Another Article on the Way and We Need Your Help!

June 7, 2012

As if last week's article in the Huffington Post wasn't exciting enough, our Daddyhunt and MISTER CEO Carl Sandler has another one in the queue for a new relationship column! Having been in the business of relationships and online dating for nearly a decade, he's filled with anecdotes and observations on gay dating in the digital world. For his next column, we wanted to get our Daddyhunt and MISTER users worked into the mix. We're looking for DH/MISTER users to submit questions and/or stories revolving around the issues and challenges faced on dating sites and apps. Carl will be exploring questions related to honesty and fidelity in the digital world, and how couples of all kinds build relationships in the world of apps and online dating sites.

You can submit your questions or stories in the comments below, or for more anonymity you can email (use the subject line: HuffPo Advice).

Thanks in advance for your continued support!

Tags: Huffington Post, Articles, Submissions
Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share this
Post written by RobHeartsDH (View Author Profile)
About this author: Rob lives in Manhattan with his black pug Riley. When he’s not thinking about daddies, he enjoys writing, eating burritos, watching copious amounts of television, and thinking about his next meal.
View all posts by RobHeartsDH


Well you can read my novel length profile rant for my take on the whole cyberdating scene.

In response to honestaqu, thank you for taking the time to express yourself so well.
Your list was right on the money, I for one have experienced at least some of the demeaning attitudes expressed by our internet "buddies" and in fact I'm probably guilty of offending some by expressing my preferences in such a manner as to offend those who don't meet with my expressed criteria, ie no fats, femmes, etc. I do/did so as a way of deterring them and thus sparing both of us the discomfort of having to explain why the interest isn't there, not to mention the time and emotional energy expended in doing so. We all have our preferences and fantasies, but the way in which we conduct ourselves on the internet as in life is really a testament to the character of each of us. So, remember the Golden Rule, and things could be better.

I think it's fine - even preferable - to state what you are looking for. But it should be done in a way that is not offensive. I think the best way is to state what you WANT, instead of what you DON'T want. Instead of "no fats,' say "I prefer guys who are muscled or lean." It gets the point across without being dismissive and rude.

"I relate best to butch guys" seems a lot nicer than "no fems."

"I prefer guys under 30" sounds a lot better than "no one over 30."

One way highlights your desire; the other way feels more like a put-down.

We all have preferences; we just need to communicate them in a non-cruel way. Why not deter people you are not attracted to without invalidating them or being mean?

If I see a profile that says they prefer muscle guys, I'm not going to go after him, since I'm clearly not that. But I don't go away from his profile feeling put down the way I do when I read "no fatties." Is it so hard to find a kind way to express our preferences?

-- Craig.

You are quite welcome and thank you!

Now pass on what you have seen here.

Partnered guys now seem to dominate the online/cyber/app gay hookup sites. And I include this one. When will someone create a site that caters to SINGLE guys looking for other SINGLE guys???? And I don't just mean for relationships. I sometimes enjoy some occasional casual fun while trying to find a relationship. Evenso, I don't wanna be helping some jerk cheat on his BF, GF, wife, etc.... I know all about so-called "open" relationships which gay men have been using for years to justify their infidelity to their partners. Most of these supposed "healthy/open" relationships are actually quite one-sided, with really only one of the two partners exercising the option to play outside the relationship. That's not equal; it's a lie. I'm absolutely appalled at how many partnered/married/otherwise emotionally UNavail men are lurking on these sites. I say "lurking" because most of them are very coy, if not downright deceptive, about their relationship status. What they're doing isn't open or honest. Many of them are still closeted and living a straight lifestyle in the real world! This site and others seem to be very willing to profit from the situation by helping perpetuate their self-loathing, pathetic lives and accommodating them in every way possible. Meanwhile, the rest of us have much of our time wasted trying to sift through the profiles of these liars & cheaters, in hopes of finding actual SINGLE & available prospects. Why not create some very specific criteria by which people can be quickly & easily identified as "Single and looking" vs "Partnered & cheating"?
I know there are other SINGLE guys out there for whom this resonates. It's really become pervasive on every gay "dating" website. Surely there's room for those of us who are SINGLE & just want a fair chance to find other like-minded guys for casual fun OR something more serious?!

So wait a second. If the partnered guys you meet online are "very coy, if not downright deceptive," then how do you know that they are, in fact, partnered? You could only know by them telling you. That sounds like the opposite of deceptive to me.

And what criteria would you employ to distinguish the single from the partnered? There's nothing you can use which does not rely on individual self-reporting. Should DH hire private detectives to stalk users, to find out what their REAL relationship status is? (Even though, apparently, they're already telling you...)

And since when do you have a reasonable expectation that partnered guys should be prevented from looking for what they want, the same way you look for what you want?

I understand your frustration; but it comes with the territory. There is nothing to be done about it but slog and sift through countless profiles until you find a compatible one. "Single" is just one of many criteria. If you prefer slim guys, should all fat guys be banned?

I think it's unfair of you to accuse DH of being willing to "profit" from the basic fact that a lot of men choose not to be monogamous. Infidelity will always exist; there's nothing you can do to purge the internet of partnered guys looking for a side dish of whatever. And there's nothing DH can do to prevent partnered guys from signing up, any more than they can prevent straight, Thai girls from creating a butch daddy bear profile in here. LOL.

Perhaps you should start a website exclusively for single guys. Good luck preventing any partnered guys (or Thai girls!) from ever signing up. (And once they did, someone else would come along and accuse you of being willing to profit from deceptive partnered guys who lie to get what they want. LOL)

Finally, there already IS room for you (and me) and all the other single guys. Proof that there is room for you is the fact that you are here. lol. But it sounds like you want to define "room for you" as "NO room for those who already have a partner and yet want something else."

No one ever forced you to be in a place that tolerates partnered guys.

I know guys in open relationships who choose to be in them for a wide range of reasons. Not all of them are the way you have chosen to characterize them. To each his own. Live and let live.

-- Craig.

This is a very interesting thread to cast. I don't find fault with the websites, but with the dishonesty of those who post. The fact that so many lie about who and what they are, and where they live. That so so many will not post an honest profile about themselves. The profile outlines are quite clear in the information that they ask, but so few fill in enough information to make anything clear about themselves. The fact that so many don't even post a photo. There are all kinds of excuses given why no picture, usually I am "not out" and I am "very shy" etc. But considering dh and others like it are presumably for gay men, are hordes of straight employers and clergy searching these websites?

About the "open relationships"; I had contact with someone online recently who told me he was in "two open relationships" and he had a fuck buddy as well! I don't have a great deal to add, because I think the previous writer summed things up very well.

In parting thing, I am always in wonderment when I read things like "I have found the man of my dreams, but he lets me play!"

I don't care how many photos someone sends, if he doesn't have a webcam, so that I can verify that the photos are real or recent, then I cut contact. And as for those who will only reply to you if you have a face photo, and then don't post such themselves!

Ha! Yeah you gotta love the guys who have no pic but who demand that you have a face pic. I don't care whether a guy demands a pic or not, but the hypocrites who refuse to post one should definitely NOT be the ones demanding them! *blank stare of disbelief* lol

Gay dating sites. Just like being in a club or local bar. One must exercise caution and restraint. Most men will tell you what you want to hear to hook-up with you and then never contact you again because it wasn't as great as they or you expected it to be . The problem is not them it's you. Standard must be set and maintained in order to meet the right man for you. We all have preferences that turn us on and off there no reason we shouldn't, We are men we live for the hunt. We find a great guy and things are great. But there always that guy that really hot and the hunt is on again. Open relationships are the result of that. Some work out find but I think that's rare. Lots of my friend got married and now are breaking up because the fun and freshness of it disappeared . Honesty on gay sites is rare also.most are scared that friends and family will see that they are on one and ridicule them. That why no photos. Some are straight men wanting to explorer. Some are worried that there employer is looking and the government is watching. The gay movement still has miles to go and many hurtles to jumb. My mottos is say what you mean and mean what you say. Take time to meet and know people and never believe what the site info says.investigate and know who you are sleeping with..these are only my views..what's yours.

[Fair disclosure: My partner of ten plus years (yeah!) and i are in an "open relationship", one in which we discuss our outside relationships/hookups/encounters both because we like to swap hot stories and because we feel it is waaaaay safer if the other knows where/who we are with. (So i guess if either of us encounters a gay cannibal killer, at least the other will be able to show the police where to find said killer. Yeah, seriously weird what the news makes you think about.)]

i am fascinated by the "controversy" of open relationships, sexual desire, and internet hook-ups. When the issue of gay marriage (now called marriage equality) first surfaced, some queer folk were appalled - and not because ten years ago straight people were against it, but rather that some gays and lesbians were FOR it! Having so long existed as members of the ultimate underground counter-culture, yesterday's elders rejected the idea of applying mainstream cultural norms to their queer world, saying that queer sex was a unique wonderful thing unto itself and not be polluted, diluted and mainstreamed.

Fast forward to today and LGBT folk have found greater visibility (hmmm, it being Pride, was that because of ancient Stonewall or ancient ACT-UP?) and are finding both the greater acceptance and danger that comes with being out-in-public. LGBT people are selecting china patterns, getting married, painting white picket fences and raising children. On the straight side, the hush-hush "infidelities" of yesteryear are, it turns out, almost the norm (though still fodder for office gossip and the kiss-of-death to politicos of all stripes). What was taboo in the marital bedroom has become good loving giving and game. Now more anal sex/pegging happens among straight couples than gay ones (it's a numbers game, there are just soooo many more straights). And let's not even talk about the recent run on whips and chains by soccer moms provoked by "Fifty Shades of Grey".

Relationship columnist Dan Savage's phrase "monogomish marriage" got featured in the New York Times (June 30, 2011) about how rare fidelity is in practice, while the authors of "Sex at Dawn" basically deconstruct the idea of sexual fidelity as being an ancillary artificial construct of early property rights (when land AND women and children were the property of men - before that humans were, the authors suggest, much more like bonobos).

Yet if in fact fidelity is both unnatural and statistically rare - still most many men and women count it among the sine quibus non of life. And fidelity in the days of social networking and internet dating sites is even more difficult than ever (even if you never do anything physical, but exchange textual intimacies over the net, are you committing "virtual infidelities"? Many spouses say "yes".).

So is the internet destroying "monogamy" - or will "monogamy" be redefined by the internet? What is is really in Daddyhunt's (and other internet relationship sites) sights: "The one" or the very concept of "Faithful till death do us part"?

reading the above, it is a wonder anyone ventures into finding a "relationship." If you don't have the sex thing with a multitude of partners out of your system why are you getting involved with someone? Noone wants a ho, or do they? Maybe they do. It doesn't exactly make the heart beat faster. Just because I don't get it doesn't mean it's gay policy; I have my own take on things. All I know is almost every time I have seen an "open relationship" it closed after hours

What is a "relationship"? Multi-national corporations have relationships - but clearly that is not what's on the table here! LOL

OK. On a more serious note: Sometimes you find somebody who completes your soul, to whom you are connected, with whom and in whom you each find a profoundly deep and vulnerable and intimate thing: Love. But, wonder of wonders, finding love does not lessen love. A man takes a wife, yet his love for his father, mother, brothers and sisters is not diminished. A man holds his infant child in his arms for the first time and his love for his wife is not diminished. A man finds a life-partner and his capacity to love and care and feel compassion towards strangers is not weakened.

Words are not love. Sex is not love. Passion is not love. They can be an expression of love, but they are not love. Relationships are not defined by love, but they to can be an expression of love.

And sex?

Sex can be an act of affection... or it can be an act of selfishness. Sex can be used to heal... or to hurt. Sex can be a way of forming a bond (the author's of 'Sex at Dawn' argue in some species it is both a way of expressing group solidarity and social dominance hierarchies within the group)... or destroying them. Sex can be fun. Or not.

Like fire - the good the bad are in how and what you do with it.

Interesting topic monogamy in the gay men's world when in the straight world the thing holding people to monogamy is that the world has the opportunity to know about and embrace your relationship. If you screw up on that the world knows and might tend to think that your integrity is questionable so you just might tend to practice monogamy and be with someone that is monogamous or try and distance yourself from that incident. Forget about what people think about numbers and how prevalent multiple partner sex is perceived with gay men. Any chat room activity certainly appears there are plenty of gay men that couldn't find an encounter if they hung their legs over the barrier of the interstate overpass with a blinking sign and arrow pointing to your exposed backend saying, "Stop 'n Go!" Ask a group of guys that have seroconverted and it shouldn't take long to find someone that was told the other person was neg yet BINGO--seroconversion. We're talking sex and so many people at the minimum will avoid the subject so how truthful can we expect to be with each other?

If you are in an environment that makes it more convenient, and safer, to keep your business from everyone otherwise a chance face to face with some extreme believer in Lev. 20:13 just might end you up dead. That's incentive enough to put the world on a need to know basis of your life. If people don't know about your business then what is there for the community to hold you to monogamy and the person to develop a view on multiple sexual partners without having it reflect negatively on themselves. And if your community is not accepting of gays then what is stopping a gay man from his own form of community disobedience by viewing those with multiple sexual partners, even in open relationships, as a justifiable response because there is a perception that the het's practice and believe in monogamy even during those periods that a relationship may exist and have children but there is no thought of finalizing it in marriage.

Well, surprise. There is no absolute. Not all that you believe to be het is so since there are a het men out there that have encounters with other men while in a relationship with a woman, and there are non-het's out there that have children from the relationship that they had with a woman. So what they want to be perceived as monogamous may be not. So what they want to be perceived as het may be not. The motivation to think about having sex with another man can come at any point in a person's life and to act on it may be even longer. And so what they want to be perceived as het may be not. It is just to simple to divide the world into two camps of het's and gays by which to make opinions on things that the facts start off misidentified. Bad data makes for bad end product. If we are going to hold the readers and believers of the bible to a level of reasonably interpretation of the stories then we owe it to ourselves to start with the right information. Het's probably are not going to like having their monogamy or sexuality questioned but gay men do not believe that they should be characterized as child molesters and the source of other males thinking about the matter of gay sexuality. Het men have had kids when they have yet to act on any gay feelings and transgender people may have kids before they have acted on any of those feelings.

As for the internet being a champion of the destruction of monogamy well it's the users bringing that about if deception has a greater significance than otherwise and the anonymity of the internet may reinforce the practice of withholding information on a need to know basis otherwise potentially suffer from the consequences of someone being on the site with intent to cause harm or those that seek something that may not be based on the same intent as the pursued party. You certainly cannot tell a guy is single by camming but might question it if you hear tons of voices in the background making all types of sounds that might remind one of an orgy.

had relationships in past they seem to get shorter each time but waiting for my mr right to find me and try date websites a few times but and i admit i met few great friedns but a person to have a relationship with i dont know i guess it all do with chemisty etc and willing to see beyond the sex part and see me as a person but 9 outta 10 times nope.

number of years ago met my first boyfriend on the net but when we met face to face first time after been going out for few months it turned out he lied about age and found a bit later found he was pedo and lession was kinda learned so been more careful since then

Sometimes best friends who aren't even horny are great to have because of the connection of trust that doesn't depend on a lot of specific urges involving exact activities because then it ends when the horny thing shifts gears. However its good to make sure that a meeting for an LTR doesn't leave someone in the dark about some element that may trigger you once in a blue moon that could cause discussion of the activity that has jumped out of the closet and caused intellectual analysis that one did not know would create some issue based on a lot of silly mental terms and then a moment of fun turns into a day at the clinic with Dr Frankenstein instead of an already understood acceptance due to having cultural things in common and so forth. Naturally a relationship event happening would then be the bigger priority for sure.