commented on SL Letter of the Day: Mind Control
As a straight guy, I appreciate that you feel it is wrong to violate my sexual integrity even in the recesses of your own mind. That said, get over it. As long as it stays in your mind, it ok.
Most of us have fantasies that would be inappropriate to act upon. That is what distinguishes fantasies from reality. It is hard, if not impossible, to rewire your brain away from favorite fantasies. One thing that might work is to try other fantasies that might appeal to you. You won't get rid of your original fantasy, but by broadening your interests it might take up a smaller slice of your erotic imagination.
In closing, if it helps to you to feel better about yourself you have my explicit permission to fantasize about how you can use mind control techniques that you have implanted into internet comment systems to take me over, bend me to your will, and take me from my wife and family as your sex slave.
It doesn't cost me anything, because it is all in your mind. My mind will be filled with my own disturbing fantasies that I will also not be bringing to reality.
commented on SL Letter of the Day: Walk The Talk
I add my voice to the chorus of "Slartibartfast is insane." @10
As a woman you need to accept the fact that countless guys you know have masturbated thinking about you. This includes almost every boy you went to high school and college with. It includes lots of older men who would it shock you to even imagine with their pants down. It's what we do.
It's also a reason why private thoughts are private. People are free to imagine whatever they want in the privacy of their own heads. There is no such thing as requiring someone's consent to use them in a fantasy. The gulf between what they are doing and people who involve others in their sex lives by acting out 24/7 domination games in front of others or who intentionally reveal other aspects of their sex lives is vast.
I do agree with you that what is happening is a little weird because the LW feels weird about it. That has to do with the LW and the boyfriend exclusively though, it has nothing to do with the rights of the other (ignorant) parties.
commented on SL Letter of the Day: The Missing Condom
FWIW I think your response was letter perfect.
The guy was clearly a douche bag and manipulating the situation and you made that clear. However, the letter writer facilitated what happened by choosing not to check, as she admits most likely due to her own desires and the heat of the moment.
commented on SL Letter of the Day: Get Your Twink On
I generally agree with Dan's advice, but this is a case where not having long term sexual experience with women really crimps his perspective.
Here is a sentence that really shows it is written by a man whose sexual experience is with other men: "If your relationship isn't sexless now despite your boyfriend's non-twink status, TL, I don't see any reason why his non-twink status places your relationship at any greater risk of sexlessness in the future." It makes perfect sense why Dan would say that because that is how men are. If we at one time wanted to fuck you, we will at all later times also want to fuck you. Women just aren't like that.
I predict that if this couple gets married they will be sexless within two years, perhaps earlier. It is extremely common for women to experience a loss in desire a few years after marriage. This is much less common for men. There is a reason why we hear about "lesbian bed death" and frustrated husbands in sexless marriages while we hear of plenty of gay male couples boning happily until one of them dies.
Her sexual interest in this guy is only going to go down. If it is already so low she can barely muster interest before marriage, there is just no chance her interest will last after marriage.
My own experience may shed a little light. Like the LW, my wife is bi and kinky. She also had an extremely extensive sexual history before we met. Unlike the LW, she has always been more attracted to me than I am to her.
Her high libido and attraction to me meant that we had a lot of sex before marriage. This continued for about a year after our marriage at which point our sex life died out. The conception of our first child is easy to remember because we only tried three times. Her libido returned during her first pregnancy. After our first child was born it seemingly left for good.
She got pregnant two more times which required a total of three tries. Obviously, each of those is easy to remember as well. Despite the fact that she wanted more than one child it required me to take sole responsibility to arrange for the conceptions.
Because she is also a Savage Love reader and podcast listener she seldom refuses if I request a blow job. However, she never initiates sex and generally does not want reciprocation. She would prefer to never have vaginal intercourse again. She no longer really considers herself bi (although she has had primary relationships with women in the past) and seems to have even given up looking at porn in the last year or so.
I don't believe this is because she is not attracted to me. Her nickname for me is "gorgeous." The fact remains that I made the tradeoff Dan suggests and married a person I was otherwise compatible with but who I was not very attracted to. Now I am married (with children) to someone I am not very attracted to who also doesn't want to have sex. This is true even though we started off with a more promising outlook than the LW gives in her letter.
It may be that the LW can have a happy marriage. Mine is generally happy and I love my children. Both of them need to be aware that if their marriage is happy it is despite the fact that it is sexless. The lack of my own sex life is a major problem for me. I stay married because I love my family and my children. If we did not have children I would have divorced her many years ago. Not because I don't like or love her, but because there is no point to a sexless, childless, marriage.
commented on The Problem with Polynormativity
I know this may sound shocking to a polyamory advocate, but she has to consider why these articles are written and read in the first place. The whole point is to find something sort of titillating to write about that will draw in readers and make them want to continue to read.
This means something slightly outside of their comfort zone while still seeming to apply to them and still within a stone's throw of their comfort zone. So in magazines oriented towards the mainstream this will mean behaviors that are pretty close to mainstream sexuality. If she wants articles about queer poly relationships those are going to appear in queer media for the same reasons mainstream poly relationships appear in mainstream media.
Seriously, as much as this issue may be her passion, this is seldom going to be an issue of hard hitting journalistic investigation and integrity. It's just a little bit of naughty human interest intended to move some magazines and provide for some clickbait.
This is true for every subculture so she really needs to get over herself. No one is going to take seriously nerd complaints about how cosplay is misrepresented in the media or hardcore knitters's complaints about how media focus on hipsters distorts coverage of what is really going on in the knitting world. Accurate articles about niche communities are for media consumed by those niche communities. For everyone else they are a momentary diversion.
commented on My Girlfriend Who Dies In California
Gay is one possible answer. The fact that he is Mormon is another. Mormons have all sorts of crazy chastity rules. Just read what it is like to be a student at BYU for an idea. He could have found an online relationship easier to reconcile with following his religious rules controlling chastity than an in person girlfriend who would have been perhaps too overpoweringly tempting.
Now, if he hadn't been a Mormon or really religious, I would agree that gay seems overwhelmingly likely. It still is probably the most likely answer, but there is enough reason to think there is an alternate explanation that I would hesitate to jump to conclusions.