SL Letter of the Day: Gay Hahaha


I dunno Dan. I'm attracted to women, There's nothing particularly arousing about sex with men, But I have fucked around with dudes in group sex situations and it's fun. I'd feel disingenuous identifying as bi. But i'm no opposed to same sex extracurricular if the company is right.
It's so weird to me that this guy is SO open and SO in touch with his desires and STILL has a problem thinking of himself as having desires that could be described as "gay". To the point where he has to follow up the word with a nervous "hahaha". Just shows you the negative power of the word "gay" in some circles.
Yeah, and @1 has a point - "bicurious" or "straight" might be a better descriptor for a guy who has a girlfriend and some occasional, peripheral dick-sucking interest. I mean, at some point you have to worry about appropriating the word "bi" from people for whom it is a social, not purely sexual, identity.
Truly, a no limit soldier.
This is not a three point scale. Gay, bi, straight. Sexuality exists along a continuoum. Just like everything else. We love to dumb it down to a binary, Gay - Straight, whenever possible. If pushed we will add the middle point. But in reality, we exist along a very long spectrum. All aspects of who we are exist along spectrums. The sooner we stop trying to put everything and everyone into two tiny boxes at each end of a binary, the better off we will all be.
I always figured this was what "bi curious" meant. I know a couple straight men who have had the exact same sort of experiences, always in the form of a 3-way or group sex. I guess he falls into that grey area between straight and bi.
I would think the appeal comes from having the same "good bits and pieces", since you know what it feels like when someone is touching you the way you liked to be touched. As a hetero woman, I would LOVE to feel what sex feels like for a guy, particularly penetration, since that doesn't do much for me.
Why does everyone need a label? And, more importantly, why do so many people consider that label a life-sentence of self-definition? Go out, have some fun, figure it out- for YOURSELF and no one else.
I think Dan got this right.

@5 why does "bi" have to be a point? Yes, sexual attraction is on a continuum (romantic on another for some). But every continuum has two endpoints (straight and gay being the endpoints and places really close to the endpoints) but that leaves a huge middle ground.

Why just call the center part of that bi -- so 90% straight and 10% gay would be straightish-bi? Too much trouble.

Calling almost all of the huge middle ground bi does not mean we have to think of bi as a point where every bi person is the same. Saying it must be about love cuts out a lot of the messy variation in human sexuality -- once a gay man wrote into Dan who liked to suck pussy -- not exactly classic gay, not exactly bi-romantic. Why not say "bi"?
This person should identify the same way as I do.

As Hedonismbot.

* Not actually.
Ms Delta - As Ms Erica may recall, a while back I came up with tentative definitions for:


but didn't bother to do a lot with it. It would be useful to have easily mentioned/understood subcategories; why shouldn't bi people be able to drop their orientation and meet with at least a rudimentary understanding from a casual listener/new acquaintance? It might even help (though I doubt this) come to some consensus as to where bi properly begins - to put it crudely, is it before, at or after Mr Savage's own history (I could probably find representatives of all three viewpoints without much effort)?

I basically agree about the spectrum part, but think of it more as a sort of railway line that could use more stations, especially as the train doesn't have to stop and sit there for minutes.
Straight guys can have dick fetishes. I have a tough time labeling those guys bisexual, even though the behavior would be an example of bisexuality.
@9, If we define everything between the two ends of the spectrum as bi, then almost all of us would be bi, making the label completely useless.

My point is that labels tend to divide and minimize us. We are all widely diverse human beings, and we should all just accept ourselves and each other as such, without needing to label and therefore attach judgement on everyone in the process.
Everything about this letter is sad to me, from the need to get the correct label, to the "am I normal" question implied by the last sentence in the opening paragraph, to the "hahaha" tacked onto the "as I type this it sounds very gay" to the fact that he would have preferred to call into the podcast, but is worried that one of his friends will recognize his voice. And he's 40.

I wish NL could just relax and enjoy what he enjoys. He says he has a girlfriend who seems to accept his sexuality in whatever direction he's taking it; too bad he can't be that accepting of his own sexuality.

In a way, I understand what Dan was doing, but I wish he'd have avoided using any label whatsoever. This guy respects Dan's opinion and judgment and he is really hung up on the label. The fact that he also identifies himself by race, when that would seem to be irrelevant (except that some communities are more homophobic as a general rule than others, and perhaps he's trying to signal a reason for his own reticence in owning his interest in men) is very revealing. Look how many labels he already uses to describe himself.
I've always thought of sexuality as a coordinate on a two-dimensional grid, with one axis representing "attraction to same sex" and one axis representing "attraction to opposite sex." So

(1, 0) would correspond to a "pure" homosexual
(0, 1) would correspond to a "pure" heterosexual
(1, 1) would correspond to a "pure" bisexual
(0, 0) would correspond to a "pure" asexual

Between the box bounded by those points lies all of humanity. E.g. a bisexual that was only sexually interested in the same sex would be (0.5, 1), an asexual that thought cuddling with the opposite sex was kinda fun might be (0, 0.2), etc.

My guess is that the letter-writer is somewhere around (0.2, 1), i.e. only sexually interested in dudes under a particular set of circumstances, and interested in women for romance/sex.
Is there anything wrong with "heteroflexible" or "mostly straight" here?

The former is nicely punny, but I like the latter for the Princess Bride reference. "No, he's only *mostly* straight."
@lolorhome: Why does everyone need a label?

I've tried communicating without labels but gave up after discovering I'm not very good at pantomime.
That study from a while back showed that most bisexuals have a primary gender to which they're attracted. This isn't a heterosexual male. This is a bisexual man who's primarily attracted to women and also attracted to men.
@2 & @14 - it is sad, but it's the one drop rule for guys.
I suppose this is what "heteroflexible" was invented for, although it's not my favourite term.

As a bi person, I see no problem labeling NL as bi. I don't think people who are bi-romantic have any particular claim of exclusive ownership of the term bi, and since bi people are sort of a misunderstood and beleaguered group, I'd think it would be to our advantage to include the seemingly substantial, romantically straight/recreationally bi contingent under the bi umbrella.

@12 I'm not sure I believe in "dick fetishes" (although I'm not a guy, so what do I know). I just figure if it walks like a duck....
@seandr: People are scared to call themselves everything but straight. If they stopped the drama and worrying- "Oh God, what does this mean?! What am I?!"-maybe it would easier to settle into whoever they are sexually, whatever that may be. That's why I'm anti-label- not because they're not accurate but because people get hung up on the nomenclature. The pantomime sarcasm was cute though: wanna guess what I'm pantomiming right now?
I think "heteroflexible" is a good term for someone who's mostly straight but open to same-sex action, be that in group situations or not. Some people also identify as "homoflexible." But I think Dan has it right--this guy sounds bi. He's not just okay with experimenting with men or curious about it; he's downright turned on by it.

I love how Dan makes just a little fun of the LW's "this sounds gay hahaha" line.
I like to picture sexuality on a graph with romantic-preference on one axis and sexual-preference on another (say x and y). Libido would make the z axis, and we're all scattered about in three dimensions. Of course, sexuality in all three ways can change over time too.
Well, damn. If that guy is bi, then I am, too. But I've been unwilling to identify that way because being only interested in relationships with men, but willing and occasionally eager to include women in sex just makes me just sound like a slutty sorority girl. So I don't tend to talk about it.

Good to know.

I just wanna hear more about this guy's sex life!
Sucking cock, man—what's not to like.

Seriously, purposeful, non-furtive, welcomed contact with another living body is delightful. The conspiratorial rib-poke, the don't-sweat-it pat on the arm, the consoling silent shoulder squeeze, the holding of hands, the bro-hug, the celebratory lift-and-twirl, the neck-scalp-facial-foot massage, the nipple-laving, the muff-munching, the controlled infliction of pain for the alteration of perception, etc. We pet our cats and dogs for hours on end—how odd is that, and yet both sides seem to enjoy it. Our pets reciprocate sometimes by licking, being somewhat less able to control intensity with paws and claws. If it's not sex, it's more-or-less stylized social grooming, which cements social bonds and relieves tension. If it is sex, ditto. News flash: we didn't invent it.

If you've ever had a friend, same or opposite sex, who was just preternaturally physically warm and reassuring without once giving you the feeling in any circumstances that he or she was "all over you" in a way that made you worried about what others nearby may be thinking, you know what a gift that is, and yet if you're not so much that way yourself you also can't help wondering why not. Is it your genes? A neglectful or judgmental parent? Early-childhood social trauma?

Continuums, indeed.
@28: *continua
@29: *noogies*
@31: Ugh, lolorhone a little discomfited by automatic assumption of bestiality in petting description...
I like finding creative ways to explain our multiple positions. Heteroflexible, bicurious, "mostly straight," those are good ways to signal that you're don't have years of same-sex experience to go with your evident age. My blow jobs are a good deal more impressive than my muff diving. Personally, I also like to signal that I melt when (almost) anyone grabs my hair; gender's irrelevant at that point. People with a tickle-fetish, say, may not care who they're tickling, or they may care enormously. Lots of info to convey; luckily it doesn't all have to fit on a bumper sticker.
Fake. Written by a 12 year old.
I s'pose if we could edit, I'd change the order of sentences @28 to make clear the intended antecedents.

Still, @31 & 32 made me laugh and think of this Joe Newton image on Savage Love for April 4, 2012.
I'm with @26.
@14, I think seandr in @18 has a point: labels are incredibly useful. I also think it's interesting that you thought this letter was sad. It's clear the guy was a little nervous, but it was equally clear that he's really enjoying exploring this aspect of his sexuality. I got the impression that he was looking for a label because he wanted to know if there are other people like him out there. Labels aren't inherently bad. Sure, others can use labels to box someone in and stifle their identity, but when labels are self-applied they often reflect our own sense of identity in a very positive way. Labels also help us find communities where we feel welcome. It's true that people can take this too far and exclude the possibility of change, but that's not really the fault of the label, is it?
it's these kinds of discussions that make me think there was some sense in the old-fashioned perception of sexuality as 'behaviour' rather than 'identity'... i'm not saying for a moment that the people you love and make family with aren't a huge part of who/what you are(social identity-wise), but that there should be room in our ideas about sexual 'orientation' for doing what seems good at the time without it needing to become an existential crisis.
aside from anything else, i think it would bring more good, fun, connected, hot sex into the world.
Bet the LR will suck a dick and swallow but he won't kiss. I freaking HATE guys who won't kiss. Weirdos!
@39: Seconded. I mean, if its the degree-of-gay thing that's freaking you out, wouldn't the dick in your mouth be worse than another guy's tongue? Ridiculous.
@39, 40: Lol, agreed.

@15: I think it would have to be a three-dimensional graph, with the X axis being sexual desire for the same sex, Y being sexual desire for the opposite sex, and Z being level of romantic attraction? I dunno, it still doesn't quite work, because you'd need to split it up further to allow for both hetero- and homo-romanticism as well as hetero- and homosexual desire.
I believe the term is "hetero-flexible". When you're basically straight, but the very odd person of the same sex cranks your gear, or you're willing to be game for whatever is on the platter.
@38: You said it perfectly..
I'm with @38 & @39.
Can't I just be sexual? :(
@39,40 - I think it's the degree of personal connection.
Or, because he just figured out that he's bi at the age of 40, it might be entirely possible that he's able to connect with another man emotionally and have a relationship, but he's just never tried.

But hey, what the hell do I know, as a bi guy? :)
@41: Yeah, should probably be a four-dimensional graph. That's what I actually theorize, but I simplified to two dimensions for SLOG purposes. Most folks are not interested in thinking in n-dimensional space. :)
@49: Fair enough, but if you're hooking up with a guy like this, it makes you feel like syphilitic whore. It's like, wrap your body in plastic, don't kiss me, we're done, get out. It's just not welcoming or affectionate at all. Some people get off on that sort of dynamic, but it just makes me sad (or pisses me off) so I avoid guys like that like the plague.
I'd go with TRI .... try anything at least once
Sounds like a Closet Case Hahaha.
@1 "There's nothing particularly arousing about sex with men, But I have fucked around with dudes in group sex situations and it's fun."

"I have no interest in skiing, at all. But I have skied before and I enjoyed it." Make sense much? No. Neither does your attempt to deny your attraction to men. You are bi. Enjoy it!
I like the terms "heteroflexible" and "homoflexible" although any label will have some ambiguity to it.
@55: That's not a good analogy. I've snowboarded before and found it semi-enjoyable. I'd rather read a book, drink some scotch, or sleep than snowboard, but it was better than watching a boring movie or bicycling.

In other words, the snowboarding was kinda fun, and I'm glad I tried it, but I didn't like it enough to try it again. The fact that I didn't completely loathe snowboarding does not make me a snowboard addict in denial.