Comments
Please wait...
Comments are closed.
Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.
is a proud member of the
media network
media network
All contents © Index Newspapers LLC
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
* For insight into male psychology, watch Cesar Milan's The Dog Whisperer - aggression amost always arises from dogs who are anxious and/or insecure.
One of two things is happening. Either you want to dump him because the sex is bad or the sex is bad because you want to dump him.
In the former case, you have plenty of options before skipping to the "I want to sleep with other people" declaration. In Savage-Love-Land that's met with, "Jolly! Let's have a reasoned discussion about boundaries!" In real life the response is, "AUUUUGH! I'll never be able to bleach those words out of my brain!!!" You'll likely alter, if not end, the relationship forever that way.
As Dan mentioned, there's a whole field of fantasy to be explored between you before heading to that option, which may eventually include the fantasy (or practice) of sleeping with others. But an honest discussion of what you'd like more of from your S.O. WITHOUT defaulting to sleeping with others would be the best place to start. You might well discover you're just in a lull, not perma-bed-death.
If sleeping with others is the ONLY fantasy you have, that's a different matter. But your letter sounds more like it's the product of a negative (not getting what I want) than a positive directional choice (I'd love to do this).
But then there's Option 2, that you want to dump him SO the sex is bad. In this case no amount of sexual tinkering will serve. Any fantasy talk would be a waste of time. The mind is turned off, an exit is the ultimate goal, things won't turn ultra-sexy again magically even if all your fantasies are fulfilled.
People often fool themselves this way. They want to leave but they don't want to seem like jerks. So they cast themselves as the long-suffering, faithful martyr. Except half-willing martyrs don't have good sex. When the sex goes bad the exit avenue opens. Now the responsibility isn't yours (I want out) but the other person's (They couldn't please me). You're actually invested in the sex being bad to get you out.
If this is the case, the upstanding thing to do is break up honestly first and then have all the sex you want with other people.
So is bad sex spurring you to look elsewhere or is wanting to look elsewhere blunting the edge of the sex? Either seems fine, but honesty and taking responsibility for those feelings seems the way to go in either case.
One of two things is happening. Either you want to dump him because the sex is bad or the sex is bad because you want to dump him.
In the former case, you have plenty of options before skipping to the "I want to sleep with other people" declaration. In Savage-Love-Land that's met with, "Jolly! Let's have a reasoned discussion about boundaries!" In real life the response is, "AUUUUGH! I'll never be able to bleach those words out of my brain!!!" You'll likely alter, if not end, the relationship forever that way.
As Dan mentioned, there's a whole field of fantasy to be explored between you before heading to that option, which may eventually include the fantasy (or practice) of sleeping with others. But an honest discussion of what you'd like more of from your S.O. WITHOUT defaulting to sleeping with others would be the best place to start. You might well discover you're just in a lull, not perma-bed-death.
If sleeping with others is the ONLY fantasy you have, that's a different matter. But your letter sounds more like it's the product of a negative (not getting what I want) than a positive directional choice (I'd love to do this).
But then there's Option 2, that you want to dump him SO the sex is bad. In this case no amount of sexual tinkering will serve. Any fantasy talk would be a waste of time. The mind is turned off, an exit is the ultimate goal, things won't turn ultra-sexy again magically even if all your fantasies are fulfilled.
People often fool themselves this way. They want to leave but they don't want to seem like jerks. So they cast themselves as the long-suffering, faithful martyr. Except half-willing martyrs don't have good sex. When the sex goes bad the exit avenue opens. Now the responsibility isn't yours (I want out) but the other person's (They couldn't please me). You're actually invested in the sex being bad to get you out.
If this is the case, the upstanding thing to do is break up honestly first and then have all the sex you want with other people.
So is bad sex spurring you to look elsewhere or is wanting to look elsewhere blunting the edge of the sex? Either seems fine, but honesty and taking responsibility for those feelings seems the way to go in either case.
This is a tightrope hetero men often have to walk with our insecure wives/girlfriends. If we're standoffish to her gay friends, we're homophobic. If we're friendly and engaging, then we must be gay ourselves.
While there is truth in the first two thirds of the conclusion of that response, Mr Savage omits that it might reasonably be considered marginally more excusable for someone who knows very few available people from whom to choose (if Mr Savage can presume that GBF finds BF madly attractive without any evidence, I can presume they live somewhere with a very low quantity of non-Wainthropps) than for one of the rather greater number of women who take male homosexuality to be a personal insult or decline to believe in it as quite real in the first place (I am quite pleased to say that there are only one or two infrequent posters among the present company to whom this designation might apply).
As for the second letter, wouldn't "biamory" be more accurate when she's seeking two partners exactly to fairly careful specifications and not an open-optioned indefinite number greater than one? This letter makes me feel old, as I remember what might be considered the birth of biphobia as a term in common use, when it was mainly evoked when the partners of people like this LW didn't capitulate. It's interesting that there's been such a shift.
This is a tightrope hetero men often have to walk with our insecure wives/girlfriends. If we're standoffish to her gay friends, we're homophobic. If we're friendly and engaging, then we must be gay ourselves.
What is that supposed to mean?
Oh, on second thought, never mind. Letter Writer 2 answered that.
LW 2 is another one of these people who think that being bi should give her special dispensation to have multiple partners. If you feel you should get to have more than one partner to whom you are attracted, then he also gets more than one partner to whom he is attracted. And no, you do NOT get to hide behind "but mine are one man and one woman, while yours would both be women!" That is complete bullshit. People are individuals. You fall in love with people, not with sets of genitalia. I guarantee he can find two women that are very different and yet both highly attractive to him. I also guarantee that you can find any number of both men and women as candidate dates, some of whom you find attractive and some of whom you don't. It's not about what they are packing in their pants, it's about who they are and whether you are attracted to them.
Also, if you are bi, that means you are capable of seriously falling for someone of either sex -- potentially displacing your boyfriend with someone of either sex. If he has to undergo that risk, then so do you, even if in his case he would be replacing you with a woman. (Before anybody jumps on me, saying "not all bi people are bi-romantic," Letter Writer says that's basically exactly what she is looking for. She already vetoed casual hookups.)
Gee, you don't suppose that maybe SHAG is suffering the usual libido killers endemic to mother-of-a-toddler-parenthood? Only this time, it's all Dad's fault that her sexual response is off. Even though he is doing the exact same things that used to curl her toes.
Dump him hard, and tell him exactly why he deserves being dumped. Maybe he will learn a valuable lesson on how to not be an asshole.
Seriously, though SHAG it might be your hormones, lack of sleep or just a lack of novelty. I rub a little sesame oil down below if I'm in a rut or change technique (do you take turns initiating?). I also remember reading that new locations and/or situations can add novelty. So I guess what I'm saying is you should cover your genitals in sesame oil and ambush your partner in an unfamiliar location. If you don't end up in jail your relationship just might be saved.
Important disclaimer: Do not attempt in states with "Stand Your Ground" or generous conceal carry permits.
Explain to him that you're giving him the amazing, once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to compete for your attention with a lesbian of your choosing. Awesome for him, right?
If that doesn't convince him, then nothing will.
@16, She's not experiencing lack of libido, she says she's horny. Just not for her husband.
SHAG, I don't know how the hell you have the energy to be horny after caring for a toddler all day. Which tells me you're probably not. So who is? Dad? Gramma? The sitter?
There's a time for balls-to-the-wall sex and there's a time for parenting. If you focus more on this irreplaceable moment in time with your toddler, SHAG, instead of hunting down sex partners, you may have fewer regrets later when this kid's a teen. Seize the day.
I just love straights who are comfortable enough in their sexuality to flirt back with flirtatious gays...
But with rude servers ? How can this guy stay blind to the rudeness his girlfriend gets to endure, just for him to get his fix of gay flirtation ?
I'm not saying he's gay or bi : I'm saying he's inconsiderate to his official partner, right in front of her. And that's bad.
LW4-Have you considered that you are frustrated with your partner because of other issues that have walked into the bedroom. Perhaps he does not help as much as he should with your little one or pick up around the house. If you are angry about other things it could prevent you from relaxing enough to enjoy sex. It could also be that your vaginal nerves have been relocated due to both your pregnancy and delivery which will change how you respond to sexual stimulation. Before you throw the baby out with the bathwater, take time to enjoy your family, reconnect with your husband, and discuss the physical changes with your dr.
I don't know if it reached France, but around these parts it was quite a game at one time (perhaps still is?) for a certain sort of straight man to befriend gay men, initiate and take the lead in flirtation (which sounds as if it fits the letter and LW rounds BF's portion down to conversation and the waiter's up to flirtation due understandably to the waiter's rudeness to her) with the object of eliciting a Declaration of Affection or indeed even a Proposition, in order to respond with an Indignant Assertion of how he was Just Being Friendly and Why Why Why Was He Being So Traumatized (rather like the writer of that rerun letter who was told by Mr Savage that he was the satyr, not the faun).
I think @2 has the formulation right for TIRED - he is insecure and jealous, but Dan's wanting to put emphasis on his assholery is correct: being insecure and jealous is not a reason to cut him slack for being an asshole(or an excuse for his likely cheating which he also engages in for the ego boost). Instead, it's a reason to dump him.
@WORRY is just offended her BF is busy lapping up the attention while the waiter is rude to her. That the waitron is male is of no real consequence. I know I hate it when I catch myself treating female and male waiters differently (and embarrassingly, I do, esp. if she's cute). Even worse when it's in front of my SO.
No, in France I've never heard such stuff. Bear in mind that I'm neither gay nor male myself, so it could be a thing lately and I would not have heard of it.
We do have a French word for such behaviour though, when it's (of course) women doing it to heterosexual men. It's called "allumer" and the woman is an "allumeuse".
But most people I know would not use the word "allumeuse" nowadays, because it's been such a fixture in the rape apologists' language toolkit, as to become synonym with "woman I'd rape if I could get away with it". And somehow, outing oneself as a potential rapist isn't totally sexy in my age group.
Alas, the only ones with a built-in accurate asshole detector are the assholes themselves (have you never come to wonder how the two assholes in your life did hate each other at first sight, before you knew either was an asshole ?) and some advice columnists. That skill can be learned through experience, but what's the use of having at last a working asshole detector at 70 ?
Unless we have a lot of experience or are blessed with being raised by Dan's Mom, we can't even scan for all types of overt assholes, and most come under a disguise. Very rare are the non-closeted assholes.
While I agree that she needs to comunicate, it could be that he's fulfilled his biological imperative for her. She was relatively inexperienced when they got together, now she wants to explore. Toys first? With luck he goes along for the ride and it strengthens the relationship. But if the commitment is there, honesty is key and patience is your friend.
And #1, guy's an asshole, DTMFA yesterday.
The best example of an allumeuse I've encountered is Louise Leidner in Murder in Mesopotamia (which they really rather butchered when they filmed it by inserting Hastings; the novel is particularly interesting because it's narrated by the nurse, who views Poirot and the investigation through a medical lens, but who barely appears in the episode at all).
Quit being part of the problem.
That would be my interpretation as well.
I wouldn't mind at all being with someone who had another partner of either sex, but I would mind feeling that I was "the male one" or "the smart/cute/funny one" or "the drummer" in their roster of various different types.
Your own fair share of the childcare, for a start.
Then, try talking to him. If your needs have changed, and he's not meeting them because you're keeping it secret, the solution is not to start relationships with other people.
@27 lolorhone & @24 & @31 sissoucat: Right spot on!
@40 EricaP : and @43 seandr: I think I'm on the permanent het list, too, quirky as I am.
TIRED's letter did raise some humbling and personal questions for me to ask myself about jealousy and insecurity. I'm not jealous of others (really!), but......after just opening up my heart WIDE after all these years in Dan's previous column from last week ("Thrills and Spills", April 9th), I do have about 45 years' worth of my own insecure hangups to address and deal with. Thanks, Dan, and everybody, for hearing me out about my insecurities. My biggest emotional hurdle right now is my dealing with being sexually attractive again, after 22 years of being overweight / weight gain / poor diet (too many Big Macs and Mars bars). I am left to wonder if some of my self-induced insecurity could be a great sense of loss and vulnerability after the passing of both my beloved parents (each with hangups and insecurities of their own, too)?
Thanks, Dan, and everyone. You have given me ample food for thought.
Sometimes all I want is a bowl full of GF/SF Envirokids' Peanut Butter Panda Puffs and a good old fashioned dose of Josie and the Pussycats' reruns.
Excellent letters this week!
But this year, for me yesterday was just yesterday, an overcast drizzly Tuesday, also Tax Day, offering a Full Moon.
After soliciting my posters at WWU offering my music and tutorial services, Ireturned home after a few additional errands, watched Thelma & Louise, sang along with the killer soundtrack, and slept like a baby.
You're right---I do try to focus on what I can control (use of the Serenity Prayer usually works nicely for me, however overwhelming life's daily grind can still be at times).
I guess, upon retrospect, one particular bemusement nowadays for me is my brother's chagrin regarding my asserted but polite distance from our older sisters (my three sibs are within two years, nine months, and one week from each other in age, went to the same school and grew up together. By the time I started the fifth grade, they were already out exploring the adult world).
While I cannot change my sisters' and brother's ('Yeah, well, they're the only family we've got left!') stubbornly long-established overly critical views, at least I can appreciate my brother's acknowledgement otherwise that we're all adults, living our own lives, and facing the consequences for whatever choices and decisions we've made.
:)
Griz
Except, there's a child involved. Leave the relationship and mom going on a 'finding herself' expedition could leave a kid messed up as the family unit is going to be in flux for the next few years. On the other hand, stick around and the kid is going to receive the subconscious blame for keeping a dud relationship going. Kids are amazingly perceptive when it comes to this sort of thing.
Its a tough call. I don't have a definite recommendation other than other 18-20 year olds need to think about these sorts of things before becoming parents.
I mean it's not like he's a grown ass man who should be working his possible issues with a therapist. Or that blaming his girlfriend for something someone else may have done twenty years ago isn't healthy way to live.
Even if the boyfriend was a black, jewish, crippled, homeless, bipolar, poly-amorous, vegetarian, bisexual, transexual who was harshly discriminated against and abused as a child and who experiences "triggers" at the site of his girlfriend talking to other men, that doesn't mean anyone is obligated to take abuse from him, even if one can see a clear causal path from the social injustices he has experienced to his abusive behavior.
'you minimize the potential damage to her boyfriend's ego'
Why are we so worried about the boyfriend's (or husband's or any male sex partner's) ego?
You always hear that the male ego is so fragile. And that you don't want to hurt them. Is this just what women are told? Play nice and don't be too direct? Couch your criticism in a roundabout way?
So what happens? We go along to get along. Don't rock the boat. Don't say our wants and needs. If we do state what we want (delicately), then we are accused of being oblique and not direct.
Trust me, men have no problem saying what they want and being critical without any concern of the female ego. And they will do so without provocation. So why is it that we have to be concerned with the male ego when they are clearly not concerned about ours?
Decide what you want: direct or indirect. Pick one.
The line "Some (dumb) gay men are convinced that all straight-identified men are gay, bi, or persuadable" has really resonated.
Thank you Dan for spreading trans and bi phobia and ruining my marriage. My daughter is forever grateful!!!
Not sure if I should laugh or cry.
The line "Some (dumb) gay men are convinced that all straight-identified men are gay, bi, or persuadable" has really resonated.
Check out Savage Love during the 1990's when all men with just a slight deviation from the hetero-norm were immediately labeled as closet gays by the big kahoona himself, much to the disgust and disapproval of their oh-so-progressive girlfriends and wives.
Thank you Dan for spreading trans and bi phobia and ruining my marriage. Myself and my daughter are forever grateful, and Iām sure my ex and her lawyer are even more so.
Most likely: that you should take some classes, or get another job, or develop some interests outside of your boyfriend. This letter seemed obsessive. Why exactly does it matter if men are at all attractive to your boyfriend? Trying to hook up a threesome?
In order, this excerpt means that you don't trust your boyfriend. You don't want him to flirt with people who ignore you. And he doesn't like being doubted. I'm getting the impression that you are searching for problems, so turning your concentration may help.
Guitars, in sharps and flats!
Meet, greet, groovy songs,
Ev'rybody, come along......!
I tried to work out a deal with a couple of my exes, such that they could see other women if I could see other women. They absolutely refused to believe me and accused me of trying to trap them so that I could go psycho-jealous if they ever took me up on the offer. They didn't want to see other women. They wanted exclusivity, period. It just wasn't going to work out even if I offered to make it equal.
Now, I'm with a guy who is totally fine with me seeing other women, but does not want to do so himself even though I said it would be totally cool with me. In his mind, one girlfriend is enough of a handful without having to juggle two.
Of course, it's always possible to extend such a demand as a price of admission to the relationship, but anyone demanding an unbalanced relationship seems likely to run into trouble unless there is some highly desirable outside compensation on the table.
A man who loves his gf shouldn't and wouldn't stand for anybody (let alone someone in the service industry) disrespecting his date, especially in her presence. To me, THAT is the crux of the matter and not whether the bf is secretly gay.
[From a historical perspective, I remember being the only woman left at a party with a bunch of gay men. It was the early 70s, a time when gay men did their utmost to show their contempt for ALL women (which I can understand as a defence against the overwhelming heteronormativity of the times. It was very creepy.]
Now, you offered that deal to your lovers, so good for you. And your current guy doesn't want it, but presumably the option is available to him, should he change his mind.
You also have experienced the flip side of that coin, which is that for many people, monogamy is monogamy, period -- meaning one and only one person. ("One and only one" being synonymous with "me." Nobody wants to enforce monogamy on their partner that doesn't include oneself.) There isn't a special exemption to monogamy for being bi. FEM seems to be feeling put-upon and unfairly treated for her wanting one of each, rather than just one, not being received well. That's why I went there.
@lolorhone (and that goes also for auntie grizelda) : I'm sorry to hear you wish you were someone else somedays, since I totally like who you are today. But I know the feeling. Bad experiences are not something one relishes in having had, and we can always imagine that we would have turned out just the same human as for the good parts, but with none of our frailties, had we not had those bad experiences.
We can't change the past though. I've come to accept some of the stuff that happened to me as something that happened but should not limit me now. It takes time. But when I'm feeling low for other reasons, everything still comes back and I still grieve for the past sufferings and injustices. I don't know if that will ever fade, it hasn't after 25+ years.
In the meanwhile, when I'm not in an accute crisis time, I give myself plenty of love and acceptance for my little limits. Because who else will ever ? And I try to meet people whom I think are great. Musicians, yummy !
And lolorhone : if I were a guy I'd definitely try to bed you. Just to share good times and create great memories together.
BUT: I'm a terrible flirt with gay guys. For the reasons Dan mentions, and for another huge one: gay men are way more flirtatious than most women. Flirtation with a waiter is usually not preamble to sex, it's just a safe little ego boost. Gay men are great flirts, and (much to my chagrin), I seem to attract hotter men than women. So it feels great to flirt with gay men, even though it always comes with a little guilt, because I'm just a tease.
Another reason Dan doesn't mention, either. It's kind of safer, as a straight guy. I don't have to ask if I'm going to go home with this person, or if I'm going to want to but be unable to, or any of that shit. So it's safe, which makes it easy, which makes me a better flirt, which leads to more flirting from the guy, which leads to more ego boost.
Last point: Does it matter if he's bi? He's clearly attracted to you. He's human, and therefore attracted to other people, too, though that doesn't preclude commitment, in my mind. So what's the big deal? If you want to know for sure, he's going to have to tell you, and he's only going to tell you if he feels comfortable, if he feels like you'll be supportive of whatever his sexuality is. If you're doubting his sexuality to the point of writing a letter to a stranger who is going to post it to the internet, perhaps he doesn't feel he can tell you that he's bi.
With a handle such as yours, and the unforgiving destructive criticism you systematically develop in your comments, no wonder your ex found that being in a marriage with you was not a walk in the park.
No need to blame Dan or the full moon for your marriage's demise. If an article written by a "dumb gay" in the 90s was all it took to bury it, believe me your marriage had already been dead for some years.
Have you heard of the research that found that most of the internet trolls are indeed real-life psychopaths ?
Good for you to have a relationship with such an accepting guy, who will not impose on you to follow his own preferences.
So monogamous guys do exist. And the sleazy cheaters who promise monogamy, and then say when caught "no male can keep such a silly promise" are just that, self-indulgent liers.
I'm also not sure whether it's necessarily all roses in Picardy. Consider the first part of Torch Song Trilogy and Arnold's lament to Ed, "If I have to accept that you're seeing other people, then you have to accept that I'm not," and Ed's apparently finding Arnold's not seeing other people a bit stifling. This could even be a deliberate tactic on the part of the Accepting Boyfriend to keep his partner's outside encounters to a minimum similarly to the way that people with vegan partners tend to eat less meat themselves.
It might be interesting to hear whether people in the busier half of such an imbalanced relationship (not a cuckold situation, though, but the sort of partnership in which A grants B freedom A personally doesn't want without being invested in whether B takes it or not) fully enjoy it that way, would prefer ideally that their monogamous partner have at least the occasional step-out, or how they compare the situations.
@vennominon : props for including seandr in these very appetizing cogitations.
Ms Sissou - Happy to oblige; who else would make such an archetypally good choice?
I am curious, though. As you mention being willing to negotiate a relationship with joint outside freedom that was unilaterally declined, how long could accept such a gift before actively wanting your partner to take up his declined end of the bargain or at least cutting down on your own outside ventures. I don't think there's a right there, more just that someone with unilateral freedom who didn't request it but was handed it as a gift isn't necessarily in an entirely enviable position, although the offering of the gift from someone for who one partner genuinely is ample but has no qualms about reciprocity seems the best course of action.
The way I see it, both partners must discuss the nature of the relationship before having sex. If both have the same inclinations, then the relationship will of course follow the shared preference, be it monogamy or non-monogamy.
But when one is non-monogamous and the other is monogamous, then the nature of the relationship must be discussed and the one whose preferences are not chosen is free to decide not to engage in such a relationship. So no prude-shaming from me. If a monogamous guy decided that non-monogamy with me is not worth his time, I would find it quite normal and expected.
But my experience, and XiaoGui17's, has been that one authentically monogamous guy (not a fake monogamous guy, i.e. a guy who'd only be monogamous because otherwise it would shatter the relationship) did accept to engage in a long term non-monogamous relationship with me - that's surprising.
As for the feelings of the non-monogamous partner. In my case we did broke up, which was sad, but he's currently in a monogamous relationship with a monogamous person, which I find a better thing for him. I was very bothered to innerly feel like the least loving one, or even someone who was taking advantage of him, just because I had other partners and he had none. The one time he told me that a lady had flirted with him, and he had dared to flirt back a bit, was a welcome relief : at last he too was getting some of the happiness I was enjoying.
As for accepting as being a deliberate tactic to prevent me from having many more partners, I'd say it's illusory. Feeling uneasiness towards him never compelled me not to pursue any guy I wanted to pursue. I'd say the only effect was that I took care to reward him beautifully for being so accepting, in a sexual way.
As for how long. We first had a 2-year classic monogamous relationship which I broke up, on grounds regarding his relationships with my kids.
Then after much soul searching, on my part at least, I proposed a non-monogamous non-living together relationship, to which he entirely agreed - except he didn't want to become non-monogamous himself. It took me some time to become actively non-monogamous, since I'm pretty shy, but this second relationship was on for three full years before I once again broke it up over other stuff. We remain good friends as of now.
So I wouldn't know how long it would have taken for me to stop being accepting of his monogamy, when he was being so accepting of my non-monogamy. I'm not into controlling my partners at all, and we were not living together, so I don't think I would ever have become upset by his choice, as long as he wouldn't have been upset by mine.
And even people who are mono-by-inclination sometimes inadvertently fall in love with someone outside their relationship.
So I would say that in practice, sissoucat's approach of not trying to control one's partners is a good approach to navigating these relationship waters.
And, to illustrate your excellent point on how things don't have to happen the intended way... currently I'm single, despite being poly-by-inclination.
Being highly monogamous myself, and not ever thinking I had any right to ask for monogamy in return or having the inclination to ask for it, I didn't think my position deserved any extra credit. If anything, it probably counted more as a minus than a plus in my relationships.
Still from a monogamist standpoint I don't know which would be worse; jealousy or lack of companionship?
Wow, I didnāt know! Nevertheless, I do deserve some of this as I did dramatize my situation in order to get peopleās attention to the fact that in Savage Loveās early days things were not always as rosy and accommodating as they may seem today. Those were the years I finally came to terms with being āsomewhat differentā, and what I read here wasnāt always supportive and understanding.
Iām aware that Dan came around and actually always was a big fan. My offspring, a boy or a girl, is encouraged to follow this column, and I may be still happily marriedā¦or equally happily divorced. In any case, no lawyers are or were involved. Regardless, there are still painful memories every now and then and Iām glad I made at least one person being aware of them.
I did check my past comments here and donāt think theyāre really that negative, please check again. I also think that being labeled as an āinternet troll [who is] indeed [a] real-life psychopathā was a little harsh, but then again, maybe this is what I deserve.
Thanks for taking the time to comment, love, peace, and acceptance to all!
Translation: LOOK AT MEEEEE!!!
"Savage Loveās early days things were not always as rosy and accommodating"
Translation: SL has grown and improved into a more tolerant and reasonable person, but I just can't stop BEATING THIS DEAD HORSE!!!
"...what I read here wasnāt always supportive and understanding."
Translation: EVERYONE HAS TO REAFFIRM & SUPPORT MEEEEE!!!
"Regardless, there are still painful memories every now and then...maybe this is what I deserve."
Translation: I LIKE TO PLAY VICTIM!!! I TROLL TO GET HATE SO I CAN CRY ABOUT HOW MEAN EVERYONE IS!!!
I disagree, if only because it's extremely rare that the one special thing I want happens to be exactly the one special thing the other person wants as well. One should definitely offer to give *something* back in return, but I think the quid pro quo should apply the Platinum (not Golden) Rule. An open-ended counter-offer lets the other person select the aberration of his choosing, instead of extending an offer of permission to do the exact same thing I want (which he may not necessarily also want).
For instance, say that (hypothetically) I was a masochist who loved being kicked in the junk by stiletto heels, and I'd like permission to see a pro Domme to get that done. It's hardly going to thrill my non-masochist significant other if I give him reciprocal permission to also get the stiletto-heel-in-the-junk-on-the-side. But it may persuade him if I am willing to dress up as Rainbow Dash or whatever particular thing he likes.
Now, if it just so happens that he really wants what I want, naturally the offer includes that as well. It would be hypocritical if I (or the LW) wouldn't permit that. But I see nothing in the letter to indicate that the LW either precluded that possibility, or even that she necessarily didn't offer it. The boyfriend's comments ("He says he feels like he is not enough for me") indicate to me that he leans very strongly toward the monogamous dynamic, and thus likely would reject an offer of mutual non-monogamy if he received it.
Yet Dan has been ahead of the curve the whole time, and has played a huge role in pulling it forward.
I'm both kinda sorry at my knee-jerk reaction towards you, and glad I had it.
I did mistake you for Adversary, whose trollish nonsense had riled me up on another thread, though I had managed to not engage "it" then (don't feed the trolls, it only goes to their thights). Your comment's content was so Adversary-like I admit I did not check (always check !) to verify it was the exact same handle, before I unleashed my wrath unto you.
But then you've reacted to that attack in a thinkful and civilized manner, proving yourself not to be the abhorrent troll I thought. And I'm pretty glad that you did - because either this could be the beginning of a beautiful friendship, or the ending of you posting comments that reflect not much about your personal experience (so are you divorced or not ? do you have offspring or not ?) - while you could probably make a better use of your time and keyboard by telling us what's your real opinion over stuff, and help us understand more about the human psyche and sex.
As for the attention, hadn't you remarked yet that here the positive contributors get more of it than trolls ?