Comments On: SL Letter of the Day: Hope Not Nope by Dan Savage

Comments On: SL Letter of the Day: Hope Not Nope by Dan Savage http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2012/05/14/sl-letter-of-the-day Comments On: SL Letter of the Day: Hope Not Nope by Dan Savage en-us Copyright 2013 The Stranger. All rights reserved. This RSS file is offered to individuals, The Stranger readers, and non-commercial organizations only. Any commercial websites wishing to use this RSS file, please contact The Stranger. webmaster@thestranger.com (The Stranger Webmaster) Sat, 25 May 2013 00:00:01 -0700 Sat, 25 May 2013 10:00:00 -0700 Foundation http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss <![CDATA[Re: SL Letter of the Day: Hope Not Nope]]>

I'd be okay--even aroused--by the thought of him being with another woman.

and Erica responded:

have you told him?

Not have you arranged a gangbang? Not have you opened up your relationship completely? Not have you changed into a sub-dom relationship like I have? Just, have you told your partner about things in your erotic imagination.

And somehow pastaefagoli and wendykh have turned it into Erica trying to get everyone to become masochists.
Posted by Canadian Nurse]]> Mon, 21 May 2012 19:25:38 -0700 The Stranger <![CDATA[Re: SL Letter of the Day: Hope Not Nope]]>
My life is not about maximizing safety. My life is about seeking out joy. There's a guy I now know, who bites my shoulders and back in a quite delicious way, and loves to feel my teeth on his cock. Don't know how long it will last, but it has been fun this year. Sadly, you don't think me having consensual painful sex is any better than having non-consensual painful sex. But I do.

Posted by EricaP]]> Fri, 18 May 2012 08:13:44 -0700 The Stranger <![CDATA[Re: SL Letter of the Day: Hope Not Nope]]>
Half of my fantasies I would never want to try in real life (or at least not this decade), so I definitely don't think fantasies have to become real. But in my experience just talking openly about fantasies helps build intimacy between two people.
Posted by EricaP]]> Fri, 18 May 2012 07:58:30 -0700 The Stranger <![CDATA[Re: SL Letter of the Day: Hope Not Nope]]>
From the beginning all I was trying to get at is that an arrangement that works for you because of yor personality, probably isn't going to work out as well for many other people and I don't thnink you see that.

Wendy said everything I was trying to say much more clearly.
Posted by pastaefagoli]]> Fri, 18 May 2012 05:41:28 -0700 The Stranger <![CDATA[Re: SL Letter of the Day: Hope Not Nope]]>
Since you can't appreciate when masochists say they're happy, of course you can't appreciate when I say I'm happy. I'm a masochist, so that's not a big surprise. But as it turns out, you have the perfect life for you, and I have the perfect life for me, and we can just both be happy that we don't know each other in real life.

Posted by EricaP]]> Thu, 17 May 2012 23:14:24 -0700 The Stranger <![CDATA[Re: SL Letter of the Day: Hope Not Nope]]>
You keep saying you have this fabulous sunshine and rainbows relationship now and are so thrilled about what's going on in your relationship that yes, every time someone expresses they find the idea of polyfuckery stimulating, you suggest exploring opening the union because you're just so fucking thrilled to be open and it's been so fabulous for you... but what you write sounds like absolute hell to many people. And many people can't get how you can call the experiences you frequently describe as an example of a "healthy" relationship or anything close to "fun." It's like there's this total cognitive dissonance from what you describe and how you say you feel about it. I'm not even talking the non-monogamy parts in and of itself being disturbing, but how it was negotiated (er, wasn't) and the near religious conversion to how supposedly "all men" want this so therefore you're fine because it's science, and logical and rational. No it's fucking not.

I can't even think of anything more disrespectful than to be married for over a decade and then inform your spouse you will be fucking others and they can fuck off if they don't like it. It's coercion to get someone in that deep and then throw that out, not to mention flat out saying "oh and I'm bored shitless of you in bed." What else does it mean when someone isn't sexually satisfied with just their spouse? If a spouse is so satisfying why would one want to fuck others with all the risk of the drama being with others brings? I know why mine did. Because he could. Once I got it through his fucking head he could have the rest or the best (his word, not mine) but not both, he sucked it up... and this was after several years of lying cheating, DADT, fully open, and semi-open arrangements which were occassionally successful but always brought too many other people to deal with into the mix. Note: We did NOT go back to monogamy because I was jealous. Far from it. He was more jealous than I was. We went back because we just really didn't need all those in our relationship and having to deal with our own individual quirks and dramas was quite enough.

I know you keep saying you are happy you didn't call your husband's bluff, and had such great adventures... but that's not what you describe. What you describe has often sounded like outright emotional and physical brutality. And he didn't have to do that to you, not that way. It was cruel and wrong and dressing it up in "science" and him expressing "his true self that all men want" is just utter poppycock dressing up a pig in a silk dress.
Posted by wendykh]]> Thu, 17 May 2012 18:44:14 -0700 The Stranger <![CDATA[Re: SL Letter of the Day: Hope Not Nope]]>
But if you believe you prefer monogamy, and only discover 14 years in that the idea of having to choose between divorce and never having sex with anyone else is horrifying... you're not a bad person. People change, and they don't belong to each other. Not really.

If I couldn't handle what my husband needed now (regardless of his vows in our 20s), we would divorce, and our property and custody of our children would be divided -- it wouldn't be the end of the world. But I've chosen to stick it out, and I'm happy with my choice. I've had some fun adventures with other people, and our sex life together is awesome. Much better, much less routine, than it was before he admitted he was struggling to stay faithful.

Hope that helps.
Posted by EricaP]]> Thu, 17 May 2012 07:47:01 -0700 The Stranger <![CDATA[Re: SL Letter of the Day: Hope Not Nope]]> Posted by pastaefagoli]]> Thu, 17 May 2012 05:26:11 -0700 The Stranger <![CDATA[Re: SL Letter of the Day: Hope Not Nope]]> Case in point: because I take issue with your nastiness and carelessness with demonstrable facts (hint: we can see exactly what people wrote!), you bizarrely assign opinions to me that you then spend the rest of your comment arguing against.

And swearing does not approach the level of the nastiness you were shoveling.

Gack. Enough. Life is too short.
Posted by aureolaborealis]]> Wed, 16 May 2012 15:08:15 -0700 The Stranger <![CDATA[Re: SL Letter of the Day: Hope Not Nope]]>
It seems that this forum is in near unanimous agreement that an asexual person should not enter a relationship with a sexual person only to lay their asexuality cards on the table years in (the bait-and-switch). Why then, is it so acceptable that a person pull the remarkably similar move of throwing out a "fetish-too-far" (multiple partners, etc.) years in? Maybe you want to, maybe you REALLY want to, but if your having multiple partners is going to hurt your spouse (in the same way that one parter's total withholding would hurt their spouse) than why is one a-ok in the eyes of this forum and the other is not? Personally, I think they are both wrong.

Discussion of these desires is, of course, encouraged. But to demand them is selfish and manipulative. There are fewer people who want open relationships (whether this is caused by societal expectations or not is moot), and I could imagine finding a primary partner would be that much harder. Same thing with asexuals. Why is one demonized and the other venerated here? I am really curious to know the answer to this.

(I know this is a blog dedicated to discussing issues regarding sex, however, I don't think that precludes holding logically consistent points of view.)
Posted by pastaefagoli]]> Wed, 16 May 2012 13:33:21 -0700 The Stranger <![CDATA[Re: SL Letter of the Day: Hope Not Nope]]>
@Erica: Bad swears were completely justified.
Posted by aureolaborealis]]> Wed, 16 May 2012 12:52:29 -0700 The Stranger <![CDATA[Re: SL Letter of the Day: Hope Not Nope]]> Your comment doesn't really address the letter in any way, but boy, did it make me smile. Thanks.
Posted by nocutename]]> Wed, 16 May 2012 08:11:44 -0700 The Stranger <![CDATA[Re: SL Letter of the Day: Hope Not Nope]]> Posted by geoz]]> Wed, 16 May 2012 07:54:51 -0700 The Stranger <![CDATA[Re: SL Letter of the Day: Hope Not Nope]]> Posted by vennominon]]> Wed, 16 May 2012 05:32:48 -0700 The Stranger <![CDATA[Re: SL Letter of the Day: Hope Not Nope]]> Posted by EricaP]]> Tue, 15 May 2012 22:52:23 -0700 The Stranger <![CDATA[Re: SL Letter of the Day: Hope Not Nope]]>
But to return to the Persimmons, one plausible reason for her not telling him might be that she'd want it to be his idea. It could be similar to the way that some people can't really enjoy a kink fully if they're just being obliged by partners rather than the partners getting into it of their own accord, only a little more stalemating. If talking him into it or even appearing to by raising the subject drains the fun from the fantasy, she's trapped in the corner unless/until he develops the taste and raises the subject or at least opens the door. Or, as I said earlier, perhaps the idea is too new to her for her to be ready for the possible developments. Sharing a "we" fantasy as soon as it hits one may be one thing, but a "you" fantasy has a much higher potential for an "icky" burden.
Posted by vennominon]]> Tue, 15 May 2012 22:34:40 -0700 The Stranger <![CDATA[Re: SL Letter of the Day: Hope Not Nope]]>
> Unless both partners are equally on board, I think it's a bad idea

Realistically, people don't get to the same place at the same time. If both people have to share a kink/fetish/fantasy before anyone gets to bring it up, then everyone will be stuck with just missionary and oral until the end of time.

People get to bring up their fantasies, even if the other person might think that stuff is icky. GGG means listening, and trying to understand the seemingly icky stuff. And then turning around and sharing your own possibly icky fantasies with your partner. Yes, it's scary. But the alternative is waking up in your 40s to realize that you can't satisfy each other any longer because you're too set in your ways.
Posted by EricaP]]> Tue, 15 May 2012 19:29:56 -0700 The Stranger <![CDATA[Re: SL Letter of the Day: Hope Not Nope]]>
I didn't realize that dissenting opinions had no place on this blog.

But for the record, I never said people shouldn't communicate their fantasies and desires to their partners. Sometimes, the right thing to do is to go without.

If I make a monogamous commitment, I'm sticking to it, and I expect my partner to do the same. Slip-ups happen, but to throw out a "need" for ongoing fucking on the side years in is selfish. I can forgive an affair, I can't forgive a spouse who puts their wants so far ahead of my emotional security and the family we've made together.

The thought that any fleeting interest in outside sexual relationships should always be seriously considered and discussed seems absurd. Crushes happen and people get past them. Opening the door with no particular person in mind lets jealousy and insecurity come waltzing on in.

Unless both partners are equally on board, I think it's a bad idea and bad advice.

But I guess these opinions have no place on Dan's blog, so I guess I'll have to leave!
Posted by pastaefagoli]]> Tue, 15 May 2012 18:51:24 -0700 The Stranger <![CDATA[Re: SL Letter of the Day: Hope Not Nope]]> Posted by My Name Here]]> Tue, 15 May 2012 17:21:10 -0700 The Stranger <![CDATA[Re: SL Letter of the Day: Hope Not Nope]]>
If I encourage people to talk about their desires and fantasies with their partners, it's because I'm trying to change the culture.

Yes, I think those changes may lead to more extra-relationship sex, as well as more happy sex within each relationship.

No, I don't think talking about desire and fantasies destroys otherwise strong relationships.

Yes, I encourage everyone to open up to their partners about their desires so that years of trust and communication can help relationships survive the crises that will inevitably happen.

No, I don't encourage happily monogamous couples to be non-monogamous.

Posted by EricaP]]> Tue, 15 May 2012 17:09:51 -0700 The Stranger <![CDATA[Re: SL Letter of the Day: Hope Not Nope]]>
Do you honestly disagree with what I said, or is that not personally how you feel regarding the situation I presented?

Whether or not the majority of people would be 100% comfortable with sharing their partner had they been raised in a society that was permissive of or actively encouraged that behavior is beyond the scope of my argument.

All I'm saying is, as it stands right now, most people would have negative feelings when confronted with a partner's intentions to have sexual relations with others, regardless of their feelings on the matter.

Doesn't that sound right?
Posted by pastaefagoli]]> Tue, 15 May 2012 15:04:07 -0700 The Stranger <![CDATA[Re: SL Letter of the Day: Hope Not Nope]]>
You don't need to respond to my comments, you certainly shouldn't feel the need to get defensive and aggressive if this situation works for you.

Most people seem to appreciate hearing your perspective on relationships, I find it interesting, but way on the outside of the bell-curve of relationships in society today. I remember your story, and I notice the advice you give to others. I often disagree with it, and thought that in this situation it did not apply.

I'm sorry your husband was dying inside for lack of access to multiple sexual partners. I do not like to believe that monogamy causes most people die inside. I'm the more adventurous of my duo (would like perhaps to have a threesome, or go to a swinger's event and just play with each other) but I gladly give up those things for my partner. If I loved him less, perhaps I wouldn't. Here's to hoping that never happens!

I just wonder why you suggest opening up relationships to so many people, when you yourself have said that you would have preferred a monogamous arrangement? Not all partners will walk away, and some partners that would are not worth keeping.
Posted by pastaefagoli]]> Tue, 15 May 2012 14:56:47 -0700 The Stranger <![CDATA[Re: SL Letter of the Day: Hope Not Nope]]> Posted by avast2006]]> Tue, 15 May 2012 14:47:30 -0700 The Stranger <![CDATA[Re: SL Letter of the Day: Hope Not Nope]]> Posted by chiMaxx]]> Tue, 15 May 2012 14:45:46 -0700 The Stranger <![CDATA[Re: SL Letter of the Day: Hope Not Nope]]> Posted by avast2006]]> Tue, 15 May 2012 14:44:55 -0700 The Stranger