My boyfriend and I have "history." We dated casually and weren't ready to stop seeing other people, so we had an open relationship. This phase was awful: lots of fights, a couple minor breakups, and eventually I called it quits for good, cutting off all contact. A month later, we started talking again and decided to commit for reals. No fucking around this time. This is his first monogamous relationship, and while he claims to miss the variety, he says he wouldn't trade having me for having it.
Here's my question: I'd like to have a three-way. While I trust him, I don't want to make it seem like it's okay for him to fuck around again. Is this too dangerous a proposition?
One More Time
Full disclosure: I'm on an airplane, under the influence, and in coach (which means I'm typing with my computer resting on my chest). So this week's advice is sure to be extra sucky.
Okay, OMT, if you make the mistake of having a three-way, you could wind up fighting, breaking up, and calling it quits all over again. But all of that could happen if you make the mistake of not having that three-way. And then, my God, just think of it: You would have gone through all of that again without having a three-way.
Err on the side of the three-way.
People in monogamous relationships get cheated on, OMT, even though their partners understand that it's not okay to fuck around. So keeping the relationship officially monogamous doesn't necessarily protect you from infidelity. Keeping it honest, keeping it communicative, and being in a relationship with someone trustworthy does.
After you discuss this with your boyfriend, OMT, if you believe him when he swears that he can be trusted—when he swears to fully understanding that he'd still be in a quasi-monogamous relationship (you only have sex with other people together)—then why not satisfy his desire for a little variety and your desire for a three-way, aka "a little variety"?
For the past six months, a very attractive, put-together auburn-haired man has come to my attention, but I have not done anything about this because he is a total stranger. He waits at the same bus stop as me in the morning. We also transfer to the same streetcar. I've been dating other people since I've noticed Hot Bus Stop Man, but no one incredible, and I can't seem to get Hot Bus Stop Man out of my mind.
I've only made eye contact with this cutie a few times because I'm not in the habit of asking complete strangers out. This morning, though, I attempted a smile in his direction, although I can't be sure he saw because, of course, I was trying my best not to look at him and give myself away. What else can I do?
Girl Crushing On Hot Bus Stop Man
I'm only running your insanely boring letter on the off chance—two very off chances—that HBSM is (1) a reader and (2) not a fag. Hopefully, he is and isn't, respectively, will recognize himself, and will ask your demure little ass out. (If you're reading and you're gay, HBSM, compliment GCOHBSM's new shoes the next time you see her and put her out of her misery, okay?)
If he's not a reader, GCOHBSM, you'll just have to risk saying something to him. Try "Hello." Then smile at him—at him, not "in his direction"—and give yourself the fuck away, already.
Rick Santorum is definitely running for president. A member of a forum I frequent referred to him as "Senator Frothymix." You should refer to him as such if you mention his presidential hopes in your column.
That Is All
Oh, right. Rick Santorum.
About a year ago, when Santorum first leaked... er, signaled... his intention to run, I asked if any of my readers had a desire to blog at www.spreadingsantorum.com, my long-dormant Santorum-bashing/redefining blog. It's still the number-one internet search result for "Santorum" and "Rick Santorum." (This has been described as Santorum's "serious Google problem" by political reporters and bloggers.)
Anyway, people wrote in and volunteered for the gig, and I somehow lost all of the e-mails. Sorry about that. If there are still folks out there who want to blog about Santorum at the number-one site for his name—people who want to be a part of Santorum's Google problem—and want to do it for free, please write me at firstname.lastname@example.org.
Men enjoy porn, but women don't. Here's something women enjoy that men don't: vibrators. Just as men feel threatened by vibrators ("My cock isn't good enough for you?"), women feel threatened by porn ("My tits aren't good enough for you?").
And when women cry, "What if the children found those stashed in the garage?!" men can respond, "What if the children found your vibrator?!"
Desires Erotic Balance should use a vibrator while her boyfriend uses porn. They should also film it and put it up on the internet.
Vice Is Barely Erotic
Yeah, vibrators are probably a better example of something dirty that women enjoy and (most) men do not—certainly better than cupcakes with pink sprinkles. I stand corrected. (But most people don't have incriminating porn stashes in the garage these days, VIBE, they have incriminating browser histories.)
And speaking of vibrators: Taylor Momsen—one of the stars of Gossip Girl—recently "divulged" to Disorder Magazine that her "best friend is her vibrator." Fox News wrote up the "scandal," of course, but got quotes only from antisex nutters: batshit Catholic reactionary Bill Donohue, conservative radio yakker Michael Medved, an elderly grandmother who runs a parenting organization, and some douchebag from the National Center for Biblical Parenting who predicted that Momsen's actions "will result in failure in her life."
There are no quotes—in the interest of fairness and balance—from anyone who doesn't see vibrators as battery-operated tools of the devil. No one is allowed to point out that sex toys are common, completely mainstream, and safe for use by young women. A vibrator is a low-risk alternative to intercourse with, say, Chace Crawford. (No risk of pregnancy, disease, or Axe body spray.)
It's true, Bill Donohue, that the young lady isn't old enough to walk into a sex shop—or as Fox News so delicately put it: "[Momsen] is not legally of age to enter venues that sell sexual paraphernalia." She is, however, over 17—that is, of legal age to consent to sex in New York.Anyone old enough to have a dick in her twat is old enough to have a vibrator in her nightstand. And social and cultural conservatives are apparently unaware of e-commerce—Amazon has a nice selection of vibrators.
Young ladies who want a vibrator don't need to be of legal age to enter venues that sell sexual paraphernalia. All they need is internet access and a credit card.