Apr 19 slinky commented on Savage Love.
Bother-in-law was intentional. :)

I'd like to say Bother and Sibling's married name is the Bickersons, but sadly that's not the case.
Apr 18 slinky commented on Savage Love.
SHUTOUT, my bother-in-law is a racist, sexist homophobic dipshit who has been appallingly ugly to me as long as they have been married to my sibling.

I don't make any effort to communicate with them, my communication with my sibling is limited, and I send presents to their kids and maybe talk on the phone twice a year.

If your inlaws are horrible people who go out of their way to make your life miserable, they haven't earned respect or any of your time. Your husband can see them on his own, in limited doses, and you can point to all the very valid reasons that you're not going to waste another moment of your life on people who deliberately tried to break you up.
Apr 18 slinky commented on Savage Love Letter of the Day: Caught Between Her Man and His Hot Friend.
@ 32, "This doesn't really seem like he's trying to pressure or manipulate her."

This is why I say it doesn't matter what his intentions are. The end result is that LW is not happy with the situation. It doesn't matter what the timeline of events is...if LW isn't happy, it doesn't matter if these encounters took place over a period of 6 months or 6 days.

And I disagree with you about him not trying to manipulate her...because after she shut him down when he was masturbating in front of her, he asked her for the ride home and when they were alone together and she had no way out, he started talking up the BDSM sessions, AND when she shut him down again, he told her to not let her boyfriend know. Isolating her, escalating, and then trying to get her to keep what he said to her a secret IS manipulative. If she feels manipulated, she needs to trust her gut.
Apr 18 slinky commented on Savage Love Letter of the Day: Caught Between Her Man and His Hot Friend.
"Whether or not B. is acting with intentional malice,"

This is a key point. It does not matter if B is deliberately trying to sabotage LW/Boyfriend or if he's only thinking about his dick or if (as 12 suggests) he has a paraphilia. The end result is the same.

LavaGirl @16, that's why I suggested the script of, "Since that night things are kind of weird." It leaves their history alone, is true, and gives everyone a constructive way out (if we are hanging out with him it needs to be together).
Apr 17 slinky commented on Savage Love Letter of the Day: Caught Between Her Man and His Hot Friend.
Lots to unpack in here.

LW, I suggest that you back away from B as fast as you can for the time being.

Twice you and B were alone together, and he came on to you. The first time he was actually wanking, yes? You told him no and it made you uncomfortable. If that were all that happened, then yeah, maybe a bit tactless since friends-of-friends are off-limits in your relationship but not a deal-breaker.

But then he did it again. And when B propositioned sexytimes at you, he deliberately isolated you from B, came on to you again, and then when you told him no he begged you to not tell your boyfriend because it would hurt your partners. Not YOU (the person he cornered in the car), but your partners. If you're feeling preyed on, it's because at least on some level you were. B could have asked your Boyfriend to drive him home, or taken an uber, or what have you. He didn't, he asked you.

What raises red flags to me is how B has done this twice now, deliberately isolating you and not taking your no for a solid answer. By isolating and escalating again, he's treating your no as an opening point to negotiation. Another red flag is by trying to trap you into secrecy, meaning trying to use shame to keep you quiet.

You did nothing wrong here. You, personally, have not broken any boundaries or rules of your relationship. Being attracted to a person is not wrong, and being attracted to a friend of your boyfriend is not wrong. Do you need to tell your boyfriend what happened? Yes, you should. You can say, "Since that night where we all had fun, it's been a bit weird around B so if we're going to hang out I want it to be with you." Do you need to go into sordid details? Maybe. I think you should be prepared to, especially if B continues doing this. Once is something you can handwave away. Twice is heads up. Three times is a pattern. If B keeps hitting on you or isolate-and-escalate, definitely tell your boyfriend.

There is a risk of imploding Boyfriend and B's friendship. But you're not the one who is undermining it. You've followed the rules of your relationship. If B's behaviour leads to him and Boyfriend having a falling-out, you're not the one who started the implosion...he is.

TL;DR, time to pull back from B.
Mar 29 slinky commented on Savage Love.
If LW1 wants to forgive and move on...then he has an important piece of information about his potential partner, meaning, if he wants something badly enough, potential partner will lie to get it. Whether it's tail or something else, that's something to be aware of.

"Wants something badly enough" could also translate to "is seriously ashamed or afraid of," and therefore potential partner lies and minimises and bends in circles around the truth (which I suspect is the case of the former boyfriend Ricardo @4 describes).

On a broader scale, not disclosing HIV status is *dumb,* not just for the potential partners, but for the HIV-infected people themselves. Herpes for an otherwise healthy person is not the world's best situation, but it's not life-threatening. Herpes for an immunocompromised person means the possibility of open sores, which can lead to other infections which are more serious. That obnoxious cold which has made an otherwise healthy person cranky and miserable can bring all world of nastiness down on an immunocompromised person. (This is equally true for any immunocompromised people...I have a friend with MS and I've cancelled on her due to possibly being exposed to a nasty strain of flu before. We were both disappointed but agreed it was the smart option.)

Anyway, LW1, if you decide to give this bloke another shot, get thee to your primary care provider, get tested, and get on Truvada.
Feb 13 slinky commented on Savage Love Letter of the Day: Facebook Stalking Pharmacist Questions His Ethics.
If you have to ask if it's okay, assume it's not okay.

Let these men have their privacy. Leave them alone. Block them on Facebook so that you don't see them, then go forth and stalk no more.
Feb 12 slinky commented on Savage Love Letter of the Day: Straight Guy Can't Win.

For any number of reasons, a cis dude can be very aroused and not have an erection. High blood pressure, certain medications, changes in physical response due to age, hormonal imbalances, nervousness, etc.

Sexuality and arousal are not located exclusively in the genitals. Someone kissing the back of your neck isn't in your genitals. Your brain tells your genitals, "hey! something's happening here". If someone touches your penis, your brain is what says "oh hey, sex time!" or "wtf no dog get your cold wet nose out of there!"
Feb 10 slinky commented on Savage Love Letter of the Day: Straight Guy Can't Win.
What #14 said, plus a couple of experiences of my own.

LW, if you're reading this, read it, think about it, and go see a professional after you've thought about it.

Recently I got to the point of Clothes Off with a guy whose dick was shy. He was into me, I was into him, we were having a good time but his dick just wasn't playing along. We had a lot of fun involving hands, toys, and oral, though, and I would have liked to have had some Clothes Off time with him again. Even with a shy dick, he was an amazing lover and one hell of a good time to be around.

But he was too ashamed by the fact that his dick was shy, and was upset that he'd disappointed himself and disappointed me (spoiler: on a scale of 1-10, my disappointment level was about 0.5) and was too upset to want to do me again.

Not me. Him. At no point did I ever imply that he was less than a man, or that he should be ashamed of himself, or that he was broken or defective. That was all his own issues in his own head.

If this sounds like you, please go get counselling. Locking yourself into a vicious cycle like this isn't healthy and it's not reflective of the real world in all its messy glory.

If you're a 40something man, then if you're dating women close to your age, probably you're dating women who have figured out how they like it in bed and also that things don't work as well at 40 as they did at 20. ASK THEM WHAT THEY WANT and then do that! And they'll most likely enjoy themselves! If they are the kind of person who can't get off without a vibrator, ask them how they like it, and do they want help using it?
Jan 6 slinky commented on Savage Love Letter of the Day: Trump Supporters Want Invite To Their Gay Wedding.
LW, you have to talk to your partner. There's no other way.

If money is an issue, or if your future mother-in-law's money is what is giving her leverage for inviting people you don't want, in my county of residence, a marriage licence and JP wedding will run you about $100 (including parking near the courthouse). Good suits are inexpensive and a simple rose boutonniere is about $10 each. Saying, "I would rather have a JP wedding than have XXX people you don't like there" is a bit of a nuclear option, but it's also the option that removes MIL's veto power over your guest list.

(A note from my own family: when my sister got married, we had several guests who were invited to the wedding because they were friends of my parents, and many of them only showed up because of the prospect of seeing my sister's matron of honour actually wearing a dress. You do NOT have to be like that.)

Moving on to another point. Are these Trump-supporting relatives somebody you will interact with on a regular basis, or are they cousins or something that nobody is close to? If the relative will be a brother-in-law, probably you can't cut your soon-to-be husband's brother from the guest list without heartache. If the relative is an uncle or great-aunt or someone more distant than a sibling, then the next option is, "Immediate family and invited friends only." People outside that immediate loop might be annoyed at being cut out, but the "immediate family and closest friends" boundary is something almost everyone will accept with grace. AND, more importantly, it makes it about you and your husband, and not politics. Even if the real reason is politics, that fig leaf is big enough to hide behind.

Good luck.