I've noticed this among my friends, too, and I think it's because for a lot of women, sexual pleasure still has so much to do with their ability to turn a man on. Women often focus so much more than men do on this, buying sexy clothes and finding new ways to excite our partners, etc...and we call that expressing OUR sexuality. We do stupid shit like take burlesque and pole dancing classes and say this is empowering us. The willingness to do kinky stuff for the guy that grosses us out is just an extension of that.

I'm a kinkster with a wife with a somewhat lower sex drive than I have, and there's an ongoing negotiation. Sometimes, we do chore-play in a D/s sense: If I complete x, y, z chores, I get sex (or don't get my ass beat). If we're upbeat and fun about that, it's win-win: she gets a cleaner house and I get something I want.

That said, there are times when it feels a bit abusive (not serious capital A abusive, but just a bit extortionist): where she's really not in the mood and not having fun, and neither am I. In those cases, I'm not feeling loved/appreciated/desired. That's really what I'm hoping for out of the relationship.

So like with a ton of things, approaching something with the right emotions and attitudes goes a long way....

Oh boy...to many @s to keep track of. I'll just toss in my $.02 on several of these points.

For one, I don't care WHY (cultural repression or innate desire and brain wiring), I think Dan is right: most women don't really get off as much on kink or have as many kinks. At least not until their testosterone catches up with the declining estrogen later in life, and even then, it's not so common as it is in men.

Whether or not a woman's idea of GGG is doing the laundry, or dishes or taking the kids off her hands for a couple of hours, it's not a sexual kink. This is not a mutual negotiation - asking someone to do laundry or dishes or cooking IS NOT putting yourself out there for possible rejection and social ridicule. Asking your partner to indulge in your desire to switch roles and get pegged is not the same social risk as asking your partner to switch roles by reversing domestic duties.

We are talking about GGG in the context of sexual activity; domestic chores are not sex. If you are sexually fetishizing laundry or dishes - femdom of your husband - fine, that's sex and that's ok, but sexually fetishizing children...is another thing. Sure, the foot rub might easily be a fetish - boot, shoe and foot licking along with toe sucking certainly are fetishes, but I'd put my money on the foot rub being more along the lines of cuddly affection than sexualized kink. There's nothing wrong with that, but it's NOT KINK.

Finally, yes, the real object of being GGG is permitting open conversation; @15 is dead on:

I wonder if at the heart of GGG one might simply find the idea that people shouldn't be worried that their loved ones will retreat in horror upon hearing of their kinks.

And @16 is right that there is this default societal support of the least sexual option - it is part of our lingering puritanism. Whatever the reason - anyone who wants to retreat into vanilla - into 'PIV sex for procreation only' - get the free pass.

Color me entirely unsurprised that there are more women who feel put upon by partners making requests of them. I hardly think they ought to indulge in or do things they don't like to do, but shaming the kinky person into not asking as a way of avoiding having to say no seems lame. The point of GGG is having an honest conversation and honestly saying "I don't like that". Yes, it means you may have to live with the uncomfortable truth that you don't give your partner everything they want.

I think kinky women don't complain as much because men are so damned easy. If a guy wants you, then you can get him to do a lot of stuff. I once made a boyfriend wear my skirt and parade around like a pretty girl before I would have sex with him. He wasn't into forced feminization, but he did it anyway just so he could get laid. That was the probably the meanest thing I ever did, but if I had wanted to be a way bigger bitch I sure could have. Another time I made a fwb give me nothing but oral sex (rarely returning the favor to him) after he paid for all my drinks, dinner and my friends' drinks too. If you are a sexy woman there is almost nothing that a guy who wants your hot body won't do. You can make him pay for everything, wear your skirt, eat your pussy nonstop, and buy you stuff, etc. Not saying that any of this makes for a healthy relationship- only that being a sexy woman gives you so many advantages over the guy desperately trying to get into your pants. This is why you never hear about women begging a man to do something kinky- we have all the power in that part of the relationship and men know it, too.

Re Point 2, GGG surely doesn't isn't only about kink? If a stereotypical woman enjoys, you know, cunnilingus and rose petals, then her male partner should be willing to accommodate that too, and the couple’s GGG sex life will necessarily involve reciprocation and roughly equal pleasure receiving/pleasure offering efforts. Hence sn a kinky to non-kinky couple relationship, the kinky partner can't expect GGG if they are not also GGG, indulging in vanilla sex of the type desired by the vanilla partner.
I don't think that Dan has ever suggested that GGG should be a one-way street. Obviously we all want a world where all genders are getting and giving.

Re Point 2, GGG surely doesn't isn't only about kink? If a stereotypical woman enjoys, you know, cunnilingus and rose petals, then her male partner should be willing to accommodate that too, and the couple’s GGG sex life will necessarily involve reciprocation and roughly equal pleasure receiving/pleasure offering efforts. Hence in a kinky to non-kinky couple relationship, the kinky partner can't expect GGG if they are not also GGG, indulging in vanilla sex of the type desired by the vanilla partner.
I don't think that Dan has ever suggested that GGG should be a one-way street. Obviously we all want a world where all genders are getting and giving.

Thanks so much, Dan. I became unable to do anal without pain and bleeding and shared respectfully with my husband about this problem. I spent two years dealing with silent treatments, bullying, and general nastiness from him until he was finally able to put down those weapons. He's more human and loving now, thank goodness, but I have saved this column just in case I ever need to show him. He loves Savage love but didn't get the sexual etiquette clause about respecting the other person.

@51 - The point I was trying to make was that at some point, doing dishes or laundry really isn't about equal sex time or equal sex pleasure. As I said: I fully grok that women, more than men for sure, have a hard time compartmentalizing these things as much - it's hard to get in the mood for sex if you're exhausted by chores done or obsessing about chores undone. But that's really not about sex itself.

I am not in a position to say whether or not men, on average, take enough time to make sure they get their partners off too. I am a dude, and aside from some early teen fooling around, I haven't slept with a lot of men. I know the stereotypical complaint about "two-pump chumps" and the like.

Personally, I get my jollies off mainly by how much my partner gets off. If I'm gonna masturbate, I'd rather do it alone or with some porn. Sex with another person means being tuned into sex with that person, and the hot part, for me, the ego-gratifying part, is knowing how much I'm sending her over the top and making her cum. So yeah, I think I do think I am "giving of equal time and pleasure".

To that end, sure, a back rub, a foot rub, or the rest - even if they aren't fetishized or kinky - are part of being GGG. They are part of warming up and exciting my partner and making her feel good, and I do them, with pleasure! Similarly, while it doesn't give me any direct pleasure nor is it terribly comfortable when my tongue starts burning during cunnilingus just because it need to be a little harder and move a little faster because she's just right there at the edge and wants to get over, I do it. And I do it gladly (even as I lose my boner).

And here's my real point: asking for a foot rub or a back rub or cunnilingus isn't a big ask on the "kink" scale. Asking for anal is (penetrating her); asking for a prostate massage is. And yet, she could learn to do either of these things, with as much 'discomfort' - either physical or 'ick' -factor-wise - as giving good cunnilingus or a nice slow, sensual footrub.

Even if she finds it 'disgusting' or yucky to swallow, she could learn to swallow the semen with reasonable enthusiasm (barring an honest-to-goodness allergy) just as a "GGG" guy learns to like or tolerate a face-coating of vaginal mucous. She could do that, rather than removing stimulation right at the moment of climax.

Of course, selfish lovers come in both genders, no doubt, but if we're dealing in stereotypes, then the kinds of things women tend to ask for - footrubs and a clean dishrack or a nice long post-coital cuddle - are a lot less 'kinky' than the sexually explicit things men ask for. Whatever the basis or cause, whether or not it's culture and society or something hardwired in our brains, women stereotypically (and I do not think SLOG denizens are a representative sample) ask for things which are less outre, and are therefore taking a much smaller social risk. Women don't like being called sluts and cast aside for being sexual? Well, how about being called a pervert and cast aside for asking for anal?

I'm sure the tone of resentment in my comments is rather obvious and yes, I have learned not to be shy about pressing my partners for what I want, but having to press your partner for something is NOT your partner being "GGG". I understand that rejection is the price of admission for attempting to find a relationship, and I understand that getting less than all my fantasies fulfilled is the price of admission for maintaining a relationship. My irritation in with comments in this thread is really this: don't pee on my leg and tell me it's raining.

I think Dan's right: being GGG does not mean you have to do things you really hate doing; it means you have to be open to trying them - genuinely trying to see if you can do them without hating it - and if you just can't, then don't! If you know that coprophagia is a bridge too far without even trying it, then say no! Same thing with a threesome.

However, I don't think it's OK to just dump your partner for sharing their fantasies about a threesome, and then pretend you are GGG. And I don't think you can pretend you're putting yourself out there - making yourself vulnerable to your partner in an equal way - when you ask for things that are societally approved and mainstream while they ask for what are, by definition of kinky, outside the mainstream.

Ok, and a few more...

@63 - Yeah, no kidding! Not in my house either - chores are chores and are to be shared by all!

@65 - Yeah, this is NOT about "GGG" - this is a case of having been GGG and finding a hard limit. Price of admission for hubby is definitely AND cheerfully (ie, not being a childish shit) accepting that this is off the table for you.

@66 - "At some point, the dirty gutter* I am not cleaning, and not having sex until it is cleaned, becomes an avoidance technique, not a real barrier to intimacy."

Bingo! One other addendum: it's not just an avoidance technique, but a way of manipulating a partner. I guess all is fair in love and war, but at some point it really isn't about sex (a real barrier to intimacy), but about other politics in the relationship. This is what I was trying to get at above when I said:

"I hardly think they ought to indulge in or do things they don't like to do, but shaming the kinky person into not asking as a way of avoiding having to say no seems lame. The point of GGG is having an honest conversation and honestly saying "I don't like that". Yes, it means you may have to live with the uncomfortable truth that you don't give your partner everything they want. "

This is the real problem - avoiding being honest in the relationship - hiding behind an excuse. "you didn't clean the gutter" is an excuse for not having to say "I don't want to have sex with you" and being honest about it. "I don't ask for anything and therefore I don't have to consider your request for anything".

These things become get-out-of-jail-free cards for not being GGG and not having to feel guilty about ignoring your partner's needs or desires (and that IS HUGE for most stereotypical women - much bigger than sex).

@71 "Yes, it's hard for a guy to ask for anal, but when you're a woman, it's hard to ask for anything. Women are taught to please, and not taught to consider what they want. So asking for a backrub, for (some? most?) women, may be as hard as a guy asking for anal."

Bwahahaha...um, no, we are just going to have to entirely disagree about this. I have never, ever heard of a guy dumping a girl for asking for a back rub.

I have been with plenty of timid/repressed-by-traditional-upbringing/submissive/whatever women - even stretching up a generation from me (pre-boomer women) and none of have felt like asking for a backrub was anything exceptional. Asking for oral sex, yes, but a backrub, no. And oral sex is certainly fairly un-exotic, so I'd count that in the direction of what you suggest.

I certainly agree that my life doesn't fit your generalizations, but I also think your generalizations date to women from at least two generations ago. My ex recounted her mother's advice about sex: "don't expect to enjoy it; just do what he wants to make him happy; women in our family don't enjoy sex, we can't physically". Which is definitely fucked up advice. My ex overcame it with the sexual revolution (and did have a very hard time getting off - my frustrated MIL (who is 95 now) wasn't entirely making things up - that's where I first experienced tongue burn - ~40 minutes of oral will do that to you). None of the younger women I've been with - have ever been this repressed about asking for oral - including some extraordinarily vanilla and uptight women. I think @58 has it right.

I suggest that you, like me, are not in the general pattern - and I think you have (based on your postings) 'kinky' desires a couple of std. deviations out of the norm as well - and you've recounted your journey here of coming out of the shell of not exploring or admitting to them. I'd like to suggest your lens is dirty on this one.

Oh and @71: I have been impressed with and admire your rather public journey here...I'm a fan, not a hater.

@77 - I am in my mid-40s and grew up in a college town. We had sex ed - good quality sex ed - in our public schools. We had the benefit of a largely sex-positive cultural milieu. My own parents were pretty sex-positive too. Perhaps I'm just lucky and have a bit of myopia - I suppose the environment in the fly-over and rural areas lagged. Certainly the cultural backlash in the 80s and 90s probably resulted in back sliding, but I'd suggest the progress on same sex issues - the broad acceptance among of same-sex marriage, for example, in the under 40 cohort - really indicates that the backsliding isn't so great. I think that applies to women seeking what they want sexually as well. I think the changes after "Our Bodies, Ourselves" are pretty well baked in. There are boomers for whom this hasn't happened, but I think in the post-boomer generations, the idea that women should enjoy sex is not unknown - even in repressed, self-hating fundie households somewhere in flyover country.

Moving outside of the question of sexuality and onto economics...

I am a manager in my work - in a "male dominated" field - IT. I've hired women and observed first hand some of the shocking lingering chauvinism - even perpetuated by women towards women. I have seen an undue timidity in my female employees - a kind of deference which is wholly inappropriate. Still, all of these women have been aggressive about advancement and compensation (asked for raises), even where they still internalized the cultural biases about women.

However, I have heard of research that women are not as aggressive in asking for higher salaries at the beginning, nor about pursuing personal advancement (raises), which often takes the form of, "show me the money, or I'm outta here." There is a pervasive notion about expecting to be noticed and rewarded for hard work, rather than be aggressive. I can't recall what/where and don't want to google right now, but I think this was in the past three or four years.

I don't think women are as aggressive in the aggregate about bargaining in general. I can't tease out nature vs. nurture in this one - certainly the emphasis on teamwork vs. individual advancement is noticeable. I would be fascinated to learn if anyone has done any research about women haggling in foreign cultures.

Again, though, while this bias - a preference for aggressive bargaining - might be expected to leave women under-represented and under-compensated, it's clear this is shifting in college education, professional education and employment - the latest economic unease has been called, among other things, a man-cession. Again, I guess my point is: things are changing dramatically and the evidence is clear, in unexpected places and ways.

One great example of this is the "crisis" in public education. I put crisis in quotes because I'm not persuaded there is one - or that it isn't wholly manufactured - but also because it's an entirely orthogonal debate. One of the elements of the "crisis" is the change in the quality of teachers, and I think that can be largely traced to the disappearance of a captive labor market. One of the reasons most school systems have a hell of a time finding science and math teachers who actually know their content is that women who know math and science now have other career options open to them. This is a generational shift, and attitudes among women related to these changes are clearly evident.

Further, I'm also persuaded that most - not all - of the wage discrepancy between men and women can be attributed to labor market participation rates, largely due to child bearing. There are two ways in which this works: first, women are drawn to careers which offer low barrier to entry and exit, and these fields tend to have lower compensation rates overall. Secondly, even in fields with high barriers - say law and medicine - women tend to take more time off of the career ladder and wind up with lower career compensation, even for nominally the 'same career' - make partner later or never, for example.

Women have babies, men don't (and this leads to all manner of inequity, including notions about access to family planning and reproductive rights). However, even this is changing - the number of stay-at-home-dads is on the rise, greatly accelerated by the man-cession. The income numbers - aggregate numbers - have some hysteresis but will catch up quickly enough and reflect this.

There's about twenty years of economic research that supports this and while cultural bias - both external and internalized - is real, still exists and contributes to the income disparity, I think things are changing, often faster than we realize.

I guess this is a big digression from you point: women are not likely to speak up for what they want. I guess my point is that while I acknowledge this is true, it is only one small part of the overall dynamic, and not nearly big enough to contribute to the sexual satisfaction issue. If anything, I'd say that women don't often rate sexual satisfaction as terribly important, versus other features about a potential mate, and don't speak up as much about it as a result. I have found that women of all age groups find very effective ways of making clear what is important to them.

@79 - I could not agree more with your comments @9. And your admonition applies to men and women equally.

@82&83

No problem about the amendment, I got your argument. I'm not entirely discounting your claim, but I'd be very interested in some cites of recent studies which support this. Very specifically, the "comparable positions" is absolutely critical; it's interesting to me since most teachers are public school teachers and wage discrimination among them is forbidden.

Please note, it's not enough to say "women get paid less than men for ostensibly the same job". Lots of men get paid less than other men for ostensibly the same job. An ex of mine - a commitment phobic flake (and therefore allergic to marriage and/or pregnancy) - constantly bemoaned how much she worked relative to and "picked up the slack" for female co-workers who had exactly the same job, experience and educational qualifications, and yet, in a very very family friendly (an not-for-profit aid/health organization - progressive pro-feminine attitudes were ingrained in it's DNA), these other women had dramatically lower labor participation rates and yet were rewarded comparably. This engendered no short amount of resentment from other employees who weren't getting pregnant and were 'picking up the slack'. Unsurprisingly, this arrangement is not common outside of this kind of organization. There is undeniably a difference in what women and men get paid; the question is not whether the gap exists, but why it exists and what is the trend. Is it simply gender discrimination.

Also: I am not suggesting these jobs are 'easier' - but that they have what is known as a lower barrier to entry. I tend to think that doctors (knowing one surgeon intimately, who also waaay out earns me!) actually do not work terribly hard - at least in some specialties - particularly relative to say, people who hold two or three part time jobs doing 'entry level' work. The difference is that it's not terribly easy to just decide you want to become a doctor - the process is extraordinarily long and full of a lot of barriers. The work of becoming a doctor is grueling (captive labor market - ask any resident or med student who is cramming).

Contrast that with all the people who became, overnight, with almost no training "web developers" during the dot-bomb bubble. And then, following that, all the people who became "mortgage brokers" or "real estate agents" overnight when the finance (and resulting housing) bubbles were underway. These are jobs which have some barrier to entry, but among white-collar 'professions', they are comparatively lower than law or medicine (and note that law has cratered - and we have a glut of lawyers - because law in part has a much lower barrier to entry than medicine). They also had, during the bubble, artificially tight supply, raising wages, which was quickly countered as people flooded in and wages dropped (and bubbles popped). If you look at medicine, you have a well-controlled and "artificially" tight supply of doctors.

In fact, it turns out that what we really reward economically are workaholics - the more you work, the greater your labor market participation, and the more restricted entry into your field is, the higher your compensation rises. The law associate who works 70-80 hour weeks makes partner or makes partner faster and then, maintaining the same schedule, does better. The more "productive" (ie, more procedures in a fee-for-service system) doctor makes more money. People who leave and re-enter the labor market - in whatever field - suffer lack of wage growth during those absences and "time outs" from the career ladder.

These papers are an example of the argument I'm making and is the kind of cite I'd be interested in seeing:

http://www.nber.org/papers/w14681

Kahn and Blau are among the most highly cited on the topic and this paper of Blau's is a great survey overview:

http://www.nber.org/papers/w7732.pdf

Where the wage gap has remained more persistent and stabilized - where what I think we'd consider more 'traditional' bias - is sort of the Walmart Model (the only employer in town for a particular type of labor and able to dictate prices) - also known as Monopsony. This is a recent paper supporting that:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/art…

That is: there are lots of other 'sellers of labor' (low barrier to entry) and only a handful of buyers. You are at the buyer's mercy - this is the entire Walmart model - not just with suppliers of junk from china, but also with suppliers of labor.