don't get hard. Guys who hit the poppers often don't. Guys who have had a drink too many often don't. Guys on ADHD meds or antidepressants (almost everyone under 35 it seems) often don't. Guys in a new situation (as this was) often don't. Etc.

So it doesn't mean anything.


Simply telling the friend "we think your husband is too ugly to fuck" could damage the friendship, no? That is insulting to both members of the pair.


I agreed with Dan re it’s not obligatory to tell ‘casual hookups’ the ins and outs of your private life. Long as it’s clear clear that you will be zero available outside play time.
This letter is different, and Dan’s response is not ok. Even the other gay men here are saying it’s not ok, that’s how not ok it is.
Honestly Dan, we can’t always get what we wanna. But if you try sometimes you just might find you get what you need.


Male gay ethics are different to straight ethics in ways.
Saying you are married could mean very different things to different people. It could be an open marriage. Etc. Saying you are not available, full stop, outside playtime, is unambiguous.
Dan’s married and look at how he and Terry live their marriage.
Apologies for diversion.


@37/LavaGirl: Your casual hook up doesn’t need to know the ins and outs of your personal life, but being married isn’t an in or out of your personal life it’s a fundamental fact of your life.


Respecting people’s boundaries, especially friends’ boundaries should be a universal ethic.
Some gay men like some straight men always want to find a wraparound.


Yes SA, a fundamental fact of your personal life, which you want to keep any playmates out of. It’s a DADT marriage, there’s no room here for any other meaningful attachments, so be real clear of what you’re offering.
Saying you are married with a DADT arrangement so therefore you are unavailable outside playtimes, would be the polite way of engaging another. I still don’t think it’s absolutely necessary to mention your private life, because you want to keep your private life out of bounds to a casual hookup.
Like I said on the other thread, NSA is not for everyone. If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.


Or have finer categories, because NSA says to me the deal is that it’s not about attachment not about developing feelings. This is especially true in regard to the letter Dan got. Other times if one or both want to make a new deal, that’s on them.
With this man, the LW, he wanted to just play, doesn’t share his adventures in his marriage, and he’s very happy at home.


Lava @37 etc: Many gay men were saying it is not OK to not tell a hookup you are married. If you are in an open marriage, you say "I am in an open marriage." Which of those words is difficult to say? I agree with Sublime, the whole point of marriage is that it isn't private, it's public. You've done it in front of a justice of the peace/officiant, friends and family members. There is an official record. You wear a ring, you file legal documents jointly. Marriage is about as far from one's "private life" as you can get.

Sorry I reopened this can of worms. I won't speak further on this unrelated topic.


@Lava, 42, avoiding married people is not necessarily about not developing feelings. Many people may just legit not want to have anything to do sexually with a married guy. They may just not want to be "the other woman," even casually. This may be because of previous trauma or not, but it doesn't matter; we should respect it.

When people who have casual sex get into a situation they don't want to be in (e.g., accidentally fucking a married guy who engaged in the purposeful deception of removing his ring) there is still a societal attitude that the victim was asking for it because they are sluts anyway. I think we should respect the boundaries of sluts. Someone should write a bill of rights for sluts.


Yet again, enforcement of patriarchy serves the existing particular power structure. That power structure. That structure includes women. So yeah, duh, of course there are women who enforce patriarchy. Just like there are log cabin republicans. In both cases, they tend to be people who do pretty well under the existing status quo.

Enforcement of patriarchy means denying women bodily autonomy. It also means venerating het marriage and families. So the same people who want to refuse rights to women also want to refuse rights to LGBT people- for the same reasons.

There are additionally people who simply hate women and additionally people who simply hate gay people. In our current world, it appears that the first is on the rise moreso than the latter. But these people are drinking from the same well.

I disagree slightly with CMD (or perhaps just with my reading of his word choice) because I don't think that Republicans attack women's rights BECAUSE they eventually want to overturn gay rights. I likewise don't think that LGBT rights exist BECAUSE women get rights first. I think what happens is the same motivation exists to attack both- enforcing patriarchy so that het norm families keep people in their place and prevent challenges to an existing power structure. Likewise, breaking apart those norms opens the door to other alternatives.

Since there are more women and since women choosing not to have children affects the actual demographics of the country and the make-up of the labor force and the foundaitons of society in a way that a minority group (LGBT people) does not, women's bodily autonomy is a bigger threat than LGBT rights. Likewise, plenty of people hate gay people and some of them also want to fuck gay people, but there is less crossover. A large majority of the people who hate women also want to fuck women and this leads to their obsession with controlling women- there's a sense of entitlement to power over women that simply does not exist in the reverse (despite individual outliers) and that is irrelevant to female haters of gay men.

Likewise, a lot of the current reproductive politics is about white supremacy. The actual fascists are pretty open about this- it's about eugenics, white genocide, birth rates, and poverty and it's why the same people who want to remove women's right to choose likewise support extreme austerity programs and defunding of any health care/ childcare/ education, imperialism and vicious immigration policies etc. It's also nothing new. The evangelicals- I can't tell. I think plenty of them might actually just be worried about killing babies but also plenty of them have some really sick long term views of white Christians and the future of Israel that seems pretty damn fascist to me too so I'm not sure how much this is an undercurrent of the evangelical obsession with reproduction and how much is just me projecting what I hear the actual fascists say on top of the evangelical worldview. In the end, I don't really care that much abotu the distinctions- they all want to destroy the rest of us.

That's my regular wine rant sweet dreams.


EL @ 45
I guess I owe the public some clarifications. Conservatives are after women because they want to restore an order that worked for them. The 60’s women’s movement tipped that balance and its success, at least to some degree while also increasing social awareness, enabled other groups to come out of the hiding and further rattle the conservative insecurity.
I don’t doubt conservative “honesty,” they really are after women. That said, I’m sure they’re fully aware that if they’re successful in rolling back women’s rights it will be much easier to implement new draconian measures on other groups as well.
This is why I think attacks on women are attacks on all of us and we should unite to stop that madness, regardless of individuals in every group who may have their own issues.

Can you elaborate on the Israel connection you alluded to in, “plenty of them have some really sick long term views of white Christians and the future of Israel that seems pretty damn fascist to me too”?


@18. surfrat. Whoever the Dems run will be portrayed by a socialist, femi-nazi, anti-American nutjob by the right. Trump's only chance is to make it a dirty mano-a-mano with someone whose personality he traduces. And much as I ordinarily enjoy dirty mano-a-manos, I can't say this is one I'm looking forward to. My preference as a liberal would be to go for someone big-picture and inspiring.

I think the LW here can say that the bf wasn't attractive to his friend indirectly--'you know I'm kinda shy and we're used to each other from school. But I guess I saw [name of bf] more as a new acquaintance or a friend'. The answer can be a lot blunter than this e.g. 'Herbie and me come as a package' and the lw just then defers graciously.

The LW isn't being selfish btw, in my view. He has an interesting question--should he even have said yes to the fourway, given he wasn't feeling it?--which gets the correct answer. He's bringing up, next, a no-sweat point of etiquette, which has some social interest and some (just some) personal urgency behind it, partly so as to have something to say to Dan.


@20. Sublime. It's quite legitimate not to get a hard-on for Dr Zhivago if you're not feeling it. There's nothing 'gross' about asking whether the LW's friend is available on his own. It's not entirely clear whether this couple only play with others together. Absolutely of course, no demurring, anyone would have to respect the other couple's boundary if it turns out this is the case.


Harriet @48: What is unclear about "All of this would be pretty simple to solve if their agreement wasn't that they can only be with other people together"? This IS the agreement, and yes it IS gross to ask them to make an exception.


@34. Bi. Gays are meant to be hardy--not delicate flowers. The response to a pass is 'ewww, no thanks'. No biggie.


Harriet @50, I think you may have hit on one cultural reason why gay people have very high rates of depression and suicide. "It gets better" only delays it until you grow up and meet your supposed people and find out that "No, it does not."


LukeJosef @7 wrote "Your open marriage isn't going to work out if you can't even be a fucking trooper."

My open marriage has worked out, even though we don't pressure each other to have sex with someone just to facilitate a group sex situation.

SublimeAfterglow @20 wrote: "For me, one thing that was liberating about having sex with swingers was experiencing sex with a wider array of sex partners"

I'm glad you've enjoyed your swinging experiences, even when taking one for the team. I'm an odd duck sexually and prefer to choose for myself, based on more compatibility than "our partners want to fuck and the guy doesn't think I'm a total dog."


@35. cocky. Sure, it doesn't mean anything. I do little but bottom and my frequent limpness is a source of ... sadness, frustration, hilarity, comedy etc. to me, but not a source of worry. Nor drama. (It's more often been misinterpreted by casual partners). I'm thinking more of what they say they did and what they're likely to have done in a four-way with new friends--which I would think is a lot of cock-sucking, and not just swapping partners and cock-sucking but everyone doing it to everyone else. It would be surprising to me if someone was limp for this.

@50. cocky. These are difficult issues. I think the 'be kind' maxim, the idea that gay men should respect and tread extremely carefully round each other's sensitivities, is perhaps important within the 'safe spaces' of a subculture, even, than it might be in the world at large. At the same time, to me there are features of the gay world, like hooking up a bit brusquely and impersonally, that define it, define its difference to the straight world--and which are huge advantages to gays. I wouldn't want gay guys, newcomers to the scene, to think they weren't strong enough for the world. Strong enough for promiscuity. (Not that promiscuity is for everyone, and what I'm saying may be very 80s/90s, when homosexuality was less part of a mainstream of ecumenical dating and talking about dating).

There's another live rail here, and an issue that for reasons of political solidarity doesn't always come up--which is marked differentials of power, confidence and perceived and self-perceived attractiveness exist within the gay community with respect to sexual role, esp. between tops (and power tops) and bottoms. There are more bottoms; and we're more prey to self-doubt, deference, overthinking--all of that--than (apparently) the tops. There often appears to be an economy of scarcity for sex for the bottoms, in a way that, for some people, breeds insecurity and resentment. I can't help but feel this is all an awful pity; and the promise of sexual abundance that so many people associate with being gay is something that we can all realize as individuals.

@49. Bi. Dan's suggestion was to offer to play together, all four of them, in some way that doesn't involve the LW having to interact physically with the guy who doesn't get his rocks off. Actually, on reconsidering, it is a bit of a stretch. And what does Dan consider physical interaction? Whipping or Domm-ing with an instrument, for example? The other couple have been clear about what they're looking for. Especially for someone who's extremely awkward, who may not intuitively or easily grasp social rules or explicit 'no'es, this was misleading advice.


surfrat, There aren’t significant numbers of white suburban women married who will vote for a moderate Dem who would otherwise vote Republican. This is a myth, one that should have died a long overdue death when they failed to materialize in both 16 and the last midterm. There are, on the other hand, significant numbers of people who choose to sit out elections who can be mobilized to vote for a candidate that inspires them, a reality that did materialize for Obama. Whether or not a populist or a lefty candidate without his extraordinary charisma can turn them out for a general POTUS election, we do not know- it is an untested strategy. But looking at the Dems with new momentum behind them (in both 16 and the midterm) does imply so. However we know that the strategy of running a centrist to appeal to white suburban female voters fails- it has been tested and failed already against both Bush and Trump. Democrats keep trying this strategy because they would prefer to stay in second place in the current system than to take power under conditions that would require them to challenge the (donor backed, commercial interests) status quo. This is also why they do not bother actually trying to impeach Trump, why they give him all the military money he asks for and approve all his weapons deals, why they did not fight his judicial appointments other than SCOTUS, etc. The system is rotten to the core and the Dems are complicit.

CMD I was referring to the fact that most American Evangelicals are also Christian Zionists and when you combine the two you end up with a group of people who support the Israeli state because they believe it’s necessary for the second coming and all the Jews & Muslims present there will get what’s coming to them if they don’t convert while they have a chance. At the center of all of this is white supremacy, not religious fundamentalism (though that's there too in coalition), and the alliance with Israel seems a contradiction if you don’t understand that. The problem with an economic status quo and power structure that is built upon imperialism abroad and white supremacy at home is that people who feel they are just defending their material conditions against rising threats and not personally racist against individuals end up being agents of white supremacy. The open fascists are far more reflective and honest about this, but it’s the same shit all the way down regardless of how conscious people are of it. The backlash against feminism and women’s reproductive rights is entirely tied up in concerns for the future of western civilization and white genocide- it's no accident that the Republicans take a hardline against immigration (and yes, even legal immigration if you haven’t been paying attention), reproductive rights, and any public funding that would make life less cruel for families. “Family values” to these people simply means “patriarchy” and their patriarchy is white supremacist at the core- liberals keep misunderstanding this and it's why they think it’s hypocritical that Evangelicals support Trump (a three-times married sleazeball) but hate Obama (a family man with no personal scandals). The attack on LGBT rights is because it threatens hetnorm patriarchy though it’s not as big a threat as white women choosing not to have babies. This resonates with the right coalition for all sorts of reasons- it’s the basis of attacks on feminism as the destabilizing factor to western civ, it’s an outlet for frustration for horny straight guys, it’s at the core of concerns over freeloaders, immigrants, welfare queens and all the agents of the white genocide coming to a suburban area near you, coming to take the jobs, coming for your redistributed income, etc. The core of all of it is white supremacy which is the foundation of US capitalism. Also why we live in a world where fascism is on the rise but we have women and gay CEOs and running for president, plus bigoted women voting against reproductive rights and bigoted gays addressing the GOP as well as writing about how women should not have the right to vote, etc. Because it’s not about individuals. Lefties get this and so do right wingers- it’s only liberals who are confused about this and still think it's all about individual rights. They are the only ones who lack a real structural analysis and it's why they are going to keep losing. And if a moderate Dem does win, he/she will be about as effective at dealing with any of this as Macron in France or Congress in India. I’m afraid it's all going to get violent tbh, keeps me up at night.


I just thought of why gay men have a different ethical base to straight people, and it may be because they are tuned in more to the erotic side because you’ve got just men together. It took a gay man to help me unlock a stronger erotic component to my sexuality. Thanks Dan.


Mx Wanna - You invited the inference (deliberately or otherwise) it was causation, when it's loose correlation at best.

I thank Mizz Liz for at least making the effort to remain specific, but basically I was speaking in Gay and being answered in Alphabet Soup, which is not the same language.

Agreed that women's autonomy is a greater threat to society as a whole. One thing Mizz Liz omits is that female emancipation threatens the male-serving portion of her hetnorm patriarchy, while gay emancipation threatens the female-serving portion. There are some interesting ways this plays out.

Whether hatred of either women or gays is really growing or whether people are just being more open about it (or their supposed "support" was just incredibly shallow and has worn off) could be worth exploring. G-hatred from the left (conveniently omitted from much of the conversation) has been growing, but at a fairly steady rate, not having exponentially jumped recently. I'll add that, if one accepted the original perspective, one would probably agree with the hatred as right and proper for the haters in question. I shall not attempt to claim anything about hatred of women, and defer to the Expert Witnesses.


As long as your husband isn’t turned off by your friends husband, yes, there is a workaround. Wear a blindfold.


EmmaLiz, you write way too goddam much for me to read, but you are thoroughly correct as far as I got.


Harriet @50: Why make a pass in the first place when you know the answer will be no? Particularly when you know it will be "EWWW, no"? Why risk that friendship? Sure, people have the option to be rude assholes. Doesn't mean that's ever a good idea.

EricaP @52: That does not make you an odd duck. I reckon a policy of only having sex with people one is attracted to is the rule rather than the exception.

Harriet @53: It would also be more surprising with this guy, who is in his mid 20s. Lack of an erection at that age is a far surer sign that something is off.

"Actually, on reconsidering, it is a bit of a stretch." Ya think? Glad you can now see the advice was bad. The advice was actually to tell Friend they didn't want any more foursomes because they don't fancy his husband, and to wait for Friend to make a counter-offer like "what if he just watched?" The problem with this advice was, one, "wait for Friend to bring it up" was hidden a paragraph down, which a tone-deaf dickful thinker like WATSFAF was unlikely to catch, and two, it's pretty far-fetched to think a couple with a "we only play together" rule would make an offer like that. So far-fetched Dan shouldn't have mentioned it -- he should have left those two paragraphs out altogether. WATSFAF should have instead not proposed any more play sessions, -politely- demurred if asked ("I just wasn't feeling it last time" -- a message his dick had already sent), and gone into detail only if Friend had pressed. In the extremely rare event that their "playing together" rule might involve a cuck element, if Friend was -that- keen for it to happen, he would indeed bring it up -- but no point steering WATSFAF to that unlikely outcome and thus encouraging him to ask this rude question himself. Indeed, this was misleading advice.


Lava @55: Yes. In hetero world, men are the pursuers and it's women's job to say no. In gay world, everyone is the pursuer, no one has been socialised that it's their job to say no unless certain conditions are met. I still say ethics are ethics and manners are manners, but one difference that has emerged is that in hetero world, monogamy is the presumed default for relationships, whereas in gay world this is not the case. Therefore in gay world it would be far less rude to proposition someone who is already partnered, since the odds the relationship is an open one are far higher.
That said, these guys know this couple has a particular rule, so asking them to break it is an asshole move.


@BDF, @Harriet, I have seen a lot of guys fail to get erections in novel, anxiety-provoking, and distracting situations, prime examples of which would be group sex, especially if the guy is young and not used to that kind of thing. It's certainly happened to me. It still happens to me in a nontrivial percentage of cases. It doesn't mean anything regarding attraction. In fact I can especially lose an erection if the other guy is so hot that I think he is out of my league; I have no problem maintaining it with ugly guys.

It is disappointing to me that even people here who are informed and have been around the block a few times have such misconceptions about erections. It basically means I have not a snowball in hell's chance of being understood out there in the real world.


Fan@60, I wasn’t meaning anything to do with pursuing, and I’m sure men know how to say no to each other.
I was referring to the erotic part of sex, which is different to say the romantic part of sex. Unabashed erotic sex seems to be what a lot of gay men enjoy. Along with their settled partners.
It’s a distinction I’ve understood much better since reading these threads.
I remember in the seventies, before AIDS, reading about how gay men were behaving at their clubs and baths and finding the behaviour incomprehensible. It was unbridled erotic gay male sexual behaviour. Then AIDS hit and of course it all changed. Such behaviour has adapted though, still the same intensity of erotic charge comes thru.
Sorry, it was a thought bubble I had, realising how much my own experience of my erotic self, not my romantic self, has changed since reading a gay man’s blog.


@62, Lava, it's all fun and games until it isn't. Grass is always greener and all that. You may be surprised at how little fun many gay men end up having sexwise for all kinds of reasons. Sexual problems are rife, there are stunning levels of loneliness, mental illness is at epidemic proportions, and drug abuse (especially meth) are ravaging entire generations of gay men. This is in a small city in a state people forgot about; things may be different in Seattle for all I know.


cbu, I’m not idealising the lifestyle, it’s obvious that there are problems in the gay world. Sorry to hear about the drugs etc. Loving intimacy is important, don’t get me wrong.
It’s the ability to have both, in the same relationship.
Loving intimacy and erotic sex.
Esther Perel has written about it. I haven’t read her work on this yet, it was referenced on the thread for SHE.


What a whiny, selfish little twat. Me me me...."hubby and I are crazy attracted to you but you're husband is gross, can you break you rule for us?" This is why I avoid playing with couples; navigating their rules and their feelings is just too much work.


cbu, it’s sad what you say happens to gay men. It’s good more men are writing into Dan.
Seeking help with intimacy problems seems to be a stumbling block for lots of men. How to shift that?
Support groups and the like. Owning up to the problem is the first step.
Empathy, ability to read non verbal clues, relationship skills are not nothing. Us females are trained at our mothers knees, if we have that dynamic, to think of others. Their feelings, their needs, their wants. Especially if the others are male others. That was my training as a child in the fifties.
Then girls natter away all their secrets to each other and that becomes a habit. So most women maintain intimate female friends thru life, to share with. These are intimacy skills. Boys pick up different ones.
Heterosexual men rely on these skills a woman has, a lot. Though today these skills are being more shared, say as more dads are being hands on. Having kids teaches you empathy etc real quick. Putting another first.
Thanks for chatting about your gay life cbu.
Hugs to you, if you are ok with that. Dan doesn’t like hugs.


Which is probably good as I might send him one a day. I love Dan. He is naughty and nice.


@LavaGirl, thank you, I needed the hugs today and I appreciate it.


@61. cocky. I'm agreeing with you about erections. I've experienced this, too; I experience it often. I've also experienced something like the opposite: had a proud stiffie in a group until my partner came along and wanted to be part of the scene. And also had good, long-lasting hard-ons with him in a group and not one-on-one for maintenance sex at home. My line has always been that prostate orgasms are (for me) a supernova and full-load penile emissions a dwarf star; and that whether I have a hard-on is a bad guide to whether I'm aroused and into it.


EL @ 54
The cooperation between Israel and US Christian fanatics is very interesting in the sense that each side truly believe they are deceiving the other.
Religion aside, to many white folks in US, Europe and beyond Israel, despite its obvious Jewishness, resonates as a white bastion in otherwise darker-skin hairy-monsters (truly) savage territory.

I agree with what you wrote yet would like to add the US military industry to the mix, one of the strongest domestic lobbies if not THE, and one we never hear about. This industry is heavily subsidized by the government, giving Israel and Egypt alone at least $5B of military goodies a year for the past 40 years.

The deal struck with Iran by the Obama administration signaled a possible shift in the middle east, offering economic opening to other US industries as well as 80 millions fairly educated Iranians. No wonder Israel and Saudi Arabia teamed up against it.

As the Mueller report indicates, Russia wasn’t the only foreign country to meddle in the latest US presidential election.


I think the LW is getting some crap they don't deserve.

It's not a crime to not be attracted to someone, but it's best to keep this to yourself LW. I get the feeling the couple already knows and I can't think of a way to get the husband you like without hurting the husband you don't and insulting the guy you want to sleep with.

Crazy idea. Take sex off the table and hang out with them as friends.

They are only non-monogamous people on the planet. You can find different partners and so can they.


Cocky @61: To clarify, when I said "Lack of an erection at that age is a far surer sign that something is off," that "something" could include nerves, as you say. That "something" could also be fatigue, meds, stress, too much drink/drugs, worrying about something unrelated, many things. Not just lack of attraction. I also said "far surer," not certain -- you'd agree, wouldn't you, that a 25-year-old not getting an erection would be more concerning than a 45-year-old not getting one? That is all I meant, and I hope you no longer view me as having misconceptions. (I sympathise more than you might think, as I am approaching menopause and my own body is not as reliably producing evidence of desire as it once did.)

Lava @62: Our observations are related. By "erotic vs romantic" you are talking about sex for its own sake, rather than as a manifestation of feelings for a specific person, correct? Men are allowed to admit they want sex for its own sake, but women are not allowed to admit that -- we are supposed to only want sex with someone we love, to safeguard it as a treasure and bestow it only on someone who "earns" it with promises of commitment. This is why we are shamed for seeking/enjoying sex for its own sake. If gay men have led by example to show women that there is nothing shameful about the enjoyment of sex, then I join you in appreciating them for it!

Cocky @63: And thanks for showing the flip side of what can happen when the romantic is dismissed, with the erotic prioritised over all else. Cocky, you sound like a thoughtful and sensitive man. I hope you meet a partner who values and cherishes you. Sending you more hugs!


Mr Balls - Very well stated. The drug crisis, which I keep hearing about from my socially active successors, particularly depresses me. Unfortunately, the only people I know to be talking about it much are relatively powerless to see solutions implemented, and none of them have popular politics.

Ms Fan/Ms Lava - If you can learn by taking us as an example, then well done, yourselves.


BDF, @72, thank you!


Yes, Mr Venn. I am a bit envious though that I won’t attain that pure erotic objectification gay men so guilt- freely have with each other.
I don’t have the balls for it.


Sorry CMD didn't see this until this evening, oh well it's off topic anyway but sometimes it helps me vomit up concerns for the future before bed, lol. So I'll respond anyway in case you check it.

Regarding Israel, I think it's pretty clear that the US and Israel are on the same page in most of their foreign policy goals. I don't think it's accurate to call it a client state- more like the two are codependent. The US needs Israel to maintain military and market hegemony in the region, ISrael needs the US to exist. So yes I think you are correct that the religious fanatics on each side probably think they are getting the upper hand on the other, but I think the governments and business leaders and military all understand the nature of that relationship.

The weird thing about Iran was that Bush started that shift- cooperating with Iran in the later years of his part of the Iraq occupation, they even helped select Iraqi govt officials including the president, etc. Obama continued that, repaying US debts to them and building the nuclear deal which is probably the best thing he did in his entire presidency (internationally). The nuclear deal also involved the cooperation of Putin, something the puppet-master conspiracy theory types keep overlooking- how often Trump's foreign policy is at odds with Putin's. He's been the current loudest global voice in trying to save the deal as well, in opposition to Trump. As for election meddling, you know how I feel about that. All powerful states try to influence one another's politics- the US does it through coups and military intervention / sanctions and propaganda in most countries on the planet. Israel and Saudi Arabia do it as well, around the world through both illegal and legal means, violent and nonviolent- here in the US mostly through propaganda and business/weapons deals plus extremely well organized and powerful lobbyists (and yes aide too in Israel's case). Naturally Russia does the same, but mostly outside of "legal" paths here- I don't know why that should make a difference to average people. I think American liberals homed in on the one example they know about and then created a conspiracy theory around it in which Trump is a puppet of Putin rather than simply two powerful countries having shifting alliances depending on immediate goals of both their foreign policy and the shady deals of their sleazy oligarchs. Which is how capitalism works- you have to zoom out past individual examples, but that would require reckoning with the bigger reasons they lost the election which were far more significant. I've said all along that if you were to look at any major players you would find similar levels of corruption and sleaze with other foreign countries. It's a forest/trees issue but that's another story.

Back to Iran- the weird thing is that they should be the US's natural allies if Americans really were interested in fighting the War on Terror. That's why, I think, there was a brief period where relations with Iran improved. Iran is Shia and has been fighting sunni radicals for decades. The US too often is supporting the allies of those terrorists while defeating their enemies- it's hypocrisy to say we are going after Iran for sponsoring terrorism while defending the Saudis, the literal originator and sponsor of all this bullshit. But that's what the US did in Libya, Iraq and (attempted) in Syria as well, and they have a long history of this from before 911. I'm not a conspiracy theorist in this either- I don't believe that the US intentionally spreads salafi terrorism around the world. I think they really do fight them and really would prefer they didn't exist, but it is an acceptable (to the US) byproduct of American foreign policy in the region or they'd have gone after Saudi Arabia right after 911 instead of going after all the dictators that had, up to that point, been rather successful at keeping the salafis out of their borders. I honestly believe the US prefers failed states to functioning ones that oppose US economic/military interests, and if that involves the rise in (and sometimes cooperation with) all the salafi groups (al qaeda, boko haram, isis, etc) then so be it- the US will fight them too- bomb the terrorists while removing the terrorists' enemies in support of the regional hegemony of the terrorists' allies. It's madness. It seems like only Rand Paul, Ro Khanna and Tulsi Gabbard are consistently talking about it in Congress- not that I agree with most of what two of those people say about other things. Trump's trying to give Saudi Arabia nukes, btw, if you didn't know. Some MOCs directly addressed it in the last military budget- trying to stop him before he can do it. This quadruples the hypocrisy against Iran and makes me want to just move out in the woods by myself and live in a hut where my only companions are the birds.

I included the weapons trade btw- both when directly when I talked about Dems supporting all of Trump's weapons deals and military budgets and indirectly when I twice mentioned US imperialism, another factor that I think liberals really don't acknowledge- the fact the backbone of our economy and of US dominance in global capitalism is our hundreds of military bases around the world and the half dozen on-going wars plus all the other smaller interventions, amounting to the deaths of millions. Future historians will look back on the US the way we currently look back at the brutalities of the USSR, assuming there's future historians at all.