Slog Comments

 

Comments (34) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment
very bad homo 1
I want to sleep with someone else, but you can't! Waaaah!
Posted by very bad homo on November 27, 2012 at 11:36 AM · Report this
Urgutha Forka 2
$1000 says she fucked another girl anyway, did it without telling him, later she felt guilty and told him, and they split up.
Posted by Urgutha Forka on November 27, 2012 at 11:45 AM · Report this
BrotherBob 3
Or she slept with another woman already and wants retroactive permission.
Posted by BrotherBob on November 27, 2012 at 11:48 AM · Report this
4
@2: No bet, with one exception. I'll bet that when he found out she wasn't guilty, but presented it as his fault.
Posted by seeker6079 on November 27, 2012 at 11:49 AM · Report this
5
Apropo from the excellent film about the invention of the vibrator: "It could not have been an orgasm as a male member was absent".
Posted by wxPDX on November 27, 2012 at 11:49 AM · Report this
6
One of my all-time favorites. It's amazing how blind she is to the inequity.
Posted by jzimbert on November 27, 2012 at 11:50 AM · Report this
7
"One of my all-time favorites." Mine'd be the lad whose girlfriend wanted a threesome with a particular girl, she brought the girl home, was enraged when the boyfriend kissed the girl, and Dan's guest therapist who insisted that the first thing necessary was the boyfriend grovel and apologize before any objective facts or his feelings could be addressed. That was a fun one.
Posted by seeker6079 on November 27, 2012 at 12:23 PM · Report this
8
"You don't need to feel threatened by this stripper, dear. I don't want to have a relationship with her, I just want to fuck her.

...what, that doesn't work for you?"
Posted by avast2006 on November 27, 2012 at 12:54 PM · Report this
9
I wonder how these re-run letter writers feel about having their stupidity dredged up a second time and paraded around for an encore round of public humiliation?
Posted by avast2006 on November 27, 2012 at 12:58 PM · Report this
10
@9: I regret that they so rarely tell us.
Posted by seeker6079 on November 27, 2012 at 1:18 PM · Report this
11
To be a little more generous than the entitled WAGA deserves, there is another option: the boyfriend graciously lets her have something he can't have.

Everything doesn't have to be equitable and tit-for-tat in a relationship. So long as WAGA acknowledges the situation is unfair, and that her boyfriend is being super-cool and generous about the situation, then the boyfriend COULD say something like "okay, you can have your girl/girl experience, and the only thing I get out of it is clear and unequivocal acknowledgement that your boyfriend is being generous and loving and GGG (specifically "Giving")."

But the BF isn't obligated to be so super-cool and giving, so Dan's basic response is still applicable.
Posted by Functional Atheist on November 27, 2012 at 1:21 PM · Report this
John Horstman 12
@9: Their ideas are bad and they should feel bad. :-P
Posted by John Horstman on November 27, 2012 at 1:28 PM · Report this
13
But wait, I thought Dan Savage believes everyone should fuck whoever they want with no consequences, and no one should be able to complain about anything.

You lied to me, Tony Perkins!!!!
Posted by Catface Meowmers on November 27, 2012 at 1:31 PM · Report this
14
@11. That's true, and well-noted. One does tend to forget that people can consent to asymetry.
Posted by seeker6079 on November 27, 2012 at 2:05 PM · Report this
15
Hmm, it sounds like he's not jealous at the idea of her being with a girl, so I think Functional Atheist is right. The boyfriend may want to accept the unfairness as his share of being GGG.

But that doesn't have to be the end of the story. Maybe there's something they do together that's not as fun for her as it is for him? Or something he'd like to give up, or get more of? Suppose he likes getting pegged more than she likes doing it, or suppose she wants forty-five minutes of cunnilingus and he's worn out after ten... Maybe they could work this unfair benefit for her into their ongoing sex life in some way that leaves both of them better off.

Also, she should find out if he likes hearing about her fantasies of being with another girl. If he likes to listen to her fantasize about getting some pussy, then the odds are good that he'll cave eventually and let her go try some in real life.

Posted by EricaP on November 27, 2012 at 3:05 PM · Report this
16
It's strange to me how often "fairness" is discussed as if it is one of the highest ideals of a loving relationship.

Certainly the word is often stretched to cover ideas like "just", "reasonable", "equitable" and the like, but even then I am not sure it's not discussed with primacy it does not deserve.
Posted by From Each Lover By Their Capacities, To Each By Their Needs? on November 27, 2012 at 3:34 PM · Report this
17
I don't think it's "fair" if she sleeps with a woman and he sleeps with a woman. It IS true that him sleeping with a woman is more threatening to the relationship. And it's realistic that she would feel more threatened by him sleeping with a woman than he would feel by her sleeping with a man.

It's just..... weird that the guy in this situation responds not with "Sure, honey, that sounds hot!" or "No, I'm uncomfortable with you sleeping with someone outside our relationship." but instead with "IT HAS TO BE FAIR." Is he saying that just out of some attachment to the abstract idea of fairness? Because that's fucking stupid. If he really wants to fuck somebody else regardless of her activities, he should come out and say it. Otherwise, this idea of "fairness" in extracurricular sexual activity is pedantic bullshit.
Posted by dchari on November 27, 2012 at 3:37 PM · Report this
18
Whoops, @17, at the end of the first paragraph, I meant "than he would by her sleeping with a WOMAN**."
Posted by dchari on November 27, 2012 at 3:38 PM · Report this
19
@16:
It's strange to me how often "fairness" is discussed as if it is one of the highest ideals of a loving relationship.
I don't know about that but it's sure as dammit one of the highest prerequisites for a successful one.

@17:
It is true that him sleeping with a woman is more threatening to the relationship.
Why? If she's bi then the risk seems evenly balanced. Indeed, given that she's the one bouncing up and down to make this happen she is arguably the greater risk.
Posted by seeker6079 on November 27, 2012 at 3:55 PM · Report this
Alanmt 20
@16: What is "weird" is her double standard and how you seek to justify it.

It sounds like he trusts her enough to let her have a little fun, but she doesn't reciprocate that trust.
Posted by Alanmt on November 27, 2012 at 4:15 PM · Report this
21
What's astounding to me is how much of a completely bad-faith offer that was from her. She knows damned well that he isn't interested in sleeping with another man. To offer him that opportunity as if it were an honest attempt at compromise exposes her as a dishonest negotiator.

My version of "Gee I wonder how it all worked out?" is more like "How long did it take him after that to dump her for being a manipulative, con artist bitch?"
Posted by avast2006 on November 27, 2012 at 4:30 PM · Report this
22
If Craigslist is any indication, the double standard of "wife sleeps with women, husband remains monogamous" is alive and well (at least in the kinky cities of Seattle and Portland). Maybe that's why the LW has an irrational sense of entitlement?
Posted by wxPDX on November 27, 2012 at 9:19 PM · Report this
23
Ms Erica - Well, you certainly got into her sort of mindset, though she came across as the sort of person who would already be trying a variation on your good faith negotiations as a bargaining tactic. I think you have it backwards, though; you're almost coaching her to train him to become the sort of person who will "cave" and accept the role of being the monogamous partner of a polygamous partner. Even though I entirely accept your good faith in sincerely believing that most or nearly all straight men are genuinely wired the way you present them (and I've neither the expertise to contradict you with authority nor enough interest to put any force into disputing the point) and that her getting what she wants is for his own good if he'll just cave, I really don't see how this is all that different from the Polyman LW who started that whole conversation, especially as you seem to see this as an ongoing arrangement rather than a one-off, which seems to up the stakes considerably.

I suppose there could be some academic interest in the point of whether opposite-sex relationships with F-tilted dynamics are more acceptable than those with M-tilted dynamics because of patriarchy, but otherwise it still seems like a nasty thing to do.

It's late and I know I'm not being easy to follow, but anyone who has read the Thomas Mann story "Mario and the Magician" should be able to pick up my point.
Posted by vennominon on November 27, 2012 at 9:32 PM · Report this
24
@20 'What is "weird" is her double standard and how you seek to justify it.'

Oddly enough, I don't believe that I attempted any such thing. I happen to agree with #21 that the proffered compromise was so much bullshit and that it was extended and defended indicate real problems.

@19 'I don't know about that but it's sure as dammit one of the highest prerequisites for a successful one.'

My first reaction is to call this false on it's face, but it would probably be more interesting if you defined both "fair" and "successful relationship" and pointed to some examples. After all, heterosexual relationships disallow many standard meaning of "fair" with simple biology.
Posted by From Each Lover By Their Capacities, To Each By Their Needs? on November 27, 2012 at 11:41 PM · Report this
25
@24: Of course "fair" is important to the long term success of a relationship. If one partner starts feeling like they are getting the short end of the stick, or are being treated hypocritically by the other person, don't you think that's going to be a fairly significant stress on the relationship?

I will agree that a relationship doesn't (in fact can't) consist of 100% perfectly symmetrical, tit-for-tat transactions. Life is just too complicated for that sort of bookkeeping to even be feasible for each and every little thing. Hopefully everything evens out over time. But sometimes a given transaction is significant/controversial enough that you don't get to skate with a wink and a promise to make it up to them somewhere else. You need to make that specific thing come out "fair", that is, to come out so that both partners feel done-well-by as a result of that agreement.
Posted by avast2006 on November 28, 2012 at 12:07 AM · Report this
26
@25 Such, unresolved negative feelings will eventually poison any relationship, without the need for any objective or subjective concept of fairness required.
Posted by From Each Lover By Their Capacities, To Each By Their Needs? on November 28, 2012 at 12:55 AM · Report this
Alanmt 27
@24

My apologies; I meant @17, not @16.
Posted by Alanmt on November 28, 2012 at 5:45 AM · Report this
28
@27 Now you've done it... Our relationship is now inherently, and given that I am posting without an account probably irrevocably, unfair!

Still, without presuming the loving relationship I posited earlier, this does highlight things like communication, patience, contrition, tolerance, and forgiveness, that I might argue are more important than many of the common meanings of "fair" when applied to relationships.
Posted by Each Lover By Their Capacities, To Each By Their Needs? on November 28, 2012 at 9:00 AM · Report this
29
@28: I understand what you're saying, and I think the easiest way to put it is that it has to feel fair to the participants even if it's not "fair" in a universal, objective way.

For example, if a couple lived together but split up their expenses like roommates (everything exactly down the middle), I can't imagine the poorer one NOT resenting that arrangement. Because what's fair for roommates doesn't feel fair in a relationship.

As for the letter, I don't think it's particularly clear whether she wants a one-off just for the experience kind of deal or whether she's bi and wants to sleep with girls more often. I think it makes a difference- if she's hetero and just wants to fuck a girl to be able to say she's done it, I think it would change the response.
Posted by alguna_rubia on November 28, 2012 at 5:44 PM · Report this
30
Vennominom, I don't think he should cave. I think they should openly discuss the various ways they could make their sex life hotter. If he doesn't like where they end up, he's a free agent. I do think she's likely to go ahead regardless, and I think the same of the poly guy in the original letter. So their partners should decide if that's unacceptable. (The gf of poly guy had certainly made up her mind to leave him in that event.) I don't see any double standard.
Posted by EricaP on November 28, 2012 at 11:17 PM · Report this
31
Part of the problem, EricaP, is that you did use the word "cave". And it isn't exactly and uncommon occurrence in a het dynamic for women to use processing and discussion not as a means to reach a joint decision but to get the man to come around to their point of view. I don't think that there's a straight boy out there who hasn't been talked into compliance on some key view or other, not as a joint exercise in cooperation but as a successful process to secure adherence to what the lady' wants. That's why, for a lot of folks (myself candidly included) the word "cave" seemed to be an inch higher off the page than it's neighbours. That, and your position in that post does seem to be (paraphrased) `She wants it. He's made it clear he doesn't want it. She should talk at him in ways he likes until he does what she wants and won't let go.' There's no respect for his wishes and boundaries there, just advocacy of what you suggest will be a more successful approach for her to breeze right by 'em.
Posted by seeker6079 on November 29, 2012 at 9:49 AM · Report this
32
@29 Yes, and I can only imagine a couple trying to gestate a child in such a manner.

Still, I think I am asking you to take one more step, and consider if that feeling we need actually one of "fairness".

I agree with you that it is normal (and therefore the easiest way) to discuss these issues, but in so far as actual, objective fairness isn't what we really want, then attempting solve conflicts by appealing to it may be in part, or perhaps even totally wrong.
Posted by From Each Lover By Their Capacities, To Each By Their Needs? on November 29, 2012 at 10:01 AM · Report this
33
@ 32: You might be overthinking this, and, with respect, wrongly.

First, Most people's view of fair is reasonably straightforward: something that does not disproportionately favour one side over another. With respect, you seem to be delving into quasi-po-mo wordplay to evade that rather obvious general reality. [Just a personal note: it's also one of reasons that many people start looking for good hanging trees when postmodernists really get rolling. ;) ]

Second, it's just a variant on "don't be greedy" or "don't be a dick", which are necessary to settlement of almost any disputes in which you don't have the ability to enforce what you want.

Third, you say that "attempting solve conflicts by appealing to it may be ... totally wrong". I can only speak from many, many years of experience in law, social services and ADR when I tell you that you colossally more likely to be wrong than right. Any attempt to solve a conflict without addressing "fairness", however subjective, is usually doomed to failure.
Posted by seeker6079 on November 29, 2012 at 10:40 AM · Report this
34
seeker@31, good points. But as someone who has structurally committed to "caving" to my husband's desires, I obviously think it's possible to "cave" and still have a fantastic sex life. If he thinks it's intolerable for her to sleep with a woman, he should probably walk away from the relationship now, since she sounds determined to do so.

Maybe they should just break up, each sleep with other women, and then see if they can be mature enough to come back and discuss as equals whether they want to get back together and what the terms of that future relationship might be.
Posted by EricaP on November 29, 2012 at 1:06 PM · Report this

Add a comment