My stepdad is gay. He married my mom anyway, and they appear to have a strong relationship despite his sexual preference—they love each other, had a baby together, and seem to be committed. A few days ago I found a search for “men seeking men” on his computer. I brought up the subject of their relationship with my mom without telling her what I found, and she said that they’re currently monogamous. Should I tell my mom, confront my stepdad, or just keep my mouth shut?
Stepdaughter Needs Assistance For Understanding
There’s this sex advice columnist. He’s gay, like your stepdad, but he fell in love with another guy, and they appear to have a strong relationship—they love each other, had a baby together, and seem to be committed. So why does this sex advice columnist occasionally check out “men seeking men” ads on the...
... sex advice columnist occasionally check out “men seeking men” ads on the internet? Because even though he has no plans to fuck other men, SNAFU, he nevertheless enjoys checking other men out—on the street, on airplanes, at book signings, and on personals websites. Why check out “men seeking men” ads when there’s porn? Because sometimes it’s more fun to check out real people who wanna be fucked than it is to check out fake people who are just pretending they wanna be fucked.
So, SNAFU, finding a search for “men seeking men” on your stepdad’s computer tells us nothing about his intentions. And faithful or not, monogamous or not, seeking or not, it’s none of your fucking business, is it?
I’m a youngish guy having NSA sex with a friend. We’re established fuck buddies now. We’re honest, we’ve talked about how this is just sex, etc., and we’re keeping it a secret. (We have the same friends, and one of them got mad when he found out.) But I’m not really satisfied. Even though the sex is spectacular when it’s happening, I feel unfulfilled afterward. My ideal relationship would be concentrating on a single guy and fucking him silly. What’s wrong? Is a fuck-buddy thing unhealthy?
Help Another Lusty Fucking Lad Address Internal Difficulties
Fuck buddies, friends with benefits, NSA—generally speaking, HALFLAID, those sorts of arrangements can be healthy. But we’re not speaking generally, are we? We’re speaking of you and your specific situation. While NSA sex is taking care of your horny problem, the secrecy makes you uncomfortable (where do your friends get off being pissed?), and the sex leaves you feeling unfulfilled. Something’s missing—which is why you created that sign-off. I wouldn’t describe that missing something as an emotional connection. After all, a person can have an emotional connection with a fuck buddy. No, what’s missing is a sense of possibility, a sense that the sex could lead to something more lasting and more intimate. As you can’t seem to feel good about the sex absent these things, I would describe NSA sex as unhealthy, from an emotional standpoint, for you. So knock it off.
Your column sometimes refers to she-males or chicks with dicks, but I never see anything about my thing: guys with pies. While I identify as a gay man, my ultimate fantasy is a hypermasculine man with a vagina instead of a penis. I’ve searched the web for like-minded men or FTMs with the goods (or lack of goods). No luck. Most references to men with vaginas link back to feminist theory, not mangina. I have attempted to cut a deal with a few pre-op and hormone-using FTM transsexuals—they feel they are men with vaginas—but they hate their vaginas and are mostly interested in women. Where can I find manly men who love their vaginas?
The Impossible Fantasy
I get at least one sad letter a month from gay-identified, pre-op FTMs who complain that they can’t find any gay men—excuse me, any other gay men—who can get past the guys-with-pies thing. So it strikes me as odd that none of the GWPs that you approached were: 1. gay-identified, and 2. interested. So I’m putting your letter out there in hopes that some gay-identified FTMs will respond. What’s up, GWPs? Why isn’t TIF having any luck?
STRAIGHT RIGHTS UPDATE: As I mentioned a few months ago, a vaccine for two of strains of HPV, the virus that causes genital warts, is currently moving through the federal approval process. HPV can also cause cervical cancer in women, killing 4,000 American women every year. Who could possibly be against the introduction of a vaccine—one that has proven 100 percent effective in clinical tests!—that will save thousands of women’s lives? Those “culture of life” assfucks, that’s who.
“A new vaccine that protects against cervical cancer has set up a clash between health advocates [and] social conservatives who say immunizing teenagers could encourage sexual activity,” the Washington Post reported last week. Doctors want teenage girls to receive the vaccine as a matter of routine, something the religious right opposes. “Because the vaccine protects against a sexually transmitted virus, many conservatives oppose making it mandatory, citing fears that it could send a subtle message condoning sexual activity before marriage… ‘I’ve talked to some who have said, “This is going to sabotage our abstinence message,”‘ said Gene Rudd, associate executive director of the Christian Medical and Dental Associations.” (To his credit, Rudd said he would want his daughters vaccinated.)
The right’s abstinence message has bigger problems than this vaccine. Studies have shown that young people are still having premarital sex—no shit—despite the billions of dollars the Bush administration has poured into abstinence education. A study conducted at Texas A&M University found that kids subjected to abstinence-only sex education have more sex than kids who aren’t. So what the right is saying is this: We’re willing to kill American women in order to avoid “sabotaging” our ineffectual abstinence-only message. Nice.
Who ultimately gets to determine the government’s position on the HPV vaccine? Thanks to George W. Bush, the Christian fundies do. From the Washington Post: “The jockeying [around the HPV vaccine] reflects the growing influence social conservatives, who had long felt overlooked by Washington, have gained on a broad spectrum of policy issues under the Bush administration. In this case, a former member of the conservative group Focus on the Family serves on the federal panel that is playing a pivotal role in deciding how the vaccine is used.” W stands for women—that’s what he told us when he ran for president. But, hey, it wasn’t a lie. George W. Bush never said anything about standing for live women.
I’ve said it before, straight folks, and I’ll say it again: The right-wingers and the fundies and the sex-phobes don’t just have it in for the queers. They’re coming for your asses too.