Dismissing the loser.

Someone (I think it may have been Joe.My.God) once chronicled the phenomenon of the sudden cruising backpedal. You see a guy who looks mighty good, so you turn on the smile and the encouraging body language... then he changes position or steps into better light and you suddenly see that he's actually far from good. There follows a furious reversing as you try to undo the body language and make the smile polite rather than sexy.

This phenomenon is even more pronounced online. People tend to put their best pictures up on their profiles, where the angle of the head hides the double chin or cropping hides the big ears. They have also had time to carefully edit their text to hide the hints of neediness, bitchiness and/or stupidity that come out in spontaneous communication. It can be almost impossible to tell if a guy is worthy or not from such profiles, and you don't eventually find out until you've been chatting for an hour and he's sent you other, less flattering photos. Then you just want to get the hell out... but you want to do it with an element of dignity for everyone concerned.

So what do you say when a guy you thought was a 10 turns out to be a 1.0? From my experience there's a lot of remarkably ingenious psychology in use out there. Competently handled, a subtle dismissal can almost be a compliment. Observe the following true life examples, with ratings based on style and effectiveness.

1. (Following a date, in response to "Do you want to go out again?") "I'm all tied up this week, but maybe some time after that?"

I rather like this one. It pushes any possible communication far enough into the future to allow interest to cool (and realisation to dawn), but close enough to the present that it doesn't instantly make him feel completely unimportant. It allows for a gentle, gradual let down. Rating: A-

2. "Give me your number - I'm going out now but I'll buzz you when I get back."

A little amateurish, but still quite effective. It prevents a guy to whom you've given your number from calling you for at least a few hours, during which time he'll hopefully click that you regret showing an interest in him in the first place. Of course he might eventually call you, but if he's that clueless you're entitled to be a little more direct when you dismiss him. Rating: B-

3. "Well, I'm off to bed. I'll catch you again over the weekend."

"Off to bed" is a valid excuse - I've used it myself more than once - but frankly its effectiveness is a little blunted when you try using it at 9.30pm, as was the case with one guy who used it on me recently. The "catch you over the weekend", too, is not the best line. It's too specific in timeframe, and it's not specific enough in who'll take the initiative. Rating: C-

4. "I gotta go, but I look forward to chatting with you again."

I've used this one myself. I like to think that it validates the other guy (ie you're worth communicating with) without giving him any reason to think that I'm desperate to see him. Rating: C+

5. "I'm sort of putting all of my effort into someone else right now, but if that falls through maybe we can get together?"

Ironically I think this is unintentional genius. It's so completely clumsy, self-centred and clueless that you feel you've dodged a bullet in getting rejected. It's so idiotic that it's actually clever. Rating: B+

5. (dead silence)

This isn't a good idea. It doesn't say "Oops, you're worth less than I thought" so much as "You're worth nothing." And people tend to get cranky and vindictive when you say that. Go figure. Rating: F

Frot you talkin' 'bout, Willis?

I'm sure I'm not the first person to have thought that "frottage" sounds less like a sex act and more like a rather sour French cheese. It must be one of the least onompatopaeic words in the English language. I'm also sure that I'm not the first person to have thought that it seems like a bit of a waste of time. It's basically an aspect of foreplay that's been inexplicably upgraded to sex in its own right, like an anonymous chorus girl who suddenly pushes the lead actress out of her way to grab centre stage.

Frottage as a core sexual activity has a reputation as something for those either in the closet or in denial. There's an element of blokiness to it as, to put it delicately, no orifice gets invaded. If necessary it can be dismissed as two curious guys having a bit of fun, in a way that other forms of sex can't.

Frottage has been brought to my attention as I've been chatting to a guy online who lists it as the self-imposed limit of his sexual activity. He gave me a link to the frottage website frotmen.org, and exploring it has been an interesting peek into yet another specialised sexual community.

First of all, never trust a website with clashing fonts, a lack of frames and less structure than a bowl of custard.

Second of all, never trust any sex-based group that feels the need to publish "policy papers".

Third of all, a minor activity cannot be used a define a larger morality. Symbolise it, yes, but not define it. I'm all for monogamy, fidelity and love, but these things are grandly out of scale with the act of rubbing one's penis against another man.

Fourthly, fifthly, and so on until well into the triple figures, frottage is not a "holy sacrament". It's not the act of a "warrior". It doesn't result in "salvation", unless of course the particular problem from which you need saving is not having a penis rubbed against you. And doing it rather than anal sex doesn't make you less gay.

My online friend is very excited about being a Frotman. I feel like saying to him, "Call it whatever you like, dude, but I know a cult when I see one." There's nothing particularly noble or warrior-like about any niche sexual activity. Sex is primarily an intimate act of love, not a philosophical statement.

Do the warning signs say Stop or Give Way?

Over the last couple of weeks I've been chatting to an interesting guy online.

On paper he looks bad. Not Charles Manson bad, but certainly Earl Hickey bad. He's unemployed and not entirely clear about his prospects. His writing suggets an education that sputtered and died somewhere in his mid-teens. He's suffered from depression and been through a range of therapies, from the professional to the quack. I can see that he's created a psychological coping structure to deal with his issues, which is good, but the fact that I can see it is bad: well-adjusted people don't need noticeable coping structures.

So as you can see, getting involved with this guy would seem to be a disaster.

But in spite of all that, he seems like a nice, genuine person, and nice, genuine people are rare in the sleazy and occasionally psychotic world of gay online dating. I get the impression that he needs a sane and sensible friend to be on his side, and it feels good to be able to encourage him and offer advice. In my breezier moments I think that it would be fun and/or interesting to meet him face to face and learn more about his journey. But then when I'm feeling a little more realistic, I wonder if I'm risking one of those toxic relationships that destroy lives. Especially if he turns out to be really hot, and all of my level-headed analysis gets flattened by hormones.

There's the rub, you see. Sometimes loneliness makes us ignore warning signs that would be pretty bloody self-evident if were viewing them objectively.