Just wanted to say that "What To Call Myself?" responded AGAIN in the comment thread (@51), liking my suggested replacement for "girlfag" -- "MM-ette" , spelled "ememette."

So did vennominon (@53). I think it's a big improvement on an offensive term and hope Dan will consider promoting "ememette."

In support of EP and the suggested replacement and seconding qapla in support of BDF.

Good one, Fan.

Yay! Thanks Dan for the vote of confidence! :D
Qapla @1, same -- the first thing I thought of when LW said he masturbates lying on his stomach was, wouldn't it be awkward to get your hand in there? So "prone masturbation" literally means fucking the mattress, who knew. The writers of Big Mouth, for sure. Recommended viewing!

As for "some people want their partners to come inside them," it's nice when one's partner comes inside one after you've been building up towards that orgasm together. Feeling the ejaculation not only feels intimate but can oftentimes bring the fuckee over the edge, if the fuckee was close to orgasm themself. But pulling out, jacking off, and putting it back in for the few seconds it takes to ejaculate -- I don't know about anyone else, but that would be nowhere near enough time for me to build up to enjoyment, so I'd just feel like a receptacle. Particularly during fluid-bonded sex: "Here, have none of the fun and all of the mess!" Gee thanks. This is why I suggested BROKE could incorporate this with a bit more experience, to communicate with his partners about whether they would find this enjoyable or be left feeling used.

Great work, BDF!

"prone masturbation"

I didn't know the word frottage couldn't be used WRT inanimate objects.

"coming on the tits, ass, face, etc."

Would people want to do this as often if it weren't modelled in porn?
Maybe it's just my tendency towards cleanliness, but semen is sticky. (To say nothing of in eyes or hair.)

Oh I know some people really do apparently like doing it, IIRC some to degrade the 'recipient'.

"I continue to emit a small amount of semen for 5-10 minutes...I made the mistake of seeking help from a urologist...acted like he didn't believe me"

I was about to suggest a urologist, but even though you found a shitty one, maybe that still ruled out the need to see a decent one? (Because often doctors' shittiness/denial comes from wanting to define everything they can't do anything about as not existing, so as not to threaten their sense of potency.)

@2 EricaP
"hope Dan will consider promoting "ememette.""

It would be a worthwhile effort (to undermine the offensive term), but it wouldn't be easy since the offensive term has an ugly clarity. And if I'm not mistaken, it's not a term that comes up much if one isn't an ememette.

Ememette. Ememette.

I won't be surprised if it's years before we hear that again.

@6 BiDanFan
"putting it back in for the few seconds it takes to ejaculate"

OK, I spent a while trying to google evidence regarding the amount of time between the point of (it looks like the specific term is) Ejaculatory Inevitability (EI) and ejaculation.

But from my own field work, I think it could be somewhat more than just a few seconds; maybe as many as 10 to 20 seconds?

(Maybe the reason neither I nor google is all that sure, is that it's not really a time to be focusing on time.)
(Googling also told me that women don't have a point of OI, they have a window of O opportunity.)

"nowhere near enough time for me to build up to enjoyment"

True, but a few days ago during our PE chatting WRT the same letter, didn't you say that if a woman were primed, such a short time could be enough? So perhaps the communication you suggest could include synchronizing their priming? (But certainly I agree she shouldn't have untimely 'receptacle-hood' unilaterally thrust upon her!)

Of course it's not optimal, but both circumstances (BROKE's PIV issue due prone masturbation, and PE) are not optimal, so perhaps the accommodation of one could apply to the other?

BiDanFan and DAVIDinKENAI gave some excellent advice. Saaaay... how about a column answered by some of the regular commenters?

I have to second curious2 @7 regarding EricaP @2 "hope Dan will consider promoting "ememette." The offending term has a certain clarity. I'm always having to Google the terms that I run into (ENBY, for example) so clarity is always a plus. And I wonder how offensive a term is when it's used by allies to describe themselves? When I were a lad, women who liked to hang out with gay men would refer to themselves as "fag hags". They certainly weren't hags.

P.S. Ememette makes me think of Eminem, which I would prefer to avoid
.

Mr Curious - Well, at least you called the clarity ugly.

You may not see the term again for years, but at least it will have the positive effect of the "good ones" self-segregating. I don't think it will catch on with a majority of self-described GFs, but at least the ones who continue with the GF label if there's a sufficiently viable alternative will be flagging their intrusive side.

M? Bar - The term implicitly claims insider status, and not everyone who uses it is an ally. The author of the referenced column came across as more of a poacher.

Calling oneself a GF invites multiple troublesome inferences:

that one completely understands gay experiences and relationships from the inside

that one claims the same potential victimhood as gays to negative consequences that one hardly ever has/will run (that word puts gays but never GFs into conversion therapy, for instance)

that one feels a sense of entitlement to gay spaces, resources and interactions

Any term that can establish adherents as strictly sympathetic outsiders will be an advance.

I didn't care for FH, either, but at least it was a sort of double whammy with a nearly equal double deprecation.

@9 venn
"Well, at least you called the clarity ugly."

Hey I did more than that, I supported it EricaP's alternative. The only reason I expressed somewhat faint (I admit, sorry) praise ("worthwhile effort") for plan was that I was mostly just expressing resignation WRT unseating such a clear term (whose ugliness is also probably an asset in it's potential to hold onto it's established usage).

@10 venn
"invites multiple troublesome inferences"

I don't really think they'll think those things, except for the last one, I can imagine them wanting to be in accepting "gay spaces". But how big an issue would that be given what a small number of them I imagine there are? If a gay male space welcomes women, what women would be more interesting to the gay males to converse with than the ememettes?

(Ememette. Ememette. Doing my best to support it's usage.)

@8: I don't know that "it sounded hip in the 90s, so it's okay" has any legs nowadays. "Hello, faggot" worked at the time, but Dan would face strong blowback if he tried bringing that back now.

Given that WTCM wrote in specifically because the name sat poorly with her even though the definition felt apt, I think that there are enough other people with similar feelings. There are definitely people who would be open for a gentler name than girlfag/guydyke, and there's no harm in trying to make sure that better words are out there.

ChiTodd @12: Minor quibble, but I didn't say "it sounded hip in the 90s, so it's okay". What I said was those women were (thought to be) allies, and nobody seemed to mind (and it was the 80s, for the record). But I'm happy to be educated, and point taken: tolerance for the word (and others) has eroded, and its use as an endearment of sorts is obsolete.

@12 ChiTodd
"Dan would face strong blowback if he tried bringing that back now"

Stronger than he faced in the 90s? How, weren't those even worse times than now (and wouldn't the blowback be proportional to how bad things suck)?

(Oh, wait, maybe you mean that social media has nuclear-weaponized everyone's every thought, yes, I hear that!)

It shook me everytime I read a letter to Dan start; surely Dan did some good in trying to reclaim the word from all it's poisonousness. (But thank goodness Dan stopped doing that.) At least when someone uses that word when asked to in love, or about themself, it it doesn't mean nothing but pure evil intent.

How about Admiring Of Gay Culture, AOGC. Then it’s not so much an attempt to become an insider, because as Mr Venn says, that is offensive.

What astounded me about the GF thread, was that a couple of gay men said their bit quite strongly from their gay man side and they were ignored. Like it’s their culture, show some respect.
This falling over yourselves to create the millionth gender or whatever is hurting people.

Men imposing on lesbian culture or women doing the same on male gay culture, don’t get a pass just because ‘it’s a thing,’ without any queries about the implications.

Curious @7: "Would people want to do this as often if it weren't modelled in porn?" Yes. Face, no. But warm cum on the tits is nice, because you can both watch it shooting out and it feels nice. Remember that when one is turned on, things that are objectively gross can be incredibly hot. And at any rate, a quick wipe and the sticky goodness is all gone. Much quicker cleanup than spooge in the vagina which leaks out unexpectedly in dribs and drabs, sometimes half an hour later when you're sitting at your desk trying to work...

"But from my own field work, I think it could be somewhat more than just a few seconds; maybe as many as 10 to 20 seconds?" As we agreed the other day, that's defined as premature ejaculation.
"Didn't you say that if a woman were primed, such a short time could be enough? So perhaps the communication you suggest could include synchronizing their priming?" Not "a woman"; me. I am far more orgasmic than the average woman, based on my own field work. I said such occurrences were rare, and had to happen under nearly perfect conditions, namely, my partner stimulating -me- to the point of OI then inserting penis. In theory, I suppose one could continue to stimulate oneself while watching one's partner jerk himself while wearing a condom (not the sexiest visual, IMO), so that one could remain close enough to orgasm that "victory pumps" would be more than an awkward favour. But this is consistent with my advice that BROKE (and his partners) would need considerably more sexual experience to attempt such a feat.

"Ememette" -- so would a guydyke be an efefette? Does this sound too similar to effete, meaning:
adjective
lacking in wholesome vigor; degenerate; decadent: an effete, overrefined society.
exhausted of vigor or energy; worn out: an effete political force.
unable to produce; sterile.

@18 BiDanFan
"warm cum on the tits is nice, because you can both watch it shooting out and it feels nice."

Cool.

Ya know it's probably less my cleanliness thing, than my (previously rhapsodized about) love of warmth during orgasm, that makes it difficult for me to imagine preferring to cum elsewhere than (say, condomed) inside.

"this is consistent"

Absolutely. That PE discussion was aimed at theoretical possibilities, which you're right don't amount to practical considerations for BROKE.

Yes, it would be difficult to get efefette off the ground because one would be so occupied getting one's pronunciation/spelling corrected (for effete).

Presumably the "ette" ending is less appropriate on the FF version, anyway. Although "et" doesn't sound different, at least, to American ears. Perhaps efefeau? Or efefeur?

Did any of y’all go to the website the LW wrote into Dan that they created about prone masturbation- in this roundup? It’s actually a whole site on masturbation, but there’s a page on prone, and it’s a bit unintentionally funny... there are 90s era internet diagrams of prone masturbation and some really clunky descriptions and website surveys used as data.

ciods @ 20
efefeau sounds too much like UFO, efefeur may elude to amour which makes it a much more suitable term.

For men who like watching women have sex together, and fantasizing about being included as a woman in that scene, I would go with "lesbifan."

And I suppose gayfan could work in place of ememette, for a woman who likes to watch gay men and imagine herself one of them.

If ememette (MM-ette) indicates feminine male-on-male, then masculine female-on-female is problematic. Efefette won't work. There are very few words where the male version is derived from the female. The only one I can come up with, after quite a bit of wine, is widower. So FFer, or Efefer, would work.

CMD @23, also sounds as if it would be pronounced FFO, which is very close to FO, which is what I'm sure most female lesbians would like to tell thirsty guydykes to do.

EricaP @24, lesbifan sounds like a winner! Or lesbiman?

Agreed about the -ette suffix, though anything ending in -eur (or -er) should be fine (just steer clear of the temptation to call it -euse). While it would not be my place to make the initial or strongest objection, I'd back up any insider who expressed dislike of anything with an L root as too intrusive. Also, an L or G root invites the implication that the outsider is fetishizing the insider's disinclination and possibly looking to turn it; anything substituting MM or FF avoids that.

So we have another cis person who thinks she can read other people's hearts and minds and state definitively who is cis and who is not...

Lovely.

sigh

And "believe women" does not mean that women's stories should not be examined. It means that men who are typically believed without question should be given the same scrutiny as women. It means, "Don't automatically assume that men are innocent and women are guilty." It does NOT mean that we should reverse this and automatically assume men are guilty and women are innocent. It means we need to examine our biases. This includes racial biases.

Dan: "Would you like some cake?"

Me: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KABLW7eAFQI

Bowie @28, thank you. "Believe women" means give them the benefit of the doubt. Funny how the person arguing against believing women used 100+ year old examples of why we should not. And indeed, overlapped them with a belief that was not held at that time, but is far more widespread today: that black lives matter. Anyway, glad the women whom Harvey Weinstein raped were believed and now have some justice.

I would not be surprised to see an attempt to invoke Miss Borden.

Mr Savage (who has also flatly stated more than once that men and masculinity are toxic) recently provided an example of the overinterpretation, uncritically taking the Her side in the recent Warren-Sanders kerfuffle, citing, "Believe women," without any other reason. This reminded me of what the Republicans are doing on the gay front. Some may have seen accounts of Mr Limbaugh's recent statement about how easy it would be to defeat Mr Buttigieg and the fun "Mr Man" Donald Trump would have running against a gay "who loves kissing his husband on stage" (quite an inaccurate assessment, as Mr B came in for considerable criticism from the left for that kiss, some even going so far as to revive the old Is He Really Gay? question). This then let Mr Trump do an interview in which he said he'd have entirely no problem with voting for a gay presidential candidate (in some other election). It was then "leaked" that Mr Trump called Mr Limbaugh and told him not to apologize.

@31 venn
"Mr Savage...has also flatly stated more than once that men and masculinity are toxic"

venn, don't take that personally. Even here you don't include the word "all" (that is, you don't say Dan says "all men" or "all masculinity").

Don't forget the context; one says things in helping people aimed at (duh) helping them, which those who overhear (that is, those who aren't the LW) shouldn't be too sensitive about.

And I have no doubt that you agree that there are significant aspects of OS male gender roles that have a toxic effect, and that it can be part of the solution for males (like Dan and many here) to examine this. And to mention it in responses to letter writers who are being harmed by them. The very fact that they do so implies that it's not true of all.

Personally I think it seems like testosterone is a drug that creates challenges; but it does not inevitably result in behavior, we are not robots programmed by our biochemistry, we can take control.

It weird when Ronald Reagan('s speech writier, translating a bit of Russian folk wisdom) is on the right side of any issue, but, "Trust, but verify," is probably the best pithy description of the necessary approach to ANYONE making an as-yet-unverified assertion.

@33 JohnH
Agreed, those 3 words are extremely useful even if Raygun did say them.

@bowie thanks for clarifying the 'believe women' comment. I would also add that the example the commenter discusses 'white women accusing black men of rape' during the Jim Crowe era, which yes did happen, is a product of the patriarchy and white supremacy. White men used the 'protecting white women' excuse to justify violence against black men. This was terrible for everyone who wasn't a white man. Were some white women complacent in this? of course. They should not be excused. It was being used to control white women's behavior. No interracial dating, no treating a person (esp a man) of another race as a human being, or you could get that person killed. This doesn't even get into the domestic violence a woman might face. See how it divides people.
'Believe women' is about as far from this as you can get. 'Believe women' is about accepting what women of all backgrounds and races have to say about their own experiences, body, mind, and heart as valid and equal to that of men.