Im a unicorn!

"Horse"? It needs to be much more common animal; one found everywhere. Squirrel? They jump from tree to tree (be to bed). Bury nuts. Obsess over where they left nuts....

Thank you Dan, and LWs, for an interesting column this week, and good luck to all unicorns and their avid seekers.

When it comes to sexual animal labels, I'm still trying to figure out what I am, yet. A cheetah, maybe? I understand that the female of this big cat species is content to live alone. I can't run 60 mph though.

@2 or maybe a "guy"?

Geez Dan, now you're doing the work for producers.. Hope you'll get a cut once the shows done.. My granddaughter has a unicorn ( For Barbie), that any good?

Re the LW's exclamation "I just don't want to feel like a hooker!"

Sometimes I feel our world would make more sense if we didn't divide people into hookers and non-hookers.

People generally have multiple reasons for agreeing to sex. Strong, immediate feelings of lust play a role, but in many sexual encounters there are other factors leading one or another of the participants to be interested in sex.

For instance, the feeling of security people get from sharing a mortgage & retirement plan with another responsible adult -- I bet that helps motivate a lot of people to have sex when they were otherwise feeling like watching TV. Does that make those people "hookers"? Not by normal usage, but I don't really see how it's so different.

And I think sometimes that the way to get sex work destigmatized is to acknowledge:
a) that it's a job like other jobs (not necessarily either fulfilling or humiliating), and
b) that all of us have at times had sex for reasons other than lust and that doesn't make us deviants; it makes us normal.

Oh, and it would be nice if sex workers could safely refuse to have sex with anyone if the price offered wasn't enough to motivate that particular sex worker to engage in that particular sex act on that particular day with that particular client.

I was a unicorn, for awhile. It was hella fun.

Good luck on TV! That is so not for me. I'd stammer & be a general dweeb if I thought people were watching me.

So let's say an opposite sex couple is seeking a bisexual male third? What would he be called?

@6: Oh, and it would be nice if sex workers could safely refuse to have sex with anyone if the price offered wasn't enough to motivate that particular sex worker to engage in that particular sex act on that particular day with that particular client.

Or if the same applied to other jobs, really.

@Erica

Hunter's actually... right on that one. (So is Eudaemonic) Sex workers can and do deny service to people unwilling to pay the asking amount. Some are economically pressed into compromising just like other workers are pressed into working off the clock, or coming in with the flu etc etc etc.

Hunter is of course, SO wrong, about his other point. Sex workers give 'much more than just sex' as a matter of course.

If a man's favourite sex worker wasn't a better listener than his wife, the business would look a lot different.

@ 4 - That was my first thought.

But generally speaking, I think they're simply called "a third". Guys aren't that complicated, and people willing to be the third in a threesome are extremely easy to find.

Why does FUNGAL say "I'm on OKCupid (we all are)"? Does she think every member of the human race is on it?

Hunter - I know in the Hot Wife community the man they bring in is a "bull."

I've been a unicorn on occasion and would do it again (not be on t.v.) I would also advise the writer to try and assess the nature of their relationship and the level of enthusiasm the woman has. When you go for drinks, be sure you're talking to the woman and asking her what she is looking for and that the guy is not doing all the talking. I've been advised on several occasions that you should never take the guy's word for it on what the couple is seeking or is okay with - check with the girlfriend or wife. Otherwise you could be in for a world of shit. Have fun!

@12, 13 If most of us turn down a job, we risk getting fired, not violence. But pimps use violence to pressure vulnerable sex workers to take clients they don't want, and I gather that police officers force themselves on sex workers with the threat of arrest:

"A 2002 study found that 30% of exotic dancers and 24% of street-based sex workers who had been raped identified a police officer as the rapist. Approximately 20% of other acts of sexual violence reported by study participants were committed by the police."

http://www.incite-national.org/page/poli…

In Hawaii, apparently it's legal for the police to have sex with a sex worker and then arrest her instead of paying her: http://rhrealitycheck.org/article/2014/0…

In LA, it's not legal, but accusations against the police get brushed under the carpet for years: http://raniakhalek.com/2013/01/07/police…

In Johannesburg, about 70% of sex workers have been abused by police...The report included first-person narratives from people who recounted being forced to perform oral sex or being gang-raped by police officers: http://www.news24.com/SouthAfrica/News/M…

@Erica

Have you ever done sex work?

Am I the only one who doesn't particularly want more reality TV about nonmonogamy? Because of course, reality TV shows about heteronormative monogamy (like, every wedding/matchmaking show, just about) just mean 'those fame-hungry people' are horrible dysfunctional piles of crap. But when they make reality TV about nonmonogamy, obviously it's a fair representation of what all of us slutty sluttoons are like which can be cited against us forever.

mydriasis @20, my post is about tearing down the wall between what is typically called sex work and what is not, and seeing it as a spectrum rather than a binary. I'm on the spectrum.

@21 I don't want any more "reality tv" about anything. I'm tired of lazy, low-rent garbage commercial television. I would like to see a few more decent scripted dramas, comedies, mysteries and sci-fi in prime time.

If I want to watch unscripted reality, there are tens of thousands of streaming cams on the 'net, everything from bunnies to bees to beaches.

@8 - I'm going for Rhinoceros...or Satyr.

@Erica

"I'm on the spectrum."

So... no, in other words.

There's a big problem with people who have no personal experience as sex workers trying to talk about what sex work is like. I appreciate the sentiment of what you're saying but I personally don't think it's helpful.

The first point you made (that sex work is like other work) was valid, and that's where the focus of de-stigmatizing goes for a reason.

"Elder sex expert"?? You're taking sex advice from Mormons?

Is the "I'm a TV producer" guy for real, or just someone hoping to get himself access to a slew of telegenic unicorns without doing any real work?

A variation on the theme of "I'm a photographer, I could make you famous, so why don't you take all your clothes off?"

As a former unicorn.... who remembers what it was like starting down that path....

LW, my advice is two fold - First, be safe, safe, and safe. This means not just reliable condoms, etc., this means getting to know the people. What you don't want (and can happen) is stupid drama from the couple where the (stereotypically) girl gets all bent out of shape. Know their back story.

Second, be honest. If you met me, I'd be disappointed. I am true bi and like all the female landscape. Its cool that you don't - and remember - you hold 85% of the power. Don't be afraid to be honest or to use that power. If you are afraid... take some more time to think things through.

I am now in a relationship where I can no longer play with men. I can have a girlfriend, though, all for myself. I do miss my unicorn days....

I quite liked the Elder title- but now you've connected it up to the Mormons, change my mind.. Maybe just older adults? Wise wenches ? Bucking grey ones? Just loose the " seniors sex" tag.

@18: If most of us turn down a job, we risk getting fired, not violence.

I'm thinking the distinction is smaller than that makes it sound--for most of us, deciding not to do what our employer wants us to do because we don't feel like it would be risking serious life-altering consequences. I'm all for sex workers having more rights, but I'm not for pretending that the rest of us have rights we don't, or that they don't have rights that they do.

I've never been a sex worker either, but every single one I've talked to said there's a great deal more freedom in sex work than in work work.

(I'm not talking about sex workers who are basically slaved, because all of their problems stem from being slaves, and the particular form their slavery takes doesn't seem to matter as much as everyone thinks.)

@32 you think the fact that sex work is illegal doesn't give pimps and corrupt police officers more leeway to abuse sex workers than ordinary employers have?

The third party that a gay male couple seek should be called Dan, Steve, Michael or whatever his name happens to be. Being not even remotely rare or hard to find, it doesn't need a special name

@Erica

First off 'sex work' as a whole isn't illegal. There are lots of forms of legal sex work. But the criminalization of certain kinds of sex work does have consequences like those you've mentioned.

At the same time, sex work is more complicated than you're implying and you could very easily admit that this isn't really your area of personal expertise as I've encouraged you to do or...

@mydriasis:
Why would one have to be or have been a sex worker to have expertise on the topic?

Where I live sex work is legal. If a pimp forcing a sex worker to take customers they don't want comes to the attention of the police, the pimp will be prosecuted and the sex worker will get help.

Dan has a problem with the word cum but not the word wanna?

@32
I am not a sex worker either but have known several in the last 20 years and the really successful ones shared a couple characteristics:
They had a "normal" life alongside their sex work like children, pets, (and either full-time or part-time jobs)
They were usually well-read on a variety of topics and had lived in more than one place.

So far none that I have met has earned a degree (but then neither have I)

They shared a curiosity about life, and explored different points of view.
They seem to not stay in one place for very long. My Midwestern city is usually a temporary stop in their journey. Very interesting women all in all.

I think Dan's assessment that she's afraid of rejection is such a male perspective. She's not afraid they're reject her for not wanting to eat pussy- she's afraid she'll feel pressured to do something she doesn't want to.
Dan, sometimes you're great at getting into women's heads, but sometimes you miss the mark.

I think Dan's assessment that she's afraid of rejection is such a male perspective. She's not afraid they're reject her for not wanting to eat pussy- she's afraid she'll feel pressured to do something she doesn't want to.
Dan, sometimes you're great at getting into women's heads, but sometimes you miss the mark.

Geez, isn't having a relationship with ONE person at a time complicated enough? ;-)

As a former sex worker myself, I can say with sincerity that the old adage ' One doesn't pay the hooker for sex, one pays the hooker to leave' is indeed true. The client pays the hooker to gather her things and leave after sex without asking for anything else, sticking around to nag the client or harbor expectations in the future. If the LW is concerned she'll feel like a sex worker at the end of a sex session that consists of everyone avoiding eye contact, dressing and heading off in their own homes' direction uncomfortably, and never speaking to each other again, then I guess I can understand her reluctance. I think her her concerns stem from a lack of imagination and the fact that she seems to be unacquainted with the concept of the friendly, intimate and long-lasting relationship that is possible between a unicorn and her funny, attractive married couple friends. I was lucky to experience two such relationships in my younger years and found them quite rewarding. All three of us learned a great deal from one another and had many fun nights together. Its important for everyone to establish boundaries before embarking on this journey, but as Dan mentioned you all might just blend well and establish a mutually rewarding relationship of sorts. You won't feel like a hooker if you 1) don't accept payment, and 2) wait to develop a genuine connection with these people before jumping in the sack.

Oh, dear. My spidey sense is going ding-ding-ding regarding FUNGAL. I get the impression she's really young, perhaps just out of college (and what's! with! all! the! !!!?). I'm wondering whether the distaste of not wanting to be mistaken for a hooker is paradoxically because she herself has put a high value on her own attractiveness (the perky and young body) and perhaps thinks she should receive some compensation for sharing it with an older couple. But not so she feels like a hooker. Sigh.

Currently not sexually active but bored, she's decided to jump into the unicorn category even though she's never even had a one-night stand/casual sex and highly doubts she's bisexual. Oh, gee, I'll bet the female half of the couple will be just thrilled to know that, if FUNGAL does anything with her, it'll be only to entertain the male half. Whether FUNGAL can do it without alcohol (a customary catalyst to exhibitionist girl-on-girl behaviour) beforehand is another matter.

FUNGAL, you're being invited into the bed of a couple. If all you are is really a "pillow princess" (as someone mentioned in the comments to the SLLOTD), then you're only offering the commodity of your youth and attractiveness without showing any evidence that you'd be an eager participant. If you think you'd like the uniqueness of being a unicorn, then place an ad saying you're bi-curious and would like to experience sex with a woman. Only then will you have a better grasp whether you could be an active participant with a F/M couple.

@Helenka

She's 31. It's the first thing she says about herself.

Oops! Sorry I missed that. As I'd already read it on SLLOTD, I just skimmed. If that's the case, then I definitely don't think she's mature enough to handle a M/F threesome.

Well, Hunter, in this case she doesn't seem to be even curious about being with a woman, yet is proceeding to reply to a seeking-a-unicorn ad. I don't think any couple should have to be her training wheels for a threesome experience, even more so as she has NEVER had casual sex and is so hesitant.

It's not even a case of never having really been sexual with a woman because, even as a neophyte, she could be really excited about the possibility of having sex with a woman, instead of relegating it (especially oral sex as the active partner) as an unpleasant experience that Dan wouldn't want to have.

I think they deserve to engage with applicants who honestly WANT to be with BOTH of them.

@Helenka

It works both ways (so to speak). We have no idea how much girl/girl activity the female half of the couple is into. She may be totally turned on watching he man get it on with another woman, and only "meh" about hooking up with their unicorn.
When you say "I think they deserve to engage with applicants who honestly WANT to be with both of them" - That's a big ole' assumption. There are so many ways people want to play it's crazy. And she said she's made out with girls in college with no issues - that may be perfect for them. She doesn't only get to apply if she wants to eat pussy, Judge Judy.

@51 - If they want something that specific, they should put it in the ad, don't you think?

@51
The making out with girls in college was ONLY for male attention and I'd warrant approval, but not necessarily something she would do of her own volition. If the woman is offering her male partner the opportunity to fuck in a scenario which she can partially control, that's not a "couple seeking a unicorn" situation, is it?

In any case, doesn't Judge Judy usually dispense common sense to cut through the BS?

Dan have you gotten any responses to the TV Unicorn ad yet?

"FUNGAL"? Seriously: "FUNGAL"?!

@58: Couples seek out single women all the time online or on OkCupid, anyway. I'm a straight single woman, not in the slightest interested in sex with another woman even being in the room, and I get approached by couples all the time. For that matter, submissive young men approach me asking me to let them be my slave often, even though there's not a darn thing in my profile that would suggest I'd be interested either in a man so much younger or so submissive--and I'm not interested in either one.

People ask for what they want. I found it kind of naively charming or ridiculously obtuse that FUNGAL (who's acronym might have been chosen by Dan himself) thinks that perhaps the fact that she mentions she's a magnum listener might be what they're honing in on.

So although she wasn't looking, she's open to considering becoming the second F in an MFF threesome (though it sounds like she'd prefer an FMF configuration). This puts her ahead of the zillions of straight women propositioned to become thirds who weren't looking for it and who don't want to entertain the offer. Her lack of experience or prior interest might mean she is isn't really into it (I'm kind of inclined to interpret the letter as Helenka is), but then again, this might be the point of entry into a whole new phase of her sexuality.

@46 Helenka, @59 nocutename & @61 Crunchy re Helenka's comment @46: Bingo.

I guess the trick is to be both mutually wanted and wanting.

Mutually wanted and wanting......wow!...how eternally hot is that?

Am I the only person in the world who faces rejection by *working* to self-select myself out of the other person's criteria? If I were this FUNGAL (which, ah, is perhaps not the word she was looking for?), the first thing I would do is tell the couple hitting me up for a threesome that "I'm not bisexual". Before even wasting my time on cocktails. Because I can already see where this is going.

But hey, if they pass her criteria, welcome aboard. Just... you know, I don't have high hopes for this working or anything.

@64: Yup; FUNGAL makes it clear that the only reason she's considering this is out of boredom. She also sounds like a poor candidate for an FFM threesome or even an FMF one--she's never had any kind of casual sex at all, and is somehow equating a hookup or even an ongoing NSA sexual fling with prostitution. She isn't attracted to women (which she doesn't appear to have made clear) but thinks she might be okay with being serviced by one, which may be but probably is not what this couple is looking for.

There's a vanity in her letter that rubs me the wrong way, but that's my reaction, not necessarily the couple's. It strikes me that perhaps the male half of the couple is more invested in finding a woman for this fantasy than his female partner. (I think that a lot of women go along with the MFM fantasy at their man's request, based purely on my friends' experiences and the number of times boyfriends have tried to pressure me into having one.) If the woman in the couple isn't really bi, and this is truly meant to be an FMF configuration, it might work.

Step one might be to be completely honest and upfront before meeting for a drink: "I'm not bi; I don't want to go down on a woman. I don't think I would mind if a woman went down on me." Then the couple can decide if they even want to have that first meeting with more information.

But whatever this woman is, she's definitely not a unicorn, which implies a mythical totally bi, equally-attracted, completely available-while-having-no-needs-of-her-own girl, who will neither provoke jealousy nor get upset when the couple ignores her for couple-sex, who will be happy to evaporate when the sex is over, but be on call for the next time. That woman is rare and may not even exist--that's why she's a unicorn. A bored straight woman who's made out with other women for the benefit of her boyfriend who equates having casual sex with being a hooker (!), and who makes it clear that she's maybe willing to lie back and be serviced by the woman but otherwise wants nothing to do with her--that's not a mythical being. The word "unicorn" doesn't apply.

Let's just hope Ms Perky has and gives some fun!
Just enjoying an evening Vodka and Jack Whites new album..

Ms Cute - Another entry for Typo of the Year:

[(I think that a lot of women go along with the MFM fantasy at their man's request, based purely on my friends' experiences and the number of times boyfriends have tried to pressure me into having one.)]

I was beginning to worry about you, especially after some of the recent threads.

My thanks to Ms Erica for not making #6 with its theme of, "We all do it sometimes because of non-sexual payoffs," a gendered post. I pay her the compliment of assuming deliberate intent. One often sees that idea gendered female with an at least implicit distaste for sexual encounters that don't consist of a man paying a woman one way or another.

Mr.Ven: Considering I wrote that at 2:00 a.m. my (Pacific Standard) time and had a pounding headache (which was one of the reasons I was up then) and had just had to search for a wounded mouse my cat had thoughtfully just brought in and let escape and trap it and escort it out of the house before it died somewhere in hiding and would only be found a week from now by the smell (which was another reason I was up then), I'm fairly surprised that anything I typed made any sense at all.

But I have to laugh at the Freudian slip of that particular typo, as of course, it's my big fantasy. Ah well.

@65: Correction: The sentence in paragraph 2 should read "(I think that a lot of women go along with the FMF fantasy at their man's request . . . .")

I think folks are being unnecessarily mean to the OP. She’s never had casual sex and thinks that this is her last chance to do the fun things that everyone else seems to be doing, especially Savage Love writers and commenters. She doesn’t want to miss out. Plus she just wants to get laid, like most people.

A relationship with a straight married couple sounds more manageable (safer?) to her than a one-night-stand with a man. Limits (they’re married!), they’re the kind of people who are good-quality relationship material (they’re married!) and with a woman there it might not feel as sordid as a one-night-stand.

My answer would be: Dan is right. You’re afraid of rejection and of feeling stupid. We can all relate. If you feel confident in your speaking-up skills (I think you guys are really hot and attractive and smart so I’m nervous you’ll laugh at me for thinking I might be who you’re looking for. Um, what do we do now? I’m new at this. Ooh, I can do this! Nope, this isn’t working for me. Can we do this?) then go ahead and meet them. If they are as cool and smart as they seem they will be able to put you at ease so that you are all comfortable with whatever decisions you make, whether they are of the No or Go variety. If they reject you, cool and smart people will not be schmucks about it. If you reject them, cool and smart people will make it easy for you to let them know.

That said... 31 is not your last chance to get experimental! For one thing, this couple is forty. For another, I can tell you from personal experience that there are a whole bunch of fifty-year-olds out there looking for other fifty-year-olds to get experimental with. (Remember that a fifty-year-old recently divorced guy is completely at ease with the bodies of fifty-year-old women. Thin and perky is fine but they know it’s not a requirement. They are more interested in your life experience and openness to new life experiences.) At a certain point you even get to start fulfilling guys’ cougar fantasies.

Sure, meet this couple. Even if you don’t go ahead with any nakedness, meeting them will make things seem more real and you will be better-prepared for next time. Because there will be lots of next times for lots of things.

Alison Cummins, I don't know if we read the same letter. Where do you see FUNGAL as saying she thinks this is her last chance to do the fun things everyone else is doing? She says: " here I am, not doing anything else or anyone else... and I'm thinking... this could be cool. It could be an awesome experience. Why not play around while everything is still slim and perky? "

In other words, she's in a "why not give it a whirl?" frame of mind, not a "oh-god-I'm-running-out-of-time-and-afraid-I'm-going-to-miss-out-on-the party" frame of mind.

She says nothing about feeling as if at 31 this is her last chance to get experimental. Being aware that her youth is slipping (though 31 sounds young to me!) doesn't mean she's desperate. It means she thinks that she is a more desirable commodity now when she's young, slim, and perky, which in some ways is true. If anything, she seems to be more concerned with the fuckability and sex-appeal of the would-be playmates. She doesn't want to play third to just anybody, but these two are attractive and interesting and in a few years maybe the pool will be more limited, as she gets older, or the opportunity will have passed her by because she'll be settled down, perhaps married, and she tends to be monogamous.

She also says nothing at all about feeling that a "relationship with a straight married couple sounds more manageable (safer?) to her than a one-night-stand with a man. Limits (they’re married!), they’re the kind of people who are good-quality relationship material (they’re married!) and with a woman there it might not feel as sordid as a one-night-stand." It takes a lot of projection/interpretation to arrive at that conclusion.

I also don't think those of us who are pointing out things in her letter that suggest she might not be the ideal unicorn are being "mean" to her. I don't use the term "pillow princess," but by her own admission, that's all she's willing to be where the woman half of the couple is concerned. Now that may be enough for the couple, especially for the man if this is really only his fantasy, but it may not be, especially for the woman, if she's truly bi (which we don't know), and this is equally her fantasy.

I agree with you that getting older (or even less slender and perky) aren't necessarily the impediments to threesome offers or fun times, or experimental events, that our culture would seem to indicate, and I wish Dan had reassured her more that the market for a willing and enthusiastic female participant doesn't dry up until much later in life (though the pool of partners may well equally have gotten past the young, slim, and perky phase. But not necessarily.)

31 is a pretty good age to begin to expand your horizons, and you never know if you like something until you try it, so I'm all for her branching out. But a woman who's only ever had straight sex in the context of a committed relationship and who says she's not down with giving to the woman, deciding to give an FMF or FFM threesome a whirl sounds less like a recipe for wild success than one for awkwardness and potential resentment.

Maybe she should start with an NSA fling with one man first. And see if that makes her feel like a "hooker."

In any case, she should be upfront before meeting this couple for a drink. If they're still interested, they should meet for a drink. If all three are still interested, they can give it a go. They might have a great time. It could be the start of a beautiful friendship. It could at least take the fear out of venturing out of her norm.

If I were to project, this is what I would say was behind FUNGAL's idea (I'm basing this on my experience of being on OkCupid for 3 years now, starting when I was 48 and no longer slim and perky, so my experience may need to be adjusted):

Okay, so FUNGAL is 31 and single. She puts a profile up, looking to meet someone who is roughly her age, say late 20s to mid 30s, employed, sharing some of the same interests and values as her, who lives a reasonable distance and wants an LTR. Maybe she has further qualifications: she has a height preference or wants a non-smoker or non-drinker, maybe she is allergic to cats and doesn't want to date someone who has one (these are not necessarily my deal-breakers and I don't claim that they're hers or pass judgment on them or any others, but they're an approximation of what someone's may be).

Now the messages start coming in. Woo hoo! But.

This guy lives in Tennessee: she doesn't want a pen pal; this guy is old enough to be her father: gross; this kid is 18, asking her to relieve him of his virginity: uh, no thanks. This one is into woovy-groovy, hippy-dippy spirituality: too out there; this one sounds great, but his looks are a major turn off. This guy--seriously, did he even read a freakin' word of her profile?! How could he think they'd be a match. This guy: still getting over the ex-wife; this guy looks good, sounds good . . . oh, wait: he's polyamorous. This guy, no, actually these 50 guys: looking for casual hookups. These 150 guys: sending sexually explicit come-ons by way of introduction. These 300 guys: can they spell? Can they think? Apparently not.
This guy has 4 pictures of his naked torso (OkCupid doesn't allow dick pics, or you know that's what he'd be sending) and that's all he shows of himself. This guy sounds sincere and like such a loser. This guy is well-written but married--and it doesn't sound like it's a truly open marriage: it sounds like the wife doesn't know he's got a profile up. This guy seemed great, but she met him and his photo was 15 years and 30 pounds out of date. This guy seemed okay, but in person was the world's biggest bore. This guy was cute and funny online but is neither in person, and besides seems to be a case of arrested development: all he can talk about is the bands he listens to. This guy's profile reads like the ultimate frat boy's.

And on and on.

Intermixed with these have been the occasional message from a couple, or from one-half of a couple (usually the man). She's not interested.

She's not interested in most anyone she's run across. Promising people vanish like cars in fog. Assholes, blowhards, and idiots abound. Every decent-looking and well-spoken man who's the right age and in the correct geographic proximity is practicing "ethical non-monogamy" and she wants a monogamous relationship.

It's been 3 months of this. Nothing is happening.

Oh look. Here's another attractive man. Oh, shoot: he's married, and he and his wife are seeking a woman to be a third for sexytimes. Well, they're both attractive and well-spoken; they seem nice and funny, and it's not like anything better is coming along. Maybe she should just try this for fun while she waits for something real to come along. I mean, why not?

And there you go.

This might not be what prompted her letter. But it's why I'm getting into flings with much younger men, and ethically non-monogamous married men. if I can't find the relationship that I really want, I may as well have some smoking hot sex in the meantime while I continue to search for it.

I hope FUNGAL realizes that she doesn't have to conform to any of the labels or accusations thrown her way, because I wouldn't assume it's fear of rejection that's holding you back

that and licking pussy doesn't automatically make you bi just because you're a woman

that and I hope your not fooled into believing that all the trendy bullshit vocabulary that influential idiots are trying to force into and onto Your Life and Your relationships

there are plenty of open minded couples who consider themselves in a "triad" yet there is not three pairs of twosomes that have sex with each other and while there may be fairly tangled threesomes there is for the most part no sexual relationship between the one pair of the three people.

Sometimes women (or men) enjoy three people relationships wherein they share their partner sexually with a person they happen to be very close friends with.

Don't ever let some asshole who isn't one of the people in your relationship tell you what YOUR relationships can and can't be. You can definitely be dating or seeing and one day even commit to wedlock with a man and a woman, and not have a sexual relationship with both of them

And it isn't always the same sex pair that has the close non-sexual relationship

nocutename's comment #72 is a perfect illustration why dating sites are useless for men. You simply get lost in the noise.

@77 Registered European: I'm female, and consider most dating sites pretty useless for me, too.

@72 nocutename: You GO, girl!!
Very well said.

mydriasis @ 27:

"There's a big problem with people who have no personal experience as sex workers trying to talk about what sex work is like."

In defense of EricaP, someone who does not drive can know a lot more about climate change than the average driver. Oceanographers and economists who have never caught a fish have predicted the decline of fish stocks and the effects that that would have on fishing communities. You have probably never been hit by a nuclear weapon--would it be hypocritical for you to have an opinion on what that would be like? Is "save the polar bears" a ridiculous slogan for someone from a different species? Would you read this column if you thought that gay men couldn't say anything worthwhile about straight or female dating?

How you define your pigeonholes is your business, but if you're going to say "I am part of group A and you are part of group B, which should not talk about what being in group A is like" then you'd better be prepared to argue that your way is the only correct way of dividing people into A and B. And that is almost always impossible.

Please share your experiences. They carry a great deal of weight, because you clearly know what you're talking about, you say fascinating things, and you express yourself well. I've learned much from you. But your argument for why EricaP should not opine, while a common argument in all fields, is not a very good argument.