Follow Dan

Facebook    Twitter    Instagram    YouTube
Savage Lovecast
Dan Savage's Hump
It Gets Better Project

Savage Love Podcast

Got a question for Dan Savage?
Call the Savage Love Podcast at 206-201-2720
or email Dan at mail@savagelove.net.

Savage Love Archives

More in the Archives »

More from Dan Savage

More in the Archives »

Books by Dan Savage

Want a Second Opinion?

Contact Dan Savage

Savage on YouTube

Loading...

Shit Storm

April 20, 2011

My wife and I have been married for a few years and are expecting our first child. I'm really into the idea of being sprayed with my wife's breast milk. The other night, she was fretting about when her boobs are going to start leaking. This seemed like a good time to bring it up, so I told her about my newly discovered lactation fetish. She freaked out-her comments were along the lines of "Gross!" and "That's not what that's for!" This is something I'd really like to explore, but I don't know how to reapproach the subject.

Man Into Lactation Kink

Not all pregnant women, however thrilled they are about having children, are excited about—much less excited by—the physical changes that come with pregnancy. So you might wanna keep your mouth shut until your wife has some time to get comfortable with her new boobs, MILK, and their new milk-producing superpowers.

Once the kid is out and the milk is in and your wife has fully recovered from the birth experience and you start fucking again... you should probably keep keeping your mouth shut. The wife won't have forgotten that conversation, I promise you, and if she comes to see her breast milk as a bodily fluid like so many others, i.e., one of those fluids that adults sometimes share during sex, perhaps she'll warm to breast-milk splatter play.

But don't take my word for it, MILK.

"Before I had a baby," said a new mother I shared your letter with, "I would've had the same reaction—gross! I would've wondered if my husband has unresolved mother issues. The idea of sexualizing a bodily secretion that's designed solely for my infant? That seems a bit taboo. But now that I've had a baby, my reaction would be somewhat different."

How so?

"It can be a challenge to feel intimate after childbirth and as sleep-deprived new parents," said the new mom. "So I'd perhaps shrug and summon my new mom mantra: Whatever works."


I am a 25-year-old lesbian. I've been with men before, but I never really liked it—penises freak me out. My coworker recently asked me to have a threesome with him and his boyfriend using a strap-on. I'm intrigued. They're both very attractive, and I would like to try it, if only for the story. But I'm worried that TWO penises will really freak me out. I also worry that my strap-on skills, while great for the ladies, would bore two 6-foot-2 gay men. Do you think I should do it? Can you recommend a way to get over my penis fear? Is it a bad idea to try this out with a coworker?

Intrigued But Scared

I think you should do it—and you knew I would think you should do it, which leads me to believe that you wanna do it, otherwise you would've written to any one of the hundreds of don't-do-it advice columnists out there. (Prudie would've made some great assfucking puns but almost certainly would've told you not to do it.)

Office affairs can get messy—but the messes are likelier when the romantic stakes are high. There are no romantic stakes here, IBS, and as long as you're both mature enough to separate your work relationship from your strap-on relationship, I don't see why you shouldn't satisfy your curiosity, theirs, and mine. (I'm curious what their height has to do with anything.)

As for your fears and insecurities: Tell the boys in advance that dicks scare you, let them know there might be some nervous laughter, and remind them before you start not to point those things at you. Then enjoy, take pics, and send a full report—my readers are going to want to know how it went.


I spent a long time in a relationship with a wonderful man who had a very low libido. I know how challenging it can be when you are not sexually satisfied in a relationship. I have started seeing a new gentleman. After several weeks, he confided that he enjoys being defecated on. I told him I didn't know that I could accommodate him but I didn't think any less of him. He seemed relieved that I wasn't judging him and genuine when he said he wouldn't want me to do anything I was uncomfortable with. I am wondering if by denying this kink I am being unfair or, worse yet, leaving him feeling unsatisfied in the way my ex made me feel. He has not pushed it, but I want to know if my refusal to do this negatively impacts my GGG assessment.

Clean Sheets Enthusiast

No, CSE, it does not. People should be understanding, indulgent, and GGG—"good, giving, and game"—and a partner's reasonable fetishes, kinks, and quirks should be accommodated. A thing for feet or crossdressing or bondage? Totally reasonable! Accommodate away! A thing for shit or animals or seitan? Unfuckingreasonable.

It's wonderful—I suppose—that your boyfriend felt safe enough with you to share this info, and he's probably thrilled that you didn't, er, dump him on the spot. (Prudie could've come up with something better.) But the internet was invented expressly to remove guys like your boyfriend from the dating pool. Kink personals sites make it possible for people with unreasonable fetishes to find partners who share their unreasonable fetishes. That you're still seeing him, and calling him a gentleman, is the best he could hope for from someone he didn't meet on a shit and/or seitan fetish website.


I'm a 23-year-old male who is bi-curious/pan-curious/post-gender-curious. I have recently found myself attracted to penises, but I don't feel like I'm attracted to any specific men. If you showed me a cropped shot of a hard cock, I'd get aroused. If you showed me a picture of the whole guy, no arousal. Many of my friends are very into the post-gender/post-modern cultural-studies mind-set. In college, a time in my life when I felt no arousal looking at male genitalia, they mocked me for considering myself straight. I'm wondering if the disconnect of attraction toward the male sex organ but not men is the product of simply training myself to break down the assumed straightness I've spent most of my life living. I am fairly picky, but I meet many women I am attracted to. I really like the general idea of having sex with a guy, just not any specific one. Am I just trying to be a sexual tourist? Am I valuing queerness for the sake of it? Maybe my trepidation toward sex with a man is from the general societal constraints put on male-on-male loving?

Cock Observer Laments Disconnect

Or maybe you're straight.

Lots of straight men like to look at cock, COLD, which is why there's so much cock on display in porn created by and for heterosexual men. Straight men can identify with those hard cocks and live vicariously through them. But very few straight guys—no truly straight guys, many straight guys would argue—make the leap from admiring and/or being vicariously aroused by cock to actually sitting on one and/or finding other men attractive.

Accept that you're straight, COLD, pursue the women you're attracted to, and stay the hell away from heterophobic post-gender/post-modern/pan-sexual cultural-studies majors whose immaturity, self-loathing, and anger all manifest in a refusal to accept that a good guy can also be a straight guy.


Find the Savage Lovecast (my weekly podcast) every Tuesday at thestranger.com/savage.

mail@savagelove.net

 

Comments (258) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment
Canuck 1
Re: teh Milkman: Here's the thing, when your milk "lets down," you can't just stop, it would be painful, like asking a guy to stop peeing halfway through...so, I used to say, "If you're going to start that side, you'll have to finish it."
Posted by Canuck on April 19, 2011 at 5:57 PM · Report this
wingedkat 2
You know, I simply do not understand why people think that a good time to mention sexual attraction to something is when their partner is vocally fretting or stressing over it.

That seems like the worst time to me. Wait until they're calm and relaxed, and not actively reacting to whatever it is in a negative way.
Posted by wingedkat on April 19, 2011 at 6:05 PM · Report this
mommyducky 3
haha i like the milk one. My daughter had a hard time latching on and sometimes getting the milk to start flowing would be an issue. One that my husband was always more than happy to help with. Even when I eventually realized my daughter would not take the milk directly from the source and started pumping and bottle-feeding her my milk, my husband helped a lot to maintain my supply (when I learned that pumping was decreasing my supply as the suction from the pump was not as effective as from baby...or other human).

So hey, she might be freaked out now but it's likely that once the baby comes out and the milk starts flowing, she may change her mind and realize it could be more fun than gross (and it could occasionally be helpful).

I've always gotten the impression that breast milk was a little gross but it's actually really not. at all. but as a first time mom, it's a little uncomfortable in the beginning. she just needs time to adjust and she'll be fine. I was. :o)
Posted by mommyducky on April 19, 2011 at 6:15 PM · Report this
4
Breastfeeding can take some work in the beginning. Sometimes it's a supply issue or a poor latch. Cracked, bleeding nipples are also a common problem too when momma and the newborn are new to nursing. MILK should support his wife's efforts to nurse, say by attending a lactation class with her before the birth. And then maybe once she and baby have the nursing down pat, MILK can share the windfall.

My husband never showed any interest in my breastmilk... but one day when we were fooling around, he got sprayed. And he enjoyed it. I was more than happy to oblige. But when you're nursing, sleep deprived, recovering from childbirth/a c-section, etc. it's hard to see your breasts or post-partum body as sexual.

So I agree with Dan to take it slow. By the way, the OB usually won't give you the OK to resume vaginal sex post-partum until after the 6 week check-up. Just be super-supportive and she may come around with sharing the milk!
Posted by amomma on April 19, 2011 at 6:18 PM · Report this
5
I can only hope that the Milkman's wife is blessed with a good enough supply that if she does have interest in helping him fulfill his fantasy, they can afford to indulge. I've been breastfeeding my baby for a few months now, and I fight for every drop -- I don't consider my milk gross, but no way am I wasting my precious scant ounces on sex play. They are going into my baby, period. My husband can find some other way to get off.
Posted by AllieP on April 19, 2011 at 6:28 PM · Report this
6
For MILK: This is only going to work once.

As Dan said, he needs to shut the fuck up about the whole lactation gets me hard thing. She's not going to forget the squick, but after the baby comes and she's sleep deprived beyond measure, it will likely slip to the back of her conciousness. Once your back to fucking (post baby) and not the first time because god knows that time hurts about as much as giving birth, asssuming you can get her to take off the nursing bra even at night, focus on getting your wife off. Whatever gives her the best feel it down to the sole of her feet orgasm. She will likely spray like a fountain, if the orgasm is really good, she won't even realize it until after the fact.

With each of the 3 kids, orgasm made my milk let down. It was uncanny. My husband thought it was disgusting, so I would clutch a towel to my breasts when I climaxed.
Posted by catballou on April 19, 2011 at 6:35 PM · Report this
saxfanatic 7
I have never been in a relationship with a nursing woman. However, my partner has told me that when she was a young mother her boobs were absolutely off-limits to all but her precious offspring. Apparently she was quite fierce about this.

Who knows how something this primal will play out in any relationship.
Posted by saxfanatic on April 19, 2011 at 6:51 PM · Report this
8
I have to reiterate what #4 and #5 said--breastfeeding can be a struggle. Be supportive of her efforts and let her establish her supply and then if she has enough to spare maybe she'll be game. Or maybe not--for hormonal reasons lactating women are often uninterested in sex.
Posted by Mary Mary Why You Buggin on April 19, 2011 at 7:23 PM · Report this
9
When I was nursing, I had ZERO sexual sensation in my nipples. I did before my daughter was born, and I did get it back eventually. Also, I was totally "touched out", meaning after having my beautiful daughter/little monster attached to me all day, cuddling with me/clinging to me, the LAST thing I wanted was to have my breasts touched.

I did also eventually discover my husband's hidden porn stash- I have no problem with him having a stash, but... I found that his main fetish was lactating women. Not only did this gross me out, it pissed me off- because after that, every time he bitched and whined about having his sleep interrupted, or how the baby needed something and could I take care of the baby, or etc... all I could think about was the fact that he was getting off watching me, and I was doing all the work.

Post partum women are not to be messed with. They bring cranky and irrational to a new level, and that is just the way it is. MILK needs to keep his mouth shut about this issue. For years. He may get lucky, because, like the previous poster said, the same hormones that cause orgasm contractions, also cause milk to let down. He needs to feel thankful if that happens, and also feel thankful if all he ends up with is a wife and new mother.
Posted by sarah_anonymous on April 19, 2011 at 7:35 PM · Report this
10
Mr Savage, you overrate the Prudecutor. Her puns, taken by themselves, are generally passable, but she indulges herself far too often and lets the puns overwhelm anything serious she might say in her responses. If I were feeling less charitable, I could say she uses the puns to cover up that she has extremely little substance on offer.

A classic example was the letter from a woman who worried that her husband might be becoming more attached to his best friend than he was to her. Somewhere in the middle of all the Brokeback puns she could conjure, the Prudecutor's only piece of actual advice was to ambush the two of them by asking the friend to come see a film and then show you-know-what. Perhaps cute in fiction, but what a sign of a spiteful soul. Interestingly, to tie this together with the recent SLLotD, the Prudecutor and about half of the intelligent commenters revealed their adherence to the view of sexual orientation as a two-sided coin weighted to land on S rather more often than on G. The B word never came up until I mentioned it myself, only to be rather quickly shot down, much to my surprise.
Posted by vennominon on April 19, 2011 at 8:19 PM · Report this
11
I liked the last letter. Bit of a new theme for Dan.
Posted by slidebone on April 19, 2011 at 8:28 PM · Report this
12
wow number nine, that sounds great... Why anyone would want that experience I will never know. No kids, no pregnancy and dear god no cranky, selfish, entitled new mothers. I'm sure your husband had a fantastic time as well. Go team.
Posted by Tengu on April 19, 2011 at 8:32 PM · Report this
13
As a college student with communication studies majors friends:

"heterophobic" is my new favourite word.
Posted by Canadian eh? on April 19, 2011 at 8:35 PM · Report this
14
Regarding "establishing the milk supply," that supply responds to demand. Dad ain't going to deprive the baby of nothing. If anything, the additional activity will only encourage more production, which will be to the baby's benefit. "Every drop goes to the baby" is, if anything, counterproductive.

For that matter, If Baby is having trouble early on, Mom may well need Dad to help out during the early days, lest she suffer painful engorgement, come down with impacted milk glands, or mastitis; or alternately, her milk supply goes down from lack of consumption. Pumping is NOT as good as human intervention in this respect, even adult human intervention. (However, be a little careful, because overproduction is what causes engorgement and if your activities are too enthusiastic, you get too much production, you have a negative feedback loop going.)

The simple answer is, just let it drop. If you have sex while she is lactating, provided it's reasonably good sex, you WILL get sprayed. (Unless she gets all irrational and tries to cover up to keep it from you -- which would be pretty shitty of her, since milk that goes into the nipple shields isn't going into the baby, it's just going to waste.) Relax, it'll happen.
Posted by avast2006 on April 19, 2011 at 9:58 PM · Report this
devon rocketship 15
@9.. Wow. If your marriage hasn't failed already by the time I write this - and guessing by your incredibly bitchy, selfish, and holier-than-thou attitude, I'm sure it has - you need to keep YOUR mouth shut, for years. And hopefully you're petty jealousy, insecurity, and anti-GGG sentiments wont rub off on anyone else.

@2 Why wouldn't that be a good time to mention it? If I was insecure about something, and I mentioned it to my partner, who replied with, "actually, that _____ really turns me on." I would be not only relieved, but overjoyed.

"Baby, umm.. I think my penis is too small and it's bent weird and I'm really insecure about it."

"Well actually I think small bent penises are really really hot and that just makes me want you even more!"

"What?! How dare you say such a thing when I'm trying to be insecure about myself?!"
Posted by devon rocketship http://swimtothemoon.livejournal.com on April 19, 2011 at 10:00 PM · Report this
16
Anybody else think "irritable bowel syndrome" when they saw LW initials as IBS?

I'm such a child at heart.
Posted by carrot on April 19, 2011 at 10:50 PM · Report this
17
@14 nailed it. Milk let down is all about the suction. Many babies have trouble latching on and a free flowing milk duct could be very beneficial and give the baby an advantage. Maybe Milky should play that angle, and get some milking in early.

I call bullshit on the that's not what that is for' bullshit. What about buttholes? Semen toothpaste? Tampon string floss? Lots of fluid gets exchanged that is 'not what that is for.' Maybe read up on convincing a woman to have anal sex would help? Yeah, this is for her and the baby and it will feel great! Nothing to do with your fetish you know. Approach it by eating her until she almost cums and then moving to the chest for nipple play....

#9: Illness is no excuse for the practice of hateful vice and intolerable behavior. A pregnancy is much less so.

Dan's answer with the new mom's mantra is priceless. After spewing afterbirth all over your doctor, shitting the sheets, and plopping out a slime covered bowling ball, a little nipple squirt will not be "gross" but will seem like nothing more than spilled milk.

A resident of the island of lesbos taking two fags Greek style is almost something I would watch. I caught the lesbian drama height worry also. Two words: Telephone Book...

If you are so concerned maybe demand a movie of them humping the hershey highway before you dive into the chocolate so you know what they like?

Bi-curious/pan-curious/post-gender-curious fellow is lucky Dan is such an expert. He has always taught us that sexual attraction and orientation is all about what you imagine fucking in the context of a relationship. This disembodied penis fetish is nothing more than an affectation. He could be attracted to lactating nipples or something equally weird and it doesn't make him gay. Heterophobic is indeed the word at many universities!

Couldn't Ms. Shitdropper drop some, I don't know...like some warm melted fudge brownie or something and give him the tactile sensation. Hell, tie a pair of racing stripe underwear over his head and give him the whole show without even dropping load. Dan would have suggested something like this for almost any other fetish except this one which happens to gross him out.
More...
Posted by Professor on April 19, 2011 at 11:44 PM · Report this
18
Re prepartum/postpartum sexual feelings: My husband just played up the "oh my good lord you are a veritable goddess, look at that belly, look at those huge breasts, just feel how hard I am, as I gaze at your earth mother body...." Repeat ad nauseum, but I ate it up. My breasts were never off-limits, even when other parts had to be.

Re IBS: me personally, I would love that scene, because of the penises and cute gay guys. But what excites her about it? She thinks it might help her get over her fear of penises. That doesn't seem likely. She does say she's intrigued. Maybe she should think about the scene for a month or so, fantasize about it, and figure out what makes her hot.
Posted by EricaP on April 20, 2011 at 12:22 AM · Report this
19
Also, re Ms. CSE, I agree with Professor for once. If she likes the guy enough to stay with him, there must be ways of easing into this. How about, keep the door open when using the bathroom? If she can't envision that for poop, do it for pee until she's comfortable, then start thinking, when you're peeing (door open, him on the bed in the next room), hey, could I take a shit? Just let yourself think about it.

I used to not be able to pee in the shower, or take a dump when my husband was in the bathroom. Now I can do both. One step at a time is what makes you GGG.
Posted by EricaP on April 20, 2011 at 12:27 AM · Report this
20
What's Dan's issue with seitan? I'm a meat-loving convert to veganism, and I think seitan's awesome. Was this some kind of Satan pun that went over my head?
Posted by seitan is tasty on April 20, 2011 at 2:25 AM · Report this
21
I've been told (by people with boundary issues) that some nursing mothers can lactate involuntarily.

I don't have personal experience with it, but my Ma was drunk one night, and told me about it for some reason. Apparently, when she was breast feeding me, sex with my dad tended to cause her to leak milk all over the place. Which, I guess, in this case, is the whole point? So maybe the issue will resolve itself.
Posted by JudT on April 20, 2011 at 3:46 AM · Report this
22
I can't decide if these letters are more gross than boring or more boring than gross.
Posted by wayne on April 20, 2011 at 4:42 AM · Report this
23
The first time I sucked on my wife's breasts after she'd given birth, and I tasted her milk, I came instantly. One of the most erotic experiences I've ever had.
Posted by turtlemilk on April 20, 2011 at 5:00 AM · Report this
24
I feel pretty awful having just completed a year in therapy trying to somehow feel like maybe I wasn't born a monster... and Dan Savage, who I sometimes see as a hero, role model, or well grounded human being. Can decide that I deserve to be ridiculed, and suggest to his audience (like everyone else) that I should remain forever closeted.
Dan, if I had read your articles at 13 when I was just discovering the paraphilia that has caused me so much shame over the years. I probably would have killed myself. I am glad I am older, but I think you ought to rethink your "It gets better" campaign, some of these young people are dealing with things you clearly have contempt for.
Posted by CSE Support on April 20, 2011 at 5:15 AM · Report this
25
Avast, it's true that it's supply and demand and MOST women's breasts are up to the task but not everyone's breasts produce enough to exclusively breastfeed--like number five I had real supply issues after having my kid (who had a GREAT latch). I had to take tons of herbs to get what little supply I had and there definitely seemed to be a cap on what I could make. Lactation is actually fairly complicated--if anything is amiss not only with your sex hormones but your thyroid, pituitary, blood sugar levels, milk glands, ducts or prolactin receptors you could have problems producing milk. Your post is generally right but things don't always go as well or as easily as the lactation consultants tell you they will.
Posted by Mary Mary Why You Buggin on April 20, 2011 at 5:27 AM · Report this
26
#5, if you are having trouble maintaining your supply of breast milk, letting you husband suck will probably help, rather than hinder. Supply responds to demand, in this case - the more sucking, the more milk. Many moms who primarily pump have this problem, because your body does not respond to a pump the way it does to a mouth.

So, let the baby nurse as often and as long as possible, and allow any auxiliary sucking that happens to come along.
Posted by agony on April 20, 2011 at 5:39 AM · Report this
27
Wow - I can tell that a lot of the comments re MILK's letter are from non-moms and people who don't know any moms of infants very well at all. I wish MILK the best of luck, and I do think that he just needs to let his wife get over her freak out - having your first child can be incredibly stressful. I will say however that I know a lot of men/husbands who are grossed out by breastmilk - one of my closest friends told me that her husband hadn't touched her breasts since she'd given birth two years earlier. If my husband expressed any interest in my lactating breasts, I'd just be thrilled that he wasn't grossed out by them! But that's just me. I understand that it's not for everyone, but for both of their sakes, I hope his wife gets over it - seems like completely harmless fun to me - way more fun than clutching a towel to one's lactating breasts during sex as another commenter noted. I wish them both luck.
Posted by Jenn on April 20, 2011 at 5:40 AM · Report this
28
The thing is, MILK, you really have no idea how this is all going to play out after the birth. Some women have experiences like myself and #9 (with variations therein and varying results). And you are going to have to figure out how to deal with it, just like she has had to figure out how to deal with your occasional bullshit over the years. But you really can't tell what her body is going to do, how it's going to change, what is going to arouse her, until AFTER the birth. I'll tell you this much, follow her lead, slather on the compliments re: #18's post, and ignore those who find what you are doing repugnant (#15). (The last thing a new parent needs is someone telling them they shouldn't be having kids due to some issue the opinion-holder is struggling with.)
MILK, you are about to enter a whole new universe of sexuality. Tolerate her autonomy over her own body and respect her temporary postpartum limitations. You will be rewarded for your efforts.
Posted by sunmountain on April 20, 2011 at 5:40 AM · Report this
29
Dan, I sent the last letter to a whole bunch of my straight male college friends. (We were theatre/art/music majors.) It's too bad we didn't have this column in 1994.

Then again, I'd have gotten laid a lot less. Creative-type females who like cock AND the men the cocks come with are the luckiest females in the world.
Posted by KathleenD http://kathleendienne.com on April 20, 2011 at 5:43 AM · Report this
30
Ms Erica@18 - Very good point re IBS (unfortunate acronym, though?). Doing things of this sort can be all good fun, but doing them unexamined can be a receipt for disaster.
Posted by vennominon on April 20, 2011 at 5:45 AM · Report this
31
I'm a bi guy who, like COLD, has never been romantically interested in men, but still very interested in cocks. Since you self-identify as bi-curious, COLD, you should take the plunge and hook up with a guy for an NSA cock-sucking session. There are plenty of bi guys out there with the same attitude re sex/romance, so go for it. You should definitely satisfy your curiosity and find out whether you like stroking and sucking a cock as much as you enjoy looking at pictures of them. It's also perfectly viable to establish an on-going sex-only relationship with another bi guy who shares your interest in cock and your aversion to a m/m romance (and it's a lot safer than getting with a different guy each time).
Posted by Balto on April 20, 2011 at 5:55 AM · Report this
32
LW3 was ANNOYING. I went to college, most of my friends went to college, and we didn't develop a weird sense of pre/post/bullshit ANYTHING. This guy is a dork.
Posted by Redheadwglasses on April 20, 2011 at 5:57 AM · Report this
33
LW3 was ANNOYING. I went to college, most of my friends went to college, and we didn't develop a weird sense of pre/post/bullshit ANYTHING. This guy is a dork.

(Reposting after registering.)
Posted by Redheadwglasses on April 20, 2011 at 6:00 AM · Report this
34
Breast milk, like everything else about the human body, was not DESIGNED for anything. It just evolved. Just like penises were not "designed" for vaginas only. If they work with mouths and asses, so be it. If breast milk works with this guy, deal with it.
Posted by LML on April 20, 2011 at 6:19 AM · Report this
35
"So I'd perhaps shrug and summon my new mom mantra: Whatever works."

This just sounds extremely depressing. Even moreso when you consider that they have a child intertwined in all this.
Posted by suddenlyorcas on April 20, 2011 at 6:22 AM · Report this
36
#6, yeah, just trick her into it. That's the ticket. And she can't say no because the deed's already done!
Posted by suddenlyorcas on April 20, 2011 at 6:26 AM · Report this
37
I am #5. To commenters #14 and #26, I thank you for your advice, but as #25 said (thank you!) it is a lot more complicated than that. Believe me, if a little breast play were all it took to keep my baby fed on my milk, we would not have spent hundreds of dollars on lactation consultants, hospital-grade pumps, herbal supplements, books, and other drugs since my baby was born to try to keep me going. Lactation Consultants like to make you think if you aren't having success in breastfeeding, it's your own fault, but some women DO have bad supply -- it doesn't have to do with their baby's sucking ability (mine is an excellent sucker) or with anything they try to do. After a while, the party line is as bad as telling women that infertility is their own fault. We are doing everything possible to nurse our babies.

For more on this topic, visit http://fearlessformulafeeder.blogspot.co…

FWIW, I feel lucky that I've been able to at least PARTIALLY nurse my baby for the last six months.

Back on topic for the letter, I agree with the previous poster who said rather than focusing on what gets the Milkman off (namely, her lactation) he would be better able to achieve her ends by reframing the whole conversation on to her: the whole "wow you gorgeous earth mother, look at you carrying my baby" thing worked very well to get me in the mood the entire time I was pregnant, and, post-partum, once we were given the all clear for sex.

And, FWIW, nursing or pumping right after sex does work well in terms of let down.
Posted by AllieP on April 20, 2011 at 6:30 AM · Report this
38
One of my regrets is that I didn't let my husband try nursing when I was breastfeeding, all those many years ago. It wasn't so much that my breasts were off limits, it's just that, as others have said, I was sleep deprived, sore, and feeling fat. When I got past the first few months and felt rested, my breasts weren't particularly sexual to me at that point. They were a pair of baby-feeding devices that hung on my chest. My husband loves to suckle and I asked him recently why he didn't ask/try when I was breastfeeding. He didn't have much of an answer..."I mostly thought they were for the babies." Ah well, opportunity lost. For MILK I'd say: worship your wife, tell her how beautiful/wonderful/gorgeous she is and how crazy you are about her and maybe she'll come to realize that nursing her baby AND her husband is really really hot and sexy.

D
Posted by Devoted http://devotedlvr.com on April 20, 2011 at 6:43 AM · Report this
39
To those of you criticizing the new mothers for their irritability and/or apathy (@15, @17, @35): Fuck you. Their bodies have not been their own for about a year.
Posted by offfwhite on April 20, 2011 at 6:44 AM · Report this
40
I searched 'seitan' with one eye squinched shut, worried I was going to see pictures of Japanese women doing weird things in slings.

I'm both relieved and a little let down. :(
Posted by Makenna on April 20, 2011 at 6:51 AM · Report this
41
"stay the hell away from heterophobic post-gender/post-modern/pan-sexual cultural-studies majors whose immaturity, self-loathing, and anger all manifest in a refusal to accept that a good guy can also be a straight guy."

Right on with this. It's great for people to think critically about gender and sexuality (in themselves and in the world at large), but it seems like so much of the college-y post-gender mindset is geared towards forming ideologically elitist cliques; or, a way for middle-class kids to mitigate their guilt and fear by convincing themselves that they're somehow on the margins of society; or, a way for people to convince themselves that having sex with their cute friends amounts to some sort of transformative social activism.
Posted by plushsnail on April 20, 2011 at 6:51 AM · Report this
Berkolate 42
Love the comments about Prudie, Dan!
Posted by Berkolate on April 20, 2011 at 7:03 AM · Report this
queerness 43
sooo sick of how it seems like so many fetishes are immediately linked to mental/familial issues. lactating fetish = mommy issues? give me a break
Posted by queerness on April 20, 2011 at 7:21 AM · Report this
44
@40 Makenna
If it helps maybe you could be a little imaginative about the suggested use of the seitan. He is vague...

CSE:
The companion to not judging others for their sexuality is being confident in the right to your own. It's reasonable and possible to have any number of hard limits to your play. You sound like a wonderful person: you accepted that he has this challenging kink and you took it seriously enough to write to Dan.

I am told that anal sex leads one to lose their fear of shit. It was my private observation watching my wife shit continuously during many hours of labor that I had no negative feelings about that. She is beautiful. I love rimming her and on rare occasions there is a hint of a certain flavor that surprisingly does not bother me in the least.

Considering what he is asking of you, you might look at it as "it is better to give than to receive." If you just can't do it then don't fault yourself. That's who you are. Most of us feel the same way.
Posted by jenesasquatch on April 20, 2011 at 7:42 AM · Report this
45
Sucking on tits (and the milk letdown) stimulates the same hormones that cause love, sexual arousal, and bonding. Nursing for me was a total sexual high. I read up on it, and it's a normal biological response. It's one of nature's blessings, so I enjoyed it for what it was. I conferred with a few La Leche League women who were all too happy to say that it's much more common than mainstream would have you believe.

I'm done with nursing now, but I've been missing the tit play. My husband's an ass man and turned off by breasts--especially since he watched me nurse--but we're working on getting him comfortable with sucking on my tits. It can be hard for a person to change their ick factor of certain bodily functions, but my husband is slowly coming around.

Maybe MILK should give his wife some info about the fun parts of nursing. Help her get more comfortable with her body and maybe she'll actually get around to enjoying it. I'd even recommend treating her like a goddess, telling her that her breasts are beautiful, amazing, and powerful. It's very likely she's freaking that her breasts are gonna turn saggy after swelling up from pregnancy. I'd either talk to her directly, or get one of her female friends/family to talk about good bras, surgery if she wants it, or letting her know you find her attractive regardless.

Good luck, MILK. I hope it works out for you.
Posted by titsuckage on April 20, 2011 at 7:44 AM · Report this
Canuck 46
sunmountain @28 says:
"ignore those who find what you are doing repugnant (#15). (The last thing a new parent needs is someone telling them they shouldn't be having kids due to some issue the opinion-holder is struggling with.)
MILK, you are about to enter a whole new universe of sexuality. Tolerate her autonomy over her own body and respect her temporary postpartum limitations. You will be rewarded for your efforts."

Unfortunately, as those of us who've been following these SL letters can attest, husbands being rewarded for their efforts are not a big feature of the Savage Love letter, in fact, I would say it's been quite the opposite lately, so I wouldn't make the assumption that if the guy just lays off and leaves her alone, things will be back to normal in no time. We seem to be discovering that "temporary postpartum limitations" stretch into years-long postpartum issues for a fair number of people, so it would be more helpful to examine things as a couple, and to deal with things as a couple, rather than seeing this as something where the power is only in the wife's hands.
@15 was pointing out that anyone who has that degree of bitterness is probably not a lot of fun to live with. I tend to agree with him.

offwhite @39 I've been a "new mom" three times. And yes, while it's exhausting, etc. etc., it doesn't give you an excuse to be a jerk, or to treat your husband like an annoyance. Their life changes pretty dramatically for that year, too. Compassion is needed on both sides.
Posted by Canuck on April 20, 2011 at 7:47 AM · Report this
47
Well, I've searched on "seitan" and all I find is "wheat gluten." I've never heard of it. Care to enlighten me, someone? What is Dan referring to?
Posted by Dan Not Savage on April 20, 2011 at 7:58 AM · Report this
48
Bwahahahha Makenna....I had to look it up in exactly the same manner, and had EXACTLY the same reaction!!

@24....you comment broke my heart and gave me a whole new perspective. Thank you for that; at least you are not hurting anyone (I can NOT EVER come to terms with pedophilacs however). I hope you find someone. I hope Dan is reading this and perhaps tapers his comments a bit. Its not something I would personally find appealing, but hey...as long as its not hurting me or anyone else, its really none of my business, is it?

And dayum for IBS....can you seriously tape it???? I wanna watch too. That sounds hot as hell!
Posted by badgirl on April 20, 2011 at 7:59 AM · Report this
Canuck 49
Dan not Savage @47: I would humbly suggest that Dan, as a pot roast-loving carnivore, is comparing the vegan staple "seitan" to bestiality...which is a not wholly unreasonable comparison. It does taste like fermented ass.
Posted by Canuck on April 20, 2011 at 8:14 AM · Report this
50
Hhmmm. Could it be . . . Seitan?!?!?!?!
Posted by LML on April 20, 2011 at 8:28 AM · Report this
51
Canuck @46...

I never said it did. I was responding to 3 very specific criticisms levied at new mothers that I found dripping with male privilege.

Compassion is the best response all around, but criticizing a new mother for expressing fairly benign and reasonable frustrations deserves being called out for what it is: totally obnoxious.
Posted by offfwhite on April 20, 2011 at 8:29 AM · Report this
52
@ 49 - Some scat enthousiasts call it "caviar", so maybe "seitan" is a code word for something else...

@ 24 - You musn't read Savage Love that often, as Dan has repeatedly called scat "a fetish too far". He's being rather tame today by calling it "unreasonable". Knowing that, you should be able to put his comments in perspective. Hopefully, your therapy had a stronger effect than Dan's opinion; if not, you might want to stop reading his column for a while and go back to therapy - I don't think youre strong enough yet in your self-acceptance (just my two cents).

And besides, he's not saying scat fans are monsters, just that they should try and find each other, which is basically what he says about every sexual peculiarity.

@ 17 - Warm fudge smells like warm fudge, and I'm sure that's not the kind of smell that turns shit enthusiasts on (coz if you're into scat, surely the smell plays a role in your arousal). It's a rather silly suggestion.
Posted by Ricardo on April 20, 2011 at 8:34 AM · Report this
53
I've been breastfeeding for 15 months and only got my sex drive back when I got my period a few months ago. Before that, the only way I could tolerate vaginal sex was with eyes squeezed shut, deep breathing, and lying there like a dead fish. And it wasn't because i was being selfish and entitled (thanks for the pigeon hole, random person who's never breastfed a kid. And we wonder why something like 70 percent of american moms switch to formula before the recommended time is up). It was because my wonky hormones made sex ~hurt~, it felt like my guy had covered his dick in sandpaper. Now that I feel normal again I'd have no problem spraying him to his hearts content if that's something he wanted, but it took almost a year for me to get there.
Posted by Janis on April 20, 2011 at 9:15 AM · Report this
54
@52 Ricardo
Dan goes beyond saying "just that they should try and find each other." My reading is that he's saying one has no right to even ask a partner to participate in this kink unless you met on a website devoted to it. That goes beyond GGG issues and heads into what we might call "justifiable freak out" territory. I believe it's a short trip to gay panic defense land from there. Perhaps it would be better to tell CSE that saying no thank you is perfectly acceptable without becoming hysterical.
Posted by jenesasquatch on April 20, 2011 at 9:27 AM · Report this
55
"I also worry that my strap-on skills, while great for the ladies, would bore two 6-foot-2 gay men."

Bore. Best unintentional pun ever.
Posted by Yojimbo on April 20, 2011 at 9:40 AM · Report this
56
@ 22: "I can't decide if these letters are more gross than boring or more boring than gross."

The first is more gross than boring, the second is more boring than gross, the third is more gross than boring, the fourth is more boring than gross. Though the last couple sentences in #4 are classic Savage.
Posted by Yojimbo on April 20, 2011 at 9:46 AM · Report this
57
Wow. I DIDN'T have a lactation fetish until I read @6's post. Now I imagine I'm blushing like a fire hydrant right at work. Shame on your husband for saying it was disgusting! That's the most absurdly hot thing I've read all day!

On another subject, I feel a lot like the the guy in the last letter (without all the post-gender blahblahblah), so he should at least know he's not alone in his bonerdom. I'm bi-ish, I guess. I'm down with penises, but never met a guy attached to one that I'd actually want to do anything with. My wife's interested in MMF threeways, and I'm down with that too, but how do I find the guy that's right for me? :D

The funny thing is, I'm so totally into androgyny. Short hair on girls drives me crazy. Mostly this leads to me crushing on a lot of lesbians (with predictable results) yet the reverse effect on guys never seems to happen. Maybe I haven't met the proper waifish pretty boys yet.
Posted by FK on April 20, 2011 at 9:47 AM · Report this
58
And here I thought Savage Love would be the perfect escape from a world overrun by The Great Lactation Debate. Have they sent the bat(shit) signal out yet?
Posted by Humorless on April 20, 2011 at 9:55 AM · Report this
59
What @41 said. Speaking as a homosexual who is openly and broadly supportive of his trans- and gender non-conforming friends... nothing in the world is more tedious than gender/cultural/social work- studies students whose identities are political statements and guilt mitigation tactics.
Posted by pheeeew!crack!boom! on April 20, 2011 at 9:55 AM · Report this
60
Much of a woman's resistance to breastmilk sex play has to do with 1) discomfort (Milk-engorged breasts hurt. Chapped nipples hurt.) 2) hormonal/emotional changes that encode the breasts as non-sexual, for the time being.

Some women get off on breastfeeding, and more power to 'em, but the majority do not and a vast number suffer.

I had a very comfortable pregnancy, was fully sexual until labour, got right back on the horse soon after and breastfed with ease. But I could barely tolerate having my breasts touched until I stopped feeding as it was a highly sensitive, non-sexual zone. It was, to put it frankly, fucking annoying. So I say don't push it. A new mother has way more to deal with than you whining to be squirted on.
Posted by tomgyrll on April 20, 2011 at 10:02 AM · Report this
61
Much of a woman's resistance to breastmilk sex play has to do with 1) discomfort (Milk-engorged breasts hurt. Chapped nipples hurt.) 2) hormonal/emotional changes that encode the breasts as non-sexual, for the time being.

Some women get off on breastfeeding, and more power to 'em, but the majority do not and a vast number suffer.

I had a very comfortable pregnancy, was fully sexual until labour, got right back on the horse soon after and breastfed with ease. But I could barely tolerate having my breasts touched until I stopped feeding as it was a highly sensitive, non-sexual zone. It was, to put it frankly, fucking annoying. So I say don't push it. A new mother has way more to deal with than you whining to be squirted on.
Posted by tomgyrll on April 20, 2011 at 10:04 AM · Report this
shw3nn 62
@51 I'm totally with you,FWIW. Not so much with 35 but those other two....WOW!

I'm actually kind of impressed at 15 and 17s levels of self obsession and entitlement.

sarah_anonymous was just talking about her crazy, postpartum depression thoughts that she didn't seem to even share with her husband and those asshats still managed to hate her because of it.

They were upset with sarah because of a dark, anguished time she went through. How do you even manage....

I can't be angry because, that kind of self-obsessed entitlement is so off-the-charts ridiculous, it will surely prevent either one of them from ever finding a tincture real happiness in their lives.
Posted by shw3nn on April 20, 2011 at 10:10 AM · Report this
63
@39: They made a CHOICE to give up their bodies for about a year. Don't forget that.
Posted by suddenlyorcas on April 20, 2011 at 10:15 AM · Report this
64
If you're impressed at 17 now, just stick around. The man feels entitled to EVERYTHING involving women.
Posted by suddenlyorcas on April 20, 2011 at 10:20 AM · Report this
65
@ 54 - Maybe, but my point is that since long-time SL readers KNOW that Dan is freaked out by scat (and to a level that's beyond justifiable, in my opinion), we have to put his comments in perspective.

Any SL reader who writes in with a scat question should know that Dan will be just a tad hysterical in his answer. So any SL reader who, upon reading Dan's answer on this subject, fails to filter it and tone it done, is "guilty" of not knowing Dan very well (I mean his writings, of course) or of being overly sensitive (in this case, for obvious and justifiable reasons).

It's like reading an action movie review by a critic who you know doesn't like action movies when you're a big fan of them. The review may contain valid points, but should you trust the critic's general opinion of the movie? Of course not.

The person I was answering to, CSE Support (@ 24) says that he/she sometimes sees Dan as a hero, but didn't know Dan's disgust for all things poo-ish. I say CSE Support needs 1) to know people better before calling them heroes, and 2) to work some more on his/her self-acceptance so that other people's opinion don't affect him/her so much.

Dan is not god. He gives ADVICE, he doesn't set absolute rules. If you grant him the status of a god and expect infallibly good judgement on his part, like any other of the made-up gods humanity worships (i.e. all of them), he's bound to disappoint you at one point. But it won't be his fault.
Posted by Ricardo on April 20, 2011 at 10:22 AM · Report this
lewlew 66
It's bizarre to me that people are freaked out by human milk. (Why do we say "breast" milk; does it come from another place too?) We are mammals, animals of a sort, and few things are so necessary. Wonder what the world would be like if we could take away all the irrelevant connotations around women's breasts. I'm gay, so I'm guessing I have a less engaged viewpoint... It's OUR milk, folk, but we so love to steal from the cows. Thank you, cows!
Posted by lewlew on April 20, 2011 at 10:45 AM · Report this
67
@39 / 63, it goes on for a lot more than a year. Around 18 months old is when the baby first starts to understand that it is separate from its mom. Until then, it's like a body part you can put down briefly, but it still feels very much like it is part of you. (So 18+9=27 months) Plus, if you have children in succession, the feeling that your body is not your own goes on until the youngest child is ready to separate.

That said, men-who-want-marital-sex-to-continue should be paying attention to what women on this thread say works: telling them how much it turns you on to see them as earth-mother. (You won't have to say it forever! Just while they're feeling huge and earth-mothery...)
Posted by EricaP on April 20, 2011 at 10:54 AM · Report this
GQbd 68
It seems to me that the advice to MILK and anyone else who has a pregnant partner, especially one who is big, beautiful and horny in the third trimester, is to get her and give her anything she wants, remind her how much you love her, and how gorgeous and sexy she is. Good things will almost always follow but, regardless, adoring the mother of your children is its own reward.
Posted by GQbd on April 20, 2011 at 11:02 AM · Report this
Ophian 69
Almost spot on for COLD. He could suck some cock before he just decides he is--or rounds to--straight. Messing around with another man is definitely going to be more conclusive that undergrad social sophistry.
Posted by Ophian on April 20, 2011 at 11:25 AM · Report this
70
Tis a shame that many parts of our society looks at breast milk as "disgusting". Breast milk is LIFE. and way better for you than that cow crap.

Odd - if we say we have a cow milk fetish and asked the partner to pour cow's milk all over them, the reactions would probably not be as visceral.

Curious.
Posted by LZito on April 20, 2011 at 11:27 AM · Report this
71
@EP "I used to not be able to pee in the shower, or take a dump when my husband was in the bathroom. Now I can do both."

Wait...whut? Weren't you just lecturing me that I was being a bit stuck up about boundaries and how you and your husband constantly did these things? Oh...oh...right...*now* you do these things!

;-)
Posted by knkycva on April 20, 2011 at 11:27 AM · Report this
shw3nn 72
I'm a woman but I am child free in every way. I don't particularly want kids and my uterus never had any intention of giving me kids so it worked out real well like that.

So, what I'm saying here is pure conjecture. My sister tells me that the way you look at stuff like this completely changes. But this is how I see it from my completely uninformed position.

I've always found the idea of breast feeding horrific. You have an infant doing something to you that has been exclusively sexual for your whole life so far. It's almost like you are having to engage in pedophilia in order to feed your child. I can't understand how breastfeeding isn't traumatic.

So, it seems to me that, if I were a new mother, I would have to ask my husband to not touch my breasts and also request to wear my bra during intercourse until the breastfeeding were over.

Like, psychologically, I would need to pretend that my breasts weren't sexual things at all during the whole breastfeeding period. I would have to go into denial about boobies being sex organs in any way until that kid was completely off the breast milk.
Posted by shw3nn on April 20, 2011 at 11:27 AM · Report this
73
@71 your memory is better than mine, but I hope I didn't actually say someone's boundaries were not okay. (Maybe just that if you want to move your boundaries, it might be possible to do so, one step at a time? That's what I'm saying here; feel free to provide details of me saying something different elsewhere.)
Posted by EricaP on April 20, 2011 at 11:32 AM · Report this
74
suddenlyorcas @63...

That's presumptuous. And irrelevant. Again, I was talking about a particular display of male privilege. Regardless of how wanted a baby is, this sacrifice of autonomy takes its toll on many women. And anyone who criticizes a new/ish mother for simply expressing that it's not always easy is a douche.
Posted by offfwhite on April 20, 2011 at 11:33 AM · Report this
75
@25: Fair enough, but in LW's situation, the problem is not the medical one, but one of attitude. If it turns out that she does indeed have a low milk supply -- a determination that is several months in the future -- he can easily enough back off, but it isn't going to hurt anything for him to play, and it might even help.

For that matter, she isn't even saying "there isn't enough." She's saying "That's gross" and "not what it's for." As a mom-to-be, she has a whole lot of gross to get the hell over. Give her a couple of incidents of the kid losing its meal on her lap (likely enough getting everywhere from her hair to her slippers in the process), and what hubby proposes will seem positively pedestrian.

Particularly in light of the fact that it's going to happen whether she likes it or not. The fact that he enjoys the idea is great. Would she prefer a husband who freaks out and tells her she is gross when she involuntarily leaks on him during sex? (FWIW, both my wife and I thought it was hilarious.)

Seriously, if she's that freaked by bodily fluids, how did she ever manage to get pregnant in the first place?
Posted by avast2006 on April 20, 2011 at 11:35 AM · Report this
76
@63 "They made a CHOICE to give up their bodies for about a year. Don't forget that."

Presumably their significant others, the one who fathered the child, had some say in the matter. Biologically the mother will contribute a huge amount of energy and will undergo enormous changes due to pregnancy and maternity. A father could get away with doing absolutely nothing, but the loving husband/father will ideally go to equally enormous lengths to ease his wife's burden however he can.
Posted by wxPDX on April 20, 2011 at 11:40 AM · Report this
77
@71/73, ah, found the thread. Yes, okay, I said: "Everything you mention is normal in my marriage, and has been since we were dating - farting, pissing in front of each other."

... a key element which was left out then, and now, is the D/s component of our relationship. He took charge of my life, when we were dating. So, yes, there was a time when I had trouble peeing in front of someone else. He worked on that, until it was no longer an issue. More recently, he got me able to take a dump with him in the room. The "since we were dating" phraseology was ambiguous - the change happened while we were dating, because of the D/s.

But the earlier point remains. Some people view these things differently than others. It is okay to read people's email if both people think it's okay; it's okay to pee or poop with other people in the room if both people think it's okay (or if one is the Dom and the other surrenders to the Dom.) There are no hard-and-fast rules that it is impolite to read your partner's email or pee in front of him (or poop on her) - these are boundaries which some people don't have. If their partners are willing, it is also possible to shift the boundaries one had when entering the relationship. Not easy, but possible, one step at a time.
Posted by EricaP on April 20, 2011 at 11:42 AM · Report this
Roadflare 78
@63, both the wife AND husband made a choice. Therefore the husband should accept the consequences of THEIR choice. That includes irrartionality, moodiness, insecurity about their bodies, and the possible break from sex. The wife is carrying and giving birth to his child. Fuck off.
Posted by Roadflare on April 20, 2011 at 11:45 AM · Report this
79
This is hilarious: "The other night, she was fretting about when her boobs are going to start leaking. This seemed like a good time to bring it up, so I told her about my newly discovered lactation fetish."

It's hilarious how this guy thinks this is a prime moment to bring this up "...umm my wife was complaining about some changes to her body that she wasn't ready for and frankly found disgusting, and i thought this was a perfect moment to tell her it made me really horny..."
Posted by barista on April 20, 2011 at 11:50 AM · Report this
80
ha ha MILK is hilarious: "...umm my wife was talking about some changes to her body that she wasn't looking forward to and frankly found disgusting, and I thought this was the perfect time to tell her how horny it made me..."

wow, genius timing.
Posted by barista on April 20, 2011 at 11:57 AM · Report this
81
@74: It is irrelevant that a pregnant woman made a choice to put herself into that position no matter how she feels about it? And pointing out that she made this choice is presumptuous? You are under the assumption that I am a man...

@76: Yes, you are understanding me. There was a CHOICE made in this DECISION to go through a body-changing process in order to bring new life into the world.

@78: Yes, a CHOICE they both DECIDED to go through.

People get really fucking pissy when you point out that the only reason a person has the HARDSHIPS they do is because they CHOSE to live their lives that way. And that the husband then CHOSE to air his dirty laundry on the internet, of all places, instead of talking to his WIFE, who he is apparently mature enough to bring a child into the world with, but not mature enough to FUCKING TALK TO HER about something like sex.

And yes, I will be here LAUGHING about their lack of foresight because it's a lot better than completely giving up on the human race because I know that idiots like them are the ones who are breeding.
Posted by suddenlyorcas on April 20, 2011 at 12:37 PM · Report this
82
@ avast--true, I don't really get the aversion to fluids. I would think that as the one fluid that evolved for the purpose of consumption breast milk would be the least offensive. Blood, urine, and semen could go either way depending on whose it was (loved one v. subway stranger), but I don't think they're categorically gross. And snot is just a filthy conduit of disease.
Posted by Mary Mary Why You Buggin on April 20, 2011 at 12:53 PM · Report this
83
@75: I had two babies and breastfed for close to three years total and never leaked or sprayed once. Not everyone does.

I also most definitely did NOT have enough milk to share. Feeding my daughter, who lost weight for the first five weeks of her life, which is fuckin' scary, involved minor surgery for her, herbs and specialists for me, and endless hours on a breast pump -- which is no fun and means I rarely left the house.

Nowhere does MILK say that his wife has problems with "bodily fluids"--she thinks him want the milk intended for his children is gross, nothing about semen or piss or blood or whatever. I'm fine with semen (swallow it often) but don't particularly enjoy pus. Does that mean I'm "freaked out by bodily fluids"?

Fortunately, even if my husband had had a lactation fetish, he was most invested in having healthy, well-nourished children and was more concerned with helping me feed them than he was with what he could get for himself.
Posted by justchecking on April 20, 2011 at 12:53 PM · Report this
84
@81 Suddenly Orcas:

I suspect I speak for a lot of readers when I say that I wish YOUR parents had really shown more foresight and considered not having YOU.

Your general intolerance, arrogance, incivility, and lack of compassion are just breathtaking. Although, I must admit, I do share your concern for the decline of the species when I read letters such as yours.

Posted by justchecking on April 20, 2011 at 12:59 PM · Report this
85
Re gender identification: Am I not what I say I am? If I love cock but I say I'm straight am I not straight? Aren't the variations of sexual activity so gray shaded that strict definitions are at best GENERALLY useful but not definitive? If my wife fantasizes about pussy but won't actually have sex with someone else' isn't she allowed to call herself bi?
Posted by doggy g on April 20, 2011 at 1:07 PM · Report this
86
Suddenlylyorcas, just because someone doesn't like all of the physical burdens surrounding pregnancy doesn't mean they regret the choice to have a child. Pregnancy requires some big adaptations in a couple's life and they should be a able to be talk about it just like anybody else talks about their experiences. Choice really isn't relevant. People are getting pissy at you because you're trying to shush them by parroting the same tired phrase over and over again and expecting it to suddenly mean more than it does.
Posted by Mary Mary Why You Buggin on April 20, 2011 at 1:12 PM · Report this
87
@77 EricaP

... a key element which was left out then, and now, is the D/s component of our relationship.

Um, well, that's fine; what I was really getting at was that clearly the comfort level - the lowering of boundaries (and that's been my word) - evolved (why - D/s, familiarity, time, whatever - isn't terribly important).

He took charge of my life, when we were dating. So, yes, there was a time when I had trouble peeing in front of someone else. He worked on that, until it was no longer an issue. More recently, he got me able to take a dump with him in the room.

FWIW, I don't think that having difficulty peeing in front of someone is..."an issue" to be worked on necessarily.

While I learned to carry on conversations and discussions with friends and acquaintances and even strangers in bathrooms with no partition doors (or partitions for that matter) starting in scout camp and straight through locker rooms, boarding school and college, I still prefer not to pee or dump in front of anyone, if avoidable - it's a private function, not a social occasion. Sure, there were guys who were tormented by their inability to be undressed (much less evacuating) in front of strangers in these formative situations, to the point that their inability to get any 'privacy' started to cause problems, and I suppose they needed to "work on it" but really, it's just good manners and an awareness of boundaries that tells me to shut the bathroom door if it (a door) is available.

The "since we were dating" phraseology was ambiguous - the change happened while we were dating, because of the D/s.

Heh..."ambiguous"...I'll say to you what so many have said to me: you should be a lawyer! Nice parsing!

I'm really just ribbing you a little here. The tone of your original response was a little...adamant. The point was taken on the merits, not the tone, and I appreciated the input. In the time following the discussions that ensued that week, I raised the issues I mentioned above and was caught off guard wondering if something was wrong when she suddenly shifted her behavior and started minding those things (not walking in on me in the bathroom)...I sensed the distancing, and it was a tad..uncomfortable! So much for my preachy manners.
More...
Posted by knkycva on April 20, 2011 at 1:24 PM · Report this
88
@72 - if you did decide to have kids, and still thought breast feeding was traumatizing and "almost pedophilia" ... you would be well advised to seek professional counseling. I don't think your feelings are the norm for young mothers.
Posted by EricaP on April 20, 2011 at 1:26 PM · Report this
89
@82 I don't really get the aversion to fluids.

I think it is acculturation - and it probably grows out of learning that our elimination functions are not to be played with. I'm ok with that. I don't have spawn, but I remember well the horror in my sibling's voice as she watched (while talking on the phone to me) her child fish some feces out of the diaper and start chowing down. I'm sure Dan will say the scat fetish is a direct result of our cultural taboo around this.
Posted by knkycva on April 20, 2011 at 1:30 PM · Report this
90
2 /15 / 79/80: I think it's a matter of tact as well as timing. Compare two different approaches to a pregnant woman's anxiety about her boobs leaking:
A) "Honey, you'll be wonderful whatever happens; there are products to help with that; and if it does happen, I actually think it would be sexy"
versus
B) "Honey, enough about your anxiety; back to focusing on me. It's actually super convenient that you're going to be lactating, because it fits right in with my new lactation fantasy! Aren't you excited for me?"
Posted by EricaP on April 20, 2011 at 1:40 PM · Report this
shw3nn 91
@88 I would have to decide to have kids and magically have a working uterus, both.

But, if you're just wanting to point out that I'm mad as a hatter, you are correct :D
Posted by shw3nn on April 20, 2011 at 1:44 PM · Report this
92
@87 You're still saying that elimination is "a private function," and "good manners" tells you to shut the bathroom door.

I'm saying that people are different. (Some people want privacy - great- but my dom wasn't going to put up with that, so for us, it was an 'issue.')

What are your thoughts on privacy now that your gf is respecting your boundaries better? Do you feel your boundaries shifting, or are you just worried about the commitment she may want in exchange for changing her own behavior to suit you? Last time, you didn't seem very enamored of your gf; I'm curious how you feel this week. (Apologies that I have no manners and butt in to other people's business ... as we've been discussing, my boundaries are not where other people's are...)
Posted by EricaP on April 20, 2011 at 1:49 PM · Report this
93
suddenlyorcas @81

It's presumptuous to assume every woman who gives birth chose to have a baby. Abortion may be legal, but until it's easily accessible it's not always an option.

Here's a great article about some of the barriers to abortion access in the US.
http://abortiongang.org/2010/07/what-eve…

Sorry... didn't mean to sidetrack the discussion, and don't want to make it about abortion. Just clarifying what I meant when I said "presumptuous."
Posted by offfwhite on April 20, 2011 at 1:54 PM · Report this
94
Wow, this thread is full of reasons I'm glad I'm never having kids.
Posted by Chase on April 20, 2011 at 2:00 PM · Report this
95
Suddenlylyorcas, making a choice doesn't mean a person somehow waives the right to feel the burden of that choice, even though they don't regret it. Pregnancy and childbirth are hard. Child-rearing is hard. A person has the right to acknowledge the toll that a choice has taken on his/her life and body. By your reckoning, people can only acknowledge their hardships if they have had no choice in how they live. Most people will at some time in their lives willingly choose actions that will be difficult, but will hopefully yield more good than harm--having kids is a good example. Sneering about a lack of foresight because choices like that never go 100% according to plan is awfully unattractive and sort of cowardly--what do your choices say about you?
Posted by chicago girl on April 20, 2011 at 2:06 PM · Report this
96
m
Posted by Topple on April 20, 2011 at 2:12 PM · Report this
97
Yeesh, way to misspell "suddenlyorcas" on my part. That's what I get for copying and pasting from another commenter.
Posted by chicago girl on April 20, 2011 at 2:16 PM · Report this
98
whoops, I guess I didn't actually edit my comment...well what I was going to say was I'm a lesbian who was in a "friends with benefits" relationship with a bi guy a while back that was enjoyable. I used the strap on (fun for me) and he got himself off while get f*cked (fun for him). So basically, it was a good experience. :)
Posted by Topple on April 20, 2011 at 2:18 PM · Report this
99
About the seitan:

I remember a post of a submissive guy who wanted to be fed a totally tasteless but yet nutritious type of food and asked Dan for suggestions. Dan's answer was something along the line of 'go to a vegan restaurant'.

My guess is that Dan is not fond of vegan/vegetarian food and sees seitan (used in vegetarian diets) as the most horrid kind of food ever eaten by man.
Posted by Tetsuo on April 20, 2011 at 2:19 PM · Report this
Centopar 100
Jesus, @17 - how big are the gaps between *your* teeth? Because tampon strings sure as hell aren't going to fit between mine, and I'm English.

COLD has been hanging out with all the wrong people at college. I am just delighted that he didn't use the word 'cisgender'. Now, I like to look at women, and their bits, in porn - women are good to look at, and visually turn me on more than men, but it's men I like to fuck. My porn habits have never caused me to question my sexuality, possibly because I have the great good fortune never to have hung out with a bunch of losers - sorry, that is to say people with a post-gender/post-modern cultural-studies mind-set - from a gender studies class.
Posted by Centopar on April 20, 2011 at 2:38 PM · Report this
101
@98 - So there are lesbians who are sexually stimulated by pegging someone? Do you have awesome strap-ons that stimulate your clit while you're fucking? I like pegging my husband, but that's because I enjoy his pleasure and I enjoy the role switch. The activity itself is not sexually stimulating to me. Tips, anyone?
Posted by EricaP on April 20, 2011 at 2:48 PM · Report this
102
@101 Yes, the act of penetrating someone is sexually stimulating for me (and other lesbians), but for some added excitement I usually use a strap on with a pouch for a bullet vibrator or a double dildo. I'm no expert on the various types of sex toys out there though so maybe there are others with some ideas as well? Hope that helps!
Posted by Topple on April 20, 2011 at 3:17 PM · Report this
103
EricaP: try using the Fun Factory Share double dildo: http://www.pinkcherry.com/searchprods.as…

It'll give you penetration and clitoral stimulation while you're pegging, which feels pretty awesome (although personally it's not enough for me to orgasm from). You'll want to use this with your legs together and your kegel muscles clenched as hard as you can 'cause otherwise it tends to slip out (even in my unusually tight vag).

Tantus makes a similar item with a hole for a bullet vibrator, but the Tantus toy looks ouchy-hard to me. YMMV.

And this is probably stupid-obvious but have you tried adjusting the position of your current strap-on? Maybe I'm just super-sensitive but I get a pretty good buzz from pegging with a strap-on as long as the base of the dong is nestled against my clit.
Posted by perversecowgirl on April 20, 2011 at 3:44 PM · Report this
Helenka (also a Canuck) 104
Oh, dear. It's weird vibe time, again. This time it's from IBS. I'm almost tempted to call it a fake.

Not that there's anything fake about a self-identified lesbian who's been with men before ('cuz the identification part is all about personal autonomy), but she never really liked it and, frankly, penises freak her out.

If this letter is real, and she goes ahead with it, I'd suggest they get together in advance where the guys could strip down to g-strings, so their asses would be on display but not their cocks, to lessen any potential freakout. Also, if she's planning on using her strap-on, then she should bring it with her, so they can measure the opening; after all, it's only reasonable that they supply the dildo(es) in the preferred size ... to keep afterwards.

I don't know what her worry is about her strap-on skillz. After all, fucking is fucking (though it's weird to see how she doubts herself, thinking the way she fucks another woman would probably "bore" a gay man). She may want to ask them if they have any preferred positions where height differences shouldn't be a problem. If she wants to be sure the guys are getting enough pleasure out of the encounter, then they could rim each other first and do the lubing/stretching bit, as well as stimulating prostates, before she gets into position.

More questions for prior negotiation: Do the guys get to come? While she watches? Will she want to come (if she can from just using the strap-on alone)?

But I'm still skeptical, 'cuz she mentioned their attractiveness (which shouldn't make any difference if all penises freak her out). And she's hoping to get a story out of it. Unless she's going to write some M/M porn!fic (which many lesbians do, because it's hot but not revealing personal sexuality), who's she going to tell this story to?
More...
Posted by Helenka (also a Canuck) on April 20, 2011 at 3:57 PM · Report this
105
@104 - to us, I hope :-)
Posted by EricaP on April 20, 2011 at 4:09 PM · Report this
106
@101 I use a Share, but the Feeldoe works too. They're strapless strapons--double dildos that press against the G-spot and clit, curving outward at the right angle for fucking. There's even a realistic version now called the Realdoe that looks like a dick instead of a brightly colored dildo.

The first time I penetrated my partner with the Share I came approximately ten seconds later. If you can get it to work right (still using a harness to it won't fall out helps) it is most definitely sexually stimulating.
Posted by Zuulabelle http://www.mellophant.com on April 20, 2011 at 4:12 PM · Report this
107
Thanks to all for the dildo advice. I think the underlying problem for me is that I want a certain kind of intense stimulation, and it's hard to see any of these set-ups working. But I freely admit that I'm unusually difficult to stimulate. Glad to hear you ladies get off as the active partners in fucking - that's a beautiful thing to know.
Posted by EricaP on April 20, 2011 at 4:42 PM · Report this
Helenka (also a Canuck) 108
@105
::giggles::

Nah. I'd rather read a true-life story on DS or SLOG from a genderqueer woman who wasn't freaked out by body parts sticking out (and staring at her, lol) while pegging a couple of hot gay guys.

So ... ::asks plaintively:: is there anybody out there who matches my description and wants to tell all here?
Posted by Helenka (also a Canuck) on April 20, 2011 at 5:13 PM · Report this
109
As a new mother, I would have loved it if my husband had been into breastmilk. Most of the time I wasn't feeling sexy in my new role as a mother, and if my husband had been able to make something about the whole crazy baby-mama experience seem sexy, I would have been all over it.
Posted by bluebutterflygirl on April 20, 2011 at 5:21 PM · Report this
110
Once again, Savage is completely arbitrary in which fetishes he accepts and rejects. If consent is truly the only measure of sexual morality, then there is nothing wrong with coprophilia.

Just because he is personally grossed out by it is no excuse, unless he wants to give a pass to people who are grossed out by homosexuality.
Posted by TWJ on April 20, 2011 at 6:13 PM · Report this
111 Comment Pulled (Spam) Comment Policy
Robin8 112
IBS, take it from me, fucking people you work with is a really bad idea. It doesn't matter what the genders or orientations are. Find someone else to peg.

As for CSE, whoo-hoo, Dan! It's not poo eating, but close enough!!
Posted by Robin8 http://shutyoureverlovingpiehole.wordpress.com on April 20, 2011 at 7:20 PM · Report this
113
CSE Support (aka #24) I know what it's like to be ashamed of a kink. My heart goes out to you. Best of luck.
Posted by Makenna on April 20, 2011 at 7:22 PM · Report this
114
Y'know, I've never been pregnant but I hope to be someday and I think I would be happy at the idea of my future husband being turned on by my breast milk. I am already so terrified by all the horror stories of men being turned off by their wives post-labor , I dunno, that particular kink would make me very very very happy.
Posted by tazzo on April 20, 2011 at 7:28 PM · Report this
115
Tazzo:

Concentrate on finding a decent guy who is into being a dad and the fetishes and temporary turn-ons and turn-offs won't matter in the long run.

With any luck you'll be spouses and parents for the rest of your lives. The post-partem sexlessness and general psychoses lasts for a few weeks to at the most a year or two.

Posted by justchecking on April 20, 2011 at 7:51 PM · Report this
O my Captain 116
Great column this week.
Hit's high scores on every answer.

To MILK: You may have your wish whether or not she approves if you have relations with your wife before or after the child arrives. My experience was that my wife's ample breasts leaked a significant amount when we made love... and was a visible sign of her arousal. I loved it. She wasn't so cool about it, but when she saw that I loved it, she was ok with it. I still miss it. It was visible proof that she was turned on, and that I was the cause. Enjoy!
Posted by O my Captain on April 20, 2011 at 8:01 PM · Report this
117
I miscarried at 24 weeks and began to lactate immediately afterwards. In my case it was all hormonal, I guess. It sure sucked, no pun intended. Because it only served to remind me of my loss.
I would have loved to spray my milk around willing recipients!
Posted by Snarky on April 20, 2011 at 8:03 PM · Report this
118
ty shw3nn.
Posted by sarah_anonymous on April 20, 2011 at 8:15 PM · Report this
sanguisuga 119
@103 - Yay for Fun Factory! They are absolutely my favorite toymakers... :)
Posted by sanguisuga on April 20, 2011 at 8:23 PM · Report this
120
I'm with @83, I never leaked when I was nursing. I had plenty of milk, and fat healthy children, but my milk had to be sucked out, it didn't emerge on its own. Even pumping was really hard for me.

So, MILK, you will have to wait and see. You might get lucky and be sprayed every time you have sex. You might get unlucky and find she's physically incapable of spraying. Or something in between. Good luck.
Posted by Puzzlegal on April 20, 2011 at 8:33 PM · Report this
Scarlet_Spider 121
@110 - From what I gather consent is not the only measure of morality. There is a line of unavoidable safety that also can not be crossed. At least that is what I gleaned from his various posts (As an example, breath play in this week's podcast). I don't have any sort of medical background so I would be fairly easily persuaded away from this position, but it seems to me that feces is filthy in a 'you can get a variety of diseases really easily' sort of way. While that can be said of sex, there is not, at least as far as I know, safe shit.
Posted by Scarlet_Spider on April 20, 2011 at 9:15 PM · Report this
122
@110, I think you are missing the point. From a practical standpoint, there are some fetishes that you just aren't going to find a partner to indulge you in unless you specifically look for someone who is into it. Some people even have sexual fantasies that are biologically impossible. "Reasonableness" doesn't just have to do with morality. It also has to do with - is it reasonable to expect a person who is ordinarily GGG to go along with this? If it's physically impossible, then no that's an example of something unreasonable. For many people, dealing with shit is not physically possible because they'd vomit. But even when it is physically possible, it's not something that even most GGG people want to deal with. The numbers are just not there.
Posted by Diagoras on April 20, 2011 at 10:42 PM · Report this
123
agreed, diagoras. that's how i read "unreasonable." he didn't say "disgusting" "foul" "loathsome" etc. like so many many people would say to a shit fetish. he just said, in essence, a shit fetishist cannot expect to be indulged by more than a fraction of a percent of humans, therefore it is not a reasonable expectation to have of the average partner. probably the fetishist himself knew this and was just throwing it out there on the very off chance he might get lucky.
Posted by ellarosa on April 20, 2011 at 11:55 PM · Report this
124
My husband and I were going at it one time not long after our second child was born when he said that he wanted to suck my breast milk. I was more than a bit surprised by this, as he is one of the squarest guys on the planet. It was an incredible mutual turn on as my milk squirted into his mouth and he lapped it up, smiling, while our fat and happy son slept in the next room. Our baby-making days are over, but I'll forever remember that afternoon with great fondness.
Posted by bird girl on April 21, 2011 at 12:14 AM · Report this
125
I'm truly surprised by the number of commenters who are suggesting to MILK different ways to make her come around. She isn't game. She just isn't. Who knows her reasoning--maybe she thinks it's "gross" because she isn't comfortable blurring the lines between husband and child in that way. Maybe she just wants her breast milk to be something she can share with her child, something that only the two of them share, one thing she can have with the baby that is hers and hers alone. Maybe she knows she wouldn't enjoy it because she doesn't appreciate being made to feel fetishized. Maybe she thinks the teeny aliens in her tits will disapprove and tattle to the Pope! No matter what, the point is she does. not. want. to. do it. And he needs to accept her boundaries.

If things change in the future, more power to him, but trying to persuade her to do it by telling her how Earth-mothery she is or eating her out and taking advantage of her leaking is downright manipulative, not to mention insulting. It's also infantilizing; it assumes she would be into it eventually if she only knew better. Let's give her the benefit of the doubt (and women some credit, for that matter) and assume that she isn't some prude who just needs to be shown the light, but rather is a person who isn't comfortable--or, gasp! doesn't find it super duper sexxxy!--with that particular act.

And to those who think it was a grand idea for him to tell her he thinks it's a turn-on at that moment--because, hey, it's a compliment!--think again. She was clearly distressed and trying to cope with what is no doubt a pretty traumatic life-changer, and all his comment did was remind her once again that her body is first and foremost sexual (to him?). Women are bombarded from all sides with the message that our bodies are primarily for straight male consumption, whether through the gaze or in the bedroom (that isn't to say men legitimately believe this, but that's the societal prescription nonetheless). For women, you can be who you want to be as long as you're sexy while you do it. It's exhausting, and to be frank, when your partner inadvertently reminds you of that fact, it can turn you defensive and angry in a hot second.

Body politics are rough and deeply complicated, so I don't blame people who don't think about it a whole lot. But for some reason this guy just really rubbed me the wrong way (I mean, obviously). I found myself thinking, "Not everything is about sex and not everything is about you." Maybe that's not really fair to MILK, I don't know. I certainly love the fact that people are breaking sexual barriers and are making their desires known to their partners, but it's a fine line between sharing something with someone you love and imposing it on them. This woman clearly isn't interested. Just give her a fucking break.
More...
Posted by blissmine on April 21, 2011 at 2:32 AM · Report this
126
@92 My thoughts on privacy and boundaries are the same - I alluded to getting caught off guard by my GF's changes in my last comment: the pull back is both nice and disconcerting. Nice, because it indicates I'm heard and disconcerting because it does represent a bit of distancing.

You keep suggesting that I don't really like her - that's not really true. There are things *we* don't really like about each other, but overall, we like each other very much. If everything were hunky-dory, I don't think I'd be posting here or elsewhere about it. Yes, you're absolutely right: people are different and I'm trying to work out if she and I are a good long term fit - if we can make our differences mesh nicely.

In response to your pegging question: I highly recommend the Nexus.
Posted by knkycva on April 21, 2011 at 4:22 AM · Report this
127
This has nothing to do with the letters and everything to do with strap-on harnesses. In fact, it's pretty much a product testimonial.

I love the idea of double-sided dildos like the Nexus, but I find them really uncomfortable (as the penetrator), so, reluctantly, I started shopping around for harnesses. The absolutely most comfortable one I found was the SpareParts Joque. It's made out of super-soft stretchy stuff. The hip straps tighten with velcro and both sets of straps adjust with those little strap clips you see on backpacks, so it fits really well. The straps are wide and soft enough that they don't bite into your skin.

(Unless you like the skin-biting aspect of harnesses. Or maybe I'm the only one who gets eaten by harnesses!)

Also, the pouch is made to work for men (as a ball-holder-type deal) too. Since I am sans balls, I use it to tuck in a little bullet vibrator. Perfect!

AND--the awesomeness of this last aspect can not be overstated--IT IS MACHINE WASHABLE!!!!!
Posted by doris delores on April 21, 2011 at 5:18 AM · Report this
128
and a partner's reasonable fetishes, kinks, and quirks should be accommodated.

This is a fundamental problem I've always had with Dan's sexual ethics. What exactly makes a person's fetish reasonable? In the bast, being gay was clearly an 'unreasonable fetish'; why, to some people in this very day and age, it still is. What exactly makes scat play intrinsically 'less reasonable' than being gay -- other than a belief that squeamishness when play with human waste is 'deeper' or 'more justified' than a squeamishness when playing with humans of the same sex?

@122, @123 -- Diagoras, allarosa -- even though I think I see what you're trying to say and can sympathize with it, I have to disagree. After all, any kink, even the ones traditionally thought of as more 'reasonable' (say, a foot fetish, or light BDSM) is always shared by a minority of the population. Any kinkster, regardless of how reasonable his/her kink is, cannot assume that the person they're with is going to accept this kink -- the person in question may very well be revolted by it, no matter how 'reasonable' it is. I'm willing to guess that, even in this day and age, the majority of the population dislikes even the most 'reasonable' kinks -- hell, you're going to find lots of people who are still opposed even to oral or anal sex!

So the advice -- you can't "expect" a person to be GGG and accommodate a certain kink -- is in practice true for any kink, no matter how "reasonable". The American population just isn't that open-minded... yet.

Which then makes the whole concept of "reasonableness" break down. There is no a priori reason I can think of why we should be in favor of more acceptance for, say, BDSMrs or foot fetishists, and that isn't valid -- and for precisely the same reason! -- for scat fetishits.

I'm not necessarily saying that people have to go out of their way to accommodate any fetish in others; but at the very least they should not (as the LW doesn't) think any less of someone who suggests scat play as they would of someone who mentions his/her foot fetish. At the very least! And, even if one is revolted by this idea of scat play (as many people are still revolted by the idea of BDSM or even foot fetishes), I think one should give it serious consideration. Is this person worth it? Would I go this far for him/her?

More important yet: would I be prepared to start a relationship with this person and allow him/her to get her scat play needs met elsewhere, if I really can't do it for him/her?

Being GGG is not about having a list of "acceptable" kinks -- if I can deal with items (a) through (f) I'm GGG! -- but about learning to communicate with one's partner, and thinking seriously and practically about the cost-benefit analysis of satisfying his/her needs.

Or else... paraphrasing what Dan once wrote to a girl who smugly described how she dumped a boy friend because he had a foot fetish and actually sexually enjoyed giving her foot massages: "If you turn away the honest, soft-spoken, respectful scat fetishist, you build up your sexual karma and may end up with the dishonest, disrespectful, yelling foot-fetishists or BDSMer (or maybe even necrophiliac serial killer)..."

A kink is a kink is a kink. A person is a person is a person. Period.
More...
Posted by ankylosaur on April 21, 2011 at 6:03 AM · Report this
129 Comment Pulled (Spam) Comment Policy
130
I love the idea of double-sided dildos like the Nexus, but I find them really uncomfortable (as the penetrator), so, reluctantly, I started shopping around for harnesses.

My former partner and I used the Nexus with a harness - an Aslan Leather Jock. The Nexus, unlike (IIRC) the Feeldoe, had a raised ridge positing for excellent clitoral stimulation.
Posted by knkycva on April 21, 2011 at 6:46 AM · Report this
Canuck 131
MILK:
This is something I'd really like to explore, but I don't know how to reapproach the subject.


@125:
I certainly love the fact that people are breaking sexual barriers and are making their desires known to their partners, but it's a fine line between sharing something with someone you love and imposing it on them. This woman clearly isn't interested. Just give her a fucking break.


He's just asking a question in a completely non-aggressive way about how to bring this up again, because it matters to him. I don't know how many people who are judging MILK are married and/or parents, but having kids, while wonderful, can be as divisive between the two parents as it is wonderful. You need every bit of help you can get to make it through, and being open about your needs and desires (even allowing that you may develop new ones over time) can make the difference between a marriage that survives and one that doesn't. Everything in a (long) marriage has to be negotiated, and unilaterally declaring certain innocuous issues off-limits, claiming "my body, my rules" doesn't bode well for the future.

Posted by Canuck on April 21, 2011 at 7:07 AM · Report this
132
@127 The SpareParts Joque is AWESOME. Definitely my favorite harness ever. I use it with my Share and it takes away any and all worries about it getting pulled out. I love my Share so much I haven't tried it with any other dildos, but I can definitely see how it would work well for holding a vibrator. It's a wonderfully versatile harness.

@130 The Feeldoe has little bumps for clitoral stimulation, but either I'm shaped oddly or it is because they don't hit me in the right spot.
Posted by Zuulabelle http://www.mellophant.com on April 21, 2011 at 7:44 AM · Report this
133
128, i see your point, but, let's face it, i'd rather eat out a woman (and i'm a female kinsey 1 or 0--NO interest), then engage in shit play. this is going to be true of the vast majority of otherwise ggg folks. that means that, of the people with relatively tolerant and open minds, this is a fetish too far. so, you take this minority of the population, then take from that the tiny fraction of them who will indulge shit play, and you've got yourself an unreasonable expectation of anyone but another fetishist/professional bringing you to heaven. compare that to how much trouble it is for a gay man to find another gay man in the course of his daily life. even in conservative backwaters they can expect to eventually find each other without the internet. can you really say that about the poo-aphiles?
Posted by ellarosa on April 21, 2011 at 9:04 AM · Report this
134
justchecking @115 –Better to find someone you click with sexually and with whom you can negotiate your disagreements civilly. If you see your husband as primarily a "dad," that's almost guaranteeing the end of your sex-life right there.

blissmine @125, you're saying he should leave her alone if she's not interested in sexualizing pregnancy. My "Earthmother" talk is about how to keep her feeling sexy all the way through pregnancy and child-rearing. This is an important topic, because many marriages hit a wall around that time, and the sex drops off. For some, it comes back, and they may have many years of happiness ahead of them. For others, it never comes back, and the marriage as a true communion is more or less over, even though a friendship may remain. Our society hypersexualizes young women, and then trivializes or ridicules the sexuality of mothers and older women. That's a dangerous trap. Attitudes like yours (if your wife is feeling unsexy, leave her alone and don't try to show her that she is still sexy) – that is part of the problem.

cvilletop @126, thanks for answering my intrusive questions – and best wishes to the both of you!
Posted by EricaP on April 21, 2011 at 9:22 AM · Report this
135
110/121/122/123/133 Re asking people to participate in the less common fetishes.

I'm with ankylosaur @128. One option is to look for partners who prides themselves on being open-minded, unconventional, and eager to try new things, whether that's food, books, art, or sex. Or look for submissive partners, who can often find real pleasure in submitting to other people's kinks. The point is to approach it as a fun game, appreciate each little baby step of progress, and to take care of your partner's kinks as well.

And, no, shit doesn't have to be dangerous. Eating your own shit is not that dangerous, I gather. And playing with shit is no more dangerous than having anal sex, which lots of people do. Just wash your hands & toys afterward.
Posted by EricaP on April 21, 2011 at 9:26 AM · Report this
Scrufff 136
to Cold: try craiglist, there's almost always some ad about a guy with a glory hole set up in his home. Usually this guy is looking to suck guys through his glory hole - NSA. But hey you might find a guy you'll let you do the sucking. it's worth a shot. Or try a sex club that has glory holes.
Posted by Scrufff on April 21, 2011 at 9:49 AM · Report this
137
I have never been in a relationship with a nursing woman. However, my partner has told me that when she was a young mother her boobs were absolutely off-limits to all but her precious offspring. Apparently she was quite fierce about this.

Who knows how something this primal will play out in any relationship.
_____________
One word in your post tells us you have some jealousy issues concerning your partner's children. Figure it out.
Posted by Frederica Bimble on April 21, 2011 at 10:08 AM · Report this
138
It would be unreasonable to expect someone who is not into homosexuality to actually engage in homosexuality. Same for shit eating. I don't think Dan has any problem with people who act on their aversion to gay sex by not having gay sex. It becomes a problem when they say that other people who are into gay sex can't have gay sex. Recall the rant about Huckabee--Dan is disgusted by the images of Mike Huckabee having sex with his wife, but Huckabee is free to do whatever he wants in bed, as long as his wife is OK with it.
Posted by LML on April 21, 2011 at 10:09 AM · Report this
139
wow number nine, that sounds great... Why anyone would want that experience I will never know. No kids, no pregnancy and dear god no cranky, selfish, entitled new mothers. I'm sure your husband had a fantastic time as well. Go team.
_____________
Wow... bitter much? So, her husband is getting his jollies as she does ALL the work looking after THEIR child yet the only thing you get from her post is how the "poor, childish, self-entitled new father" is being mis-treated.
I'd like to thank you for the world for NOT ever having children or inflicting your self-entitled, immature attitude onto a woman.
Psst! If you're in a relationship and you're too lazy to contribute something - anything - then, yep, folks get annoyed.
Grow up.
Posted by Frederica Bimble on April 21, 2011 at 10:12 AM · Report this
shw3nn 140
@128 Being gay still falls fully in the unreasonable category if you are straight. And vice versa. If a lesbian asks her partner to fuck a man, the partner gets to say "No" and still be GGG.

Remember that we're talking about behaviors you are being requested to engage in.

So, it isn't even necessarily about sexual orientation. It's unreasonable to ask a person to have sex with a person they don't want to have sex with. You can refuse that and still be GGG. I'm just going by my memory of Dan's previous GGG calls, by the way.

But you're right. These are judgment calls. There are harmful and life threatening bacteria in poo. That also makes rimming dangerous. There are life threatening STIs so, fretting about E. Coli is not an airtight explanation.

This isn't a priori. It is completely a posteriori.

GGG means you accommodate requests that you are able to accommodate with some comfort. You get to turn down stuff you can not stomach doing. That's the a priori proposition but it can't be evaluated in practice.

Once a person has refused a request, how do you know they are truly averse to the thing or are just being selfish? You don't. You can't. We can't read minds.

It really comes down to 3 things:

1. Can you personally empathize with the person's inability to accommodate?
2. Are there extenuating circumstances specific to this person concerning this act e.g., a rape victim requested to be the sub in some light BDSM.
3. Statistically, what are the chances of finding a person who could make the accommodation?

Dan is in a special position to evaluate number 3 because people write to him about this very subject. So, if he tells us that scat is one of the most common things that people find themselves unable to accommodate who aren't into in themselves, we should take him at his word.
More...
Posted by shw3nn on April 21, 2011 at 10:13 AM · Report this
141
Once, while nursing my oldest son, I was approached by a friend of a friend with an odd proposal (her words, not mine). Her husband had a milk kink/fetish and they had no plans to have babies soo, and she wondered if I could express some milk for her to give him. I asked for a shot glass, went into the rest room, and he had an ounce or so to taste. His reaction was disappointment. Just warm milk, nothing hot or sexy at all. Now, that was the taste, not the spray, so not the same fetish. But sometimes, the fantasy is better than the reality. Possibly MILK's wife will spray on him (and it very well could be accidentally) and maybe he won't like it as much as he thinks he will, and the whole thing might resolve itself.
Posted by charlie on April 21, 2011 at 10:42 AM · Report this
142
I have a technical question....I have never once heard of an instance of a genuine *female* scat fetishist? Are they out there? I have only ever heard of guys who are into it, and the women they pay (if they are straight)....

Perhaps I am just naive, since as GGG as I am, this is definitely something I am afraid I would have to turn down! So I have never really done much research on it, lol, besides what Dan prints. Glad my men aren't into it; I think I could probably manage a tinkle, but I am even shy about going #2 in public restrooms, lol!
Posted by badgirl on April 21, 2011 at 11:38 AM · Report this
143
I ask my question above, just because....think about how difficult it would be to have this fetish as a straight man....are there and women who actually *exist* who share it? They are probably extremely rare, if they indeed exists. Or only those who will (probably) reluctantly tolerate it?

That is really sad for them! At least with the foot fetishist, a lot of ladies really like getting foot rubs!
Posted by badgirl on April 21, 2011 at 11:41 AM · Report this
144
When I was still lactating, I started dating a guy who was overly obsessed with my breasts... I figured, having been pretty much flat-chested most of my life, that that was just how guys get when faced with big, bouyant titties... and for the most part, I think I was right. Except this guy... he was more than a little into them, he couldn't stop mauling the poor things. Not paying the right amount of attention during a good bout of fucking one night, I realized that he was spending a little too much time sucking on my nipple and asked flat out, "dude, are you trying to NURSE???"

I'm sorry, but I was completely and utterly grossed out. Had he maybe mentioned that he would like to try some breast milk some time, I might have been a little more accommodating, but really, to just get in there and breastfeed? Yuck.
Posted by sssatanic on April 21, 2011 at 11:46 AM · Report this
145
When I was still lactating, I started dating a guy who was overly obsessed with my breasts... I figured, having been pretty much flat-chested most of my life, that that was just how guys get when faced with big, bouyant titties... and for the most part, I think I was right. Except this guy... he was more than a little into them, he couldn't stop mauling the poor things. Not paying the right amount of attention during a good bout of fucking one night, I realized that he was spending a little too much time sucking on my nipple and asked flat out, "dude, are you trying to NURSE???"

I'm sorry, but I was completely and utterly grossed out. Had he maybe mentioned that he would like to try some breast milk some time, I might have been a little more accommodating, but really, to just get in there and breastfeed? Yuck.
Posted by sssatanic on April 21, 2011 at 11:47 AM · Report this
146
@143 I just did a search on Fetlife for people with a scat fetish. The majority are male, but about 1 in 5 identify themselves as female. They're not terribly rare in comparison to the guys. You just need to look for them instead of hoping a random vanilla person will share the fetish.
Posted by Zuulabelle http://www.mellophant.com on April 21, 2011 at 11:55 AM · Report this
147
badgirl@142, I did a quick scan just now in the scat/poo lovers group on FetLife. About 5% of the members were women, of whom about half looked to be submissive and about half were dominant.

One wrote on her home page:
"Young, attractive, selective and extremely kinky. I get off on severe degradation and humiliation. How severe? Scatplay, golden showers, enemas, roman showers, wallowing in dirt... you get the idea."

Also, doing #2 in front of my husband is much easier than doing it in a public restroom. I don't like strangers hearing me, but I feel safe with my husband. Feels totally different.

Posted by EricaP on April 21, 2011 at 11:59 AM · Report this
148
hmmmm. You learn something new everyday. Great odds for those gals!!! Thanks for the info, I don't think my work filter would take too kindly to that site, but for some reason, has no problem with Savage love, lol!
Posted by badgirl on April 21, 2011 at 12:16 PM · Report this
149
@146 - Ha, funny. I'll cede to your stats; mine were very slapdash.
Posted by EricaP on April 21, 2011 at 12:20 PM · Report this
150
EricaP@147 5%? I must have been hitting unusually female heavy pages when I was scanning through. But they are definitely out there.
Posted by Zuulabelle http://www.mellophant.com on April 21, 2011 at 12:22 PM · Report this
151
@146/150 Yep :-)
Posted by EricaP on April 21, 2011 at 1:54 PM · Report this
152
I'm not into shit, but I find it strange and disappointing that Dan doesn't do more to calmly address the ick-response to it. I'd like to see him point out with every mention of pegging etc that this involves potentially dealing with shit and its consequences for STIs, that parents clean up shit all the time without going into fits, and that everybody old enough to have sex should be mature enough to discuss any bodily function and fluid without freaking out. Kinda seems like there'd be a lot fewer guys grossed out by gay men (or ashamed of their desire to be pegged) if those guys spent more time wiping babies' butts.
Posted by ShareFan on April 21, 2011 at 3:19 PM · Report this
153
@135: And, no, shit doesn't have to be dangerous. Eating your own shit is not that dangerous, I gather. And playing with shit is no more dangerous than having anal sex, which lots of people do.

There is probably a slight increase of risk if more shit is involved, but as you say, it's nothing that justifies declaring it categorically unsafe. Most bacteria in the shit of healthy people will be harmless, but some can cause an "opportunistic" infection if they get in the wrong place. Most of the dangerous pathogens in shit spread by the "fecal-oral route", so forms of anal sex and shit play without the "oral" part should be relatively safer than those with it.

Something like, say, horse manure would have even less pathogens that are dangerous to humans, but I don't know if it would be a satisfactory substitute :)
Posted by tmak on April 21, 2011 at 4:19 PM · Report this
154
IBS: doggy style in jock straps.
If they're into D/s as well, play it to the hilt and let them know in no uncertain terms that if you see a real penis, you're zapping it with a taser (or whatever you have in your toybox that won't be pleasant for them).
That assumes you're going to go through the minefield of having an office fling.
They issued the invite. You've got all the leverage. Set your terms or don't do it (and if it works out and you can loosen up a little on a repeat, great--if it doesn't, remember you still have to work with them).
Posted by usagi on April 21, 2011 at 5:31 PM · Report this
ams_ 155
@125 yes yes yes.

Posted by ams_ on April 21, 2011 at 5:51 PM · Report this
tREBLEFREE 156
Naw Dan, I call bullshit. If COLD had admitted to sleeping with some dudes, you'd call him a closet case.

COLD is either gay or bi - he's just trying to deal with it...it takes time.
Posted by tREBLEFREE http://treblefree.muxtape.com/ on April 21, 2011 at 5:53 PM · Report this
157
128/ankylosaur, I completely agree with you. Evaluations like "reasonable" and "unreasonable" aren't appropriate here. People are turned on or off by different things, and there is no particular set of "reasonable" stuff one is expected to accommodate, or vice versa.

I don't think IBS should do it just because it's often disastrous to have sex with people you work with. However, it might work out, so more power to them if it does.

MILK needs to chill out and let his wife adjust to nursing and dealing with an infant, before worrying about how her body's new capacities can be used to his own sexual advantage. Anyone who doesn't think that a new mother (or parent in general) deserves time and space to manage this adjustment is either ignorant or an asshole (or like #15, apparently both).

Once MILK's wife is comfortable with nursing and taking care of newborn, I think it's fine for him to express his milk-related desires, as long as he makes it clear that she is in control of what happens. If she needs to keep nursing separate from sex, that should be her choice entirely, and nobody should be worried about how to talk her into it. Before I had kids, I was a little squeamish about nursing too. And at first it was very difficult, and postpartum sex was difficult and painful. But over time those problems abated, and after a second child everything was much easier and more relaxed.
Posted by Suzy on April 21, 2011 at 6:06 PM · Report this
158
Oh, one more thing about MILK: I've never leaked milk during sex, and when I have leaked it, there was nothing remotely like "spraying" going on. I doubt I could have even accomplished that during sex if I had wanted to. So it might be helpful not to have unrealistic expectations about this in the first place. Might work with some women, and not with others; might be desirable to some women, and not to others.
Posted by Suzy on April 21, 2011 at 6:12 PM · Report this
159
I'm a 23-year-old male who is bi-curious/pan-curious/post-gender-curious. I have recently found myself attracted to penises, but I don't feel like I'm attracted to any specific men.

I have a theory that enjoyment of giving oral sex constitutes a major breeding advantage. However, I'm not convinced that the genetic quality "enjoyment of giving oral sex" is tied to a particular kind of sexuality, or to a particular genital organ... Thus, when someone has the genetic quality of being an "oral sex giver" any genital will do, particularly when someone is bored or lonely.
Posted by Troutwaxer on April 21, 2011 at 7:16 PM · Report this
160
FOR THE VERY FIRST TIME, Dan, your advice to COLD leads me to respect you.

Dare I say that THIS is the first viable way I have ever seen proposed in relatively mainstream media to reach a GENUINE gay/straight rapprochement: YOU don't try to convince me that I'M sick just because I squick at gay sex, brother/sister, and I won't try to convince you that YOUR preferences are sick; let's just PLEASE do whatever it is that we do 1) behind closed doors 2) with ADULTS who are consenting and AVAILABLE (not in supposedly-committed monogamous relation with anyone else) and 3) NOT rub it into the faces of others who do not share our own preferences.

Just sign me - kinky as a slinky yet 110% het for the 40 years since puberty...but under NO illusions that this is "normal" or even "healthy"; however I am the way I am so I might as well be fine with it: "How 'bout you?" ;-)
Posted by female, early 50s on April 21, 2011 at 8:01 PM · Report this
161
I was the opposite of Dan's friend. I would have thought "okay... maybe" before I had children but now men into that really gross me out and piss me off. Is there nothing about my body that can be for mother and child and not for his fucking dirty ass fantasies? It's like there was nothing sacred. EVERYTHING I did could be made sexy and it pissed me off like my whole existence was about his pleasure.

Four kids later, I have gotten to where the natural release of milk that accompanies orgasm doesn't bother me but if he started acting like it was making him hard or moaning about how hot that was I'd probably deck him honestly. He does gently kiss me, and tell me it's beautiful, and I'm okay with *that* but "fuck yeah baby spray me with that sexy mama juice!" would almost certainly result in perma-loss of my girl woody. I love sex and am rarely more than two weeks after childbirth without desperately attacking him, but I also like him acknowledging I have bodily functions and social functions outside of being his slut princess. For me, lactation fetishes cross that line and blurs a weird incesty feeling (exacerbated by the fact nursing pleasure sensations are physiologically the same as sexual pleasure responses).
Posted by wendykh on April 21, 2011 at 8:29 PM · Report this
162
"He has not pushed it"

*Giggle snort*!
Posted by PugilistPuck on April 21, 2011 at 8:46 PM · Report this
163
Don't worry MILK, but your wife on top and you'll get some milk in the face. I PROMISE!
Posted by ProChoiceRN on April 22, 2011 at 1:59 AM · Report this
164
here's a thought: maybe you should try real hard to do whatever your spouse is brave enough to tell you that they really want.

Because otherwise by the time you're willing to play, they may have passed the point where they're willing to try with you. Especially if they meet someone else who is not just grudgingly agreeing to try, but enthusiastically begging to.
Posted by sylvia browning on April 22, 2011 at 8:13 AM · Report this
165
Here's a thought: maybe you should just do whatever reasonable thing your spouse is brave enough to tell you that they want.

Because otherwise, by the time you grudgingly agree to try, your spouse may be be over it. And by over it, I mean why should they agree to go with your tortured tolerance, when some one else might be enthusiastically begging to do what they want?
Posted by sylvia browning on April 22, 2011 at 8:20 AM · Report this
166
@134 One final comment on this, mostly to clarify my feelings about "boundaries" "privacy" and "manners": what this really boils down to for me - the essence of these three things - is an awareness of others. They are all founded in the "golden rule" - and they are mostly just a sensitivity to the thoughts and feelings of others.

I do not really expect that my checkbook register (how quaint), my email, my cell phone, etc., are entirely off-limits to my girlfriend. They certainly were, when we first started dating, but after a year and a half, they're less so, particularly since we've discussed marriage (and I've been married before, I know well how this stuff works). In fact, I expect that nearly all aspects of my life are an open book.

However, I want courtesy. I want the courtesy of asking before looking. I don't want to dig in her purse and if I needed to for some reason, I'd ask first. I asked my (ex) wife of 14 years before I went into her purse. It is an awareness of her and of invading her personal space, and a courtesy about doing that. We split for completely unrelated reasons.

Boundaries are the same thing. You've asked some personal questions here, and it's not really a boundary violation, since: a) I brought up the topic and b) it's in line with the very personal nature of much of the conversation here. If we were casual acquaintances at cocktail party, it might be over the line.

I'm a bit sensitive to the last issue, and it's baggage - I was intimately involved with someone who's relative had no sense of boundaries, coupled with a need to control the people and environment around her. I've also dealt with the corrosive effects of insecurity and lack of trust and frankly, after years and years of being the object of unfounded distrust, I have no patience or desire for living with that ever again.
More...
Posted by knkycva on April 22, 2011 at 8:23 AM · Report this
167
@165 Because otherwise by the time you're willing to play, they may have passed the point where they're willing to try with you. Especially if they meet someone else who is not just grudgingly agreeing to try, but enthusiastically begging to.

Wow...spot on!
Posted by knkycva on April 22, 2011 at 8:44 AM · Report this
168
@166 - agreed. I approve wholeheartedly of being sensitive to people's boundaries (even if I'm not always talented in that realm myself). And you are completely right about the corrosive effects of hyper-insecurity in one partner.

Posted by EricaP on April 22, 2011 at 9:21 AM · Report this
169
@165 I agree with this too. But I think wendykh was making an interesting point, which I'd like to come back to.

She noted that her "nursing pleasure sensations are physiologically the same as sexual pleasure responses." But for her own psychological comfort, she doesn't want to think about them in the same way – because the nursing pleasure she enjoys with the child is not something she wants to see in a sexual light.

I think this is something our society has a hard time with. If we want continued pleasure from sex during the years of child-raising, it helps to be fully aware of our sexual feelings (not constantly repressing things because they're "bad thoughts.") But then it's harder to carve out a zone of "pure" "non-sexual" energy to devote to the children. Culturally, it's not possible for people to admit to having sexualized thoughts in the vicinity of their children. And for good reason.
Posted by EricaP on April 22, 2011 at 9:36 AM · Report this
170
@EricaP

Sorry, I hadn't even read wendykh's comment when I made mine. My rant was in response to the letter in the column, and in general to spouses who are not game. My marriage is currently in shreds because after two years of trying to get my husband to play kinky with me, and a year of having given up because he didn't even try to hide his distaste and it killed my ladyboner, I met a guy who is begging to do all the nasty things that I want. and when I tell him the most fucked up shit that I want to do, my husband's response is disgust and this guys response is a rock-hard dick.

And the whole situation pretty much dropsmy brain in acid. Now that the hubby knows I'm thinking about cheating, or maybe even leaving, he's like "lets try again with the kinky stuff! I'll try!" but at this point.... I don't believe him.
Posted by sylvia browning on April 22, 2011 at 11:12 AM · Report this
171
@170, your comment came right after hers and seemed to speak directly to her point... but apologies for misapplying your rant.

Thank you, in any case, for writing about your situation -- another data point that sometimes if one tells one's spouse that one is thinking of going outside the marriage, the spouse doesn't say, "Oh, you horrible creature, never speak to me again except through your lawyer." Instead the spouse sometimes says, "Wow, I didn't realize it was so important to you. How can I step up my game?"

In your case, his efforts may be too little too late, but in general if people make the Seriousness of their Needs more obvious before it gets to a crisis point, they may get (some of) the changes they want met within the marriage.
Posted by EricaP on April 22, 2011 at 12:51 PM · Report this
172
Getting back to last week's column (probably a lot more germane than a lot of msgs here)...

He waited 2 years to complain. We must imagine that she knew when sex ended. What would be her reaction over time to his not complaining? Did he make the absence of sex with her unimportant? Why?
Posted by Hunter78 on April 22, 2011 at 1:41 PM · Report this
BEG 173
I refuse to google up seitan. I REFUSE DO YOU HEAR ME??
Posted by BEG http://twitter.com/#!/browneyedgirl65 on April 22, 2011 at 1:41 PM · Report this
174
EricaP,

We all love you. But you have to give us a break.
Posted by Hunter78 on April 22, 2011 at 1:59 PM · Report this
Canuck 175
BEG Before you get squicked out, remember: People pay a lot of money for this at the health food store, and it's supposed to be good for you. However, you would be forgiven for thinking that it ties in rather neatly with Dan's shit-play comments.... (it's food. well. sort of...)

http://bp1.blogger.com/_pIt65Ib-y6w/SGkU…
Posted by Canuck on April 22, 2011 at 5:02 PM · Report this
ron_in_PDX 176
I was like, "Holy shit, 170-some comments? What'd Dan say now? Toss a terrorist's salad for Christ?" Then I see it's all just a big kerfuffle about lacto-sex. Oh, and by the way #173, I did google-bing "seitan." (I have no standards anymore.) It's really quite shocking.
Posted by ron_in_PDX on April 22, 2011 at 5:03 PM · Report this
177
Okay, badgirl and others, y'all say all the time you want Dan to post more letters about shit-eaters. So show Dan some love by producing another hundred posts about CSE's situation. Why shouldn't she give the idea a try? Her boyfriend is not actually asking her to eat shit... I think she's halfway there, myself, with all her talk about how maybe she'll lose her GGG accreditation if she doesn't give it a try. I think she wants permission to try scat, and Dan should encourage her, not tell her it's sick and her boyfriend is only allowed to look for partners on scat sites. (How did the word scat come to mean both shit and jazz singing with wordless vocables?)
Posted by EricaP on April 22, 2011 at 5:17 PM · Report this
Bluejean Baby 178
To add to the MILK edition of this week's column... with my first child who wouldn't latch on, and my milk was fading fast, i did ask my husband if he would like a try before it was all gone. His reaction was "eeeewwww, gross, no thanks". I felt horrible. I never asked him again. I thought it would be one more way to be intimate with him. What i didn't know THEN was that he was on the downward slope of a fast-declining libido, and in the next few years, there would be little to no sex between us. That answer, plus a few other hints, were, in retrospect, very telling as to where we would be today. Conclusion: the least a partner can do when asked if s/he would like to partake in a new sexual activity is say "yes, i'll try it and see how i feel about it" and go from there. Saying no without trying it is indicative of a repressed attitude.
Posted by Bluejean Baby on April 22, 2011 at 5:47 PM · Report this
Bluejean Baby 179
@ 171 - i have to totally agree with you about wondering where your husband's libido is when you ask him to pleasure you in the way you desire, and he totally shuts down. It is only later, only when he KNOWS you are about to leave, he capitulates. As you noted, this just does not work, psychologically speaking. It is a situation where, when one feels they are forcing the partner to partake, the joy and desire goes straight out of it all. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that when the partner deflects the first advances, there is no hope of trying to "convince" them later, and even when they do beg to be taken back and beg to participate in an active sex life, for most, it is already ruined. Their true self is revealed in the first answer, not the second or third.
Posted by Bluejean Baby on April 22, 2011 at 6:02 PM · Report this
Bluejean Baby 180
Sorry, in my previous post, i incorrectly identified the poster as #171, when it is #170 i was referring to.
Posted by Bluejean Baby on April 22, 2011 at 6:03 PM · Report this
ForkyMcSpoon 181
@128 I think it is unreasonable to expect the typical person to indulge a scat fetish. It's something that I could easily see making my physically ill - definitely for certain levels of scat play. And there's a sound biological reason for that.

It's not unreasonable to ask about it. And Dan doesn't tell people to freak out and call scat fetishists monsters. Just that they are reasonable for refusing.

And homosexuality doesn't fall under GGG, in the way you seem to be suggesting, IMO. If you are gay, obviously, you WANT to have gay sex, so why would it be considered "GGG"? It's not an accommodation, it's what you want in the first place.

If you're straight, and your partner wants you to have gay sex, I think you are entirely justified in refusing. I have friends who are a couple where the girlfriend wants her bf to suck a dick. He doesn't want to. He's not failing to be GGG by refusing.

I suppose you can say he should give due consideration. It's not GGG if he refuses by saying "EEW gross, I ain't no fuckin faggot! You are completely disgusting!"

But it doesn't sound like that's the type of thing that CSE said to her scat fetish gentleman. You shouldn't make them feel ashamed about the fetish - and you shouldn't necessarily indulge, so to speak, your initial feelings of disgust. Maybe you should make an effort to think about it as something sexy... But with scat and having sex with your non-preferred gender or strangers, etc. are not things that I think you have to actually try before you refuse to do them.
Posted by ForkyMcSpoon on April 22, 2011 at 6:19 PM · Report this
182
I just googled seitan. Gross Dan!
Posted by outrider on April 22, 2011 at 10:21 PM · Report this
183
It's like I always say, if you can't get the milk for free, then you might as well buy a cow.
Posted by slidebone on April 22, 2011 at 10:24 PM · Report this
184
And EricaP, you have left twenty comments! Twenty!
I haven't read them, but that is too many!

It's like I always say, If you make too many comments on an internet site, then you might as well buy a cow. And fuck the cow.
Posted by slidebone on April 22, 2011 at 10:31 PM · Report this
185
@ 133 (ellarosa),

indeed, the number of people, GGG or otherwise, who would be sort-of OK with foot fetishists is much higher than the number of people who would be sort-of OK with scat play. But I don't see that as an argument -- unless you're saying that being GGG means accepting anything. People have a right to dislike certain things, even 'reasonable' things, for all kinds of reasons (bad experiences, traumas), without having their GGG cards cancelled. Hell, a person could be 'otherwise GGG' and not like oral sex; so s/he says to potential partners, "I'm good and game, but oral sex is out of the question". This person is still being reasonable, isn't s/he?

So: I simply don't believe in the idea of "a fetish too far". I only see that the number of people who wouldn't run away screaming if someone said he was a scat fetishist is larger than the number of people who would have the same reaction to a gay person or a foot fetishist. That's true, but this does not change the moral status of the scat fetish itself. It is a fetish like any other fetish; it can be played safely like any other fetish; it doesn't mean that the person who has it is "a pervert" who should be avoided or run away from as quickly as possible.

What you say simply means: life is harder for scat fetishists because they're few, and many people, even otherwise liberal people, really have a problem with their fetish. That's the situation gay people were in a few decades ago, isn't it? It was wrong for gays. It is wrong for scat fetishists too.

Again: I'm not saying you have to agree with scat play to be GGG. GGG is not about you "having to agree" with anything. GGG is about being ready to hear what your partner's needs are respectfully, without going automatically into eeeww mode, and giving said needs the benefit of a real, thoughtful cost-benefit analysis. Would I go that far for this person, is s/he worth it? If I wouldn't but would still otherwise like a relationship with this person, am I OK with him/her having this particular need met elsewhere?

It's all about respect, I think.
More...
Posted by ankylosaur on April 22, 2011 at 10:52 PM · Report this
186
shw3nn (@140), I'm not saying you don't have the right to refuse scat play (or anything at all -- even oral sex) and not be GGG.

Now, your point is that perhaps this is what Dan says. Maybe his concept of GGG does involve a list of "consensus reasonable kinks" that any GGG person is supposed to accept (even if s/he isn't thrilled by them) -- say, foot fetish, light BDSM, you name it.

Maybe so. In this case, then I am diverging from Dan's concept; it seems I'm proposing a new definition of GGG. (Dan, in case you're reading this, would you agree? What do you think?)

GGG means (to me):
1. I don't say "eeeww! you're a pervert!" no matter what the kinkster says.*
2. I seriously think about whether or not I could accommodate that if I think the person is worth it.
3. If I can't, I say so respectfully, without implying that the person is bad for wanting that, but simply asserting that I can't help him/her there
4. If I still want to pursue a relationship with this person, then I must be OK with the idea of this person getting that kinky need satisfied with someone else.

I don't consider statistics here, because I don't see GGG as depending on a standard list of "acceptable fetishes". It shouldn't matter to a GGG person how frequent a certain fetish is or isn't; what matters is whether or not I can accommodate this particular fetish, and how I react in case I can't.

-----

* One might think of exceptions to the 'all kinks deserve respect' rule: say, serial killers who get off on killing people are definitely out. Pedophiles often are, too, but remember what Dan once wrote about 'good pedophiles', i.e. the ones who don't act on their desires because they don't want to cause suffering. In fact, here's a generalization: even when a person has a very dangerous fetish (pedophilia, or the desire to kill people), the point is not the desire itself, but whether or not the person acts on it.
More...
Posted by ankylosaur on April 22, 2011 at 11:08 PM · Report this
187
@135 (EricaP), @157 (Suzy), thanks for your support.

In case people were wondering, yes, I do have a little of a scat fetish. It's not the main thing for me, but I do find it... intriguing. Never acted on it, though (in fact this message is the first time I even admit it in public...).
Posted by ankylosaur on April 22, 2011 at 11:19 PM · Report this
188
@181 (ForkyMcSpoon), I think there are different issues here, and we (and even perhaps Dan himself) have been confusing them.

I don't simply think it's unreasonable to expect the typical person to indulge in scat play -- considering how prudish the American population still is, I think it's unreasonable to expect the typical person to indulge in any fetish, no matter how 'reasonable': the number of people who still think a foot fetish is icky and pervy is probably way higher than the people who think it isn't.

In other words: the (overwhelming?) majority of Americans is not GGG. I hope this is not a surprise?

So I take it when Dan (and you) talk about being GGG, you're talking about how people should be, but mostly still aren't.

I see you're making a difference between homosexuality and kinks, and I think you're right. Let me rephrase my comparison: the point is that "people in general" are often disgusted by certain fetishes (that they don't have) in the same way that homophobes are "disgusted" by the homosexuality that they don't have. When posing a list of "reasonable" fetishes, I think Dan was being influenced by this feeling of disgust, in the same way that homophobes are influenced by their feelings of disgust about the idea of "gay sex". This is of course independent from the idea of accommodating or not accommodating the sexual needs of your partner; but to the extent that the feeling of 'disgust' or lack thereof often influences a person's decision on whether or not to accommodate said needs, I still see a similarity.

So I am after all in agreement with yours: what is not GGG is saying "EEWW gross", and CSE didn't do it.

But what I'm saying now -- the 'new GGG' as it were -- is that GGG doesn't mean "accommodating a specific list of 'reasonable fetishes'", but accommodating what you think you can accommodate. There are no 'unreasonable' fetishes, there are only frequent and unfrequent fetishes, or fetishes that have better or worse PR. And the fetishists who have them are, I am sure, well aware of how rare the people are who can 'accommodate' them (let alone share the same fetish).

I think we all should make efforts to try new things, but boundaries are boundaries are boundaries. I don't think you need a justification like "oh, this is a really 'bad', 'unreasonable' fetish" in order not to want to accommodate it. If you can't accommodate it, then you can't accommodate it, and it doesn't matter whether or not most (GGG) people could, or couldn't.

More...
Posted by ankylosaur on April 22, 2011 at 11:31 PM · Report this
mommyducky 189
ankylosaur,

I agree with your comments and your definition of GGG. Well done. I have a bit of a blood fetish and that freaks people out.

Also what you said about the act itself rather than the desire to act is definitely something I can agree with. I have desires which I know I'll never act on for various reasons. But there are ways to do things in a way that isn't too damaging if you think logically about your desires before you act on them. Like having a desire to kill people but instead settling on mutual exchange of pain where nobody gets hurt beyond what's expected (i.e. nobody dies). I'm talking nonsense now. I just meant to tell you that I liked your comments. :o)
Posted by mommyducky on April 22, 2011 at 11:50 PM · Report this
mommyducky 190
"There are no unreasonable fetishes"

I concur, anklysaur. No fetish should be considered reasonable or unreasonable. That's just silly. And most people, like you said, are not GGG at all.
Posted by mommyducky on April 22, 2011 at 11:55 PM · Report this
191
@184 "I haven't read them, but that is too many!"

And here's one more, just for you. Kiss kiss.
Posted by EricaP on April 23, 2011 at 12:36 AM · Report this
192
@189-190 (mommyduck), indeed that is what I think. Most fetishists of all kinds, even the so-called 'reasonable' ones, have to deal with all kinds of negative feelings about their fetishes (I do have a lot of submissive fantasies, and I did go through that awkward phase of thinking 'Is there something wrong with myself?' 'Do I for some reason hate myself?' 'Is this the result of some childhood trauma that I should get professional help about?' etc. etc. etc.; even now, when I know for a fact such desires can be safely indulged on in a healthy, loving way, I still sometimes wonder where they come from, and if there is something self-destructive in them at all that I should be concerned with). Fetishists with the kind of kinks Dan would call 'not reasonable' have reasons to feel even worse -- why, even Dan, the father of GGG-ness, thinks they should 'stay in the closet' (as he said once, they should discretely look for partners in some website in order to remove themselves from the 'outisde world', so that 'reasonable people' who are dating each other don't run the risk of running into said 'unreasonable people' and being grossed out...)

For instance, I would have problems with a blood fetish (it does freak me out a little). But if you proposed that to me, I would treat you with respect, and I wouldn't think any less of you because of that. Blood fetishists aren't serial killers in the making, just like submissives aren't cowards or, who knows, future self-hating suiciders, or cuckold fetishists aren't just men who want out of their marriages and are just looking for an excuse.

I agree that being turned on by the idea of killing people doesn't mean you're going to become an obsessive serial killer -- just like being turned on by the idea of spanking or whipping someone doesn't mean you're going to become a cruel, insensitive person (like the old Batman supervillains). It is true, however, that any death fetishists must understand that s/he is never going to have 'the real thing', and s/he must be OK with just simulating it at best. (I once met a guy who had somewhat of a castration fetish, and he also was aware that he didn't "really" want it to happen, it's just something he liked thinking about, or at best simulating.)

Some fetishes require 'extra care' (breath play? electricity play?), i.e. double-extra strong feeling of duty and responsibility for those who want to indulge in them. But they don't imply that said people are morally bad (they may be irresponsible, like everybody else also may be, but not necessarily and not because of their fetish).
More...
Posted by ankylosaur on April 23, 2011 at 4:15 AM · Report this
193
I'm getting to old for this. "bi-curious/pan-curious/post-gender-curious". What the fuck does that mean? Seriously.
Posted by wolfhound on April 23, 2011 at 6:44 AM · Report this
194
I don't understand why openness to anal sex is considered a standard part of being "GGG", even if one ultimately decides it's not desirable. However, anything involving poop is "unreasonable"? Look, if you're putting body parts in there next to the poop, what is so unreasonable about poop? Is it somehow worse than pee? It's not something I particularly care to try, given my alter-ego as Ms. Lysol USA, but at least it seems as reasonable as anything else people do with their bodies and the bodily products.
Posted by Suzy on April 23, 2011 at 7:11 AM · Report this
195
I could not disagree more with the advice above (I think maybe from Bluejean Baby?) that once you ask a spouse to do something, they refuse, you threaten to cheat, and then they try to accommodate you, that the sexual benefit is ruined and the "true self" was only found in the initial refusal. Why so essentialist about people, their desires, and what they're capable of? People change, learn, grow, and their desires are to some degree mutable. If anything ruins the subsequent attempt to do what the partner wants sexually, it's the threat of being abandoned unless you comply!

sylvia browning, you asked: "why should they agree to go with your tortured tolerance, when some one else might be enthusiastically begging to do what they want?" The answer is very simple: because you married them, and your promises are supposed to mean more than shit. If you had made demands of your husband and he categorically refused, and after lengthy soul-searching you decided that sexual satisfaction in this area was more important than anything else in marriage or your commitment to your vows, then yeah, I guess you have to tell him you're going to cheat or leave. However, if at that point he tries to comply, why should you scorn his efforts? He obviously values being with you more than you value being with him, because he's willing to do what it takes to save your relationship, and you're content to remain skeptical. I don't know if your marriage is salvageable or worth the effort, as it's obviously more complex than this, but you definitely owe him the chance to learn what you want and try, without being dismissive of his reaction. Just like you'd expect him to be accepting and tolerant of your different desires, you should also give him the same consideration, which means time to get on a learning curve about satisfying your desires.
More...
Posted by Suzy on April 23, 2011 at 7:17 AM · Report this
196
Ankylosaur, I commend you for your bravery in making your scat intrigue public, as even among Savage Love readers you might run into a lot of knee jerk reactions. (Although not too much yet, it seems...) I agree with your re-definition of GGG with one caveat --- that people not allow their internal conception of what things they could potentially accommodate balloon in such a way as to wrap what is really just an "ick" feeling into some more noble-sounding sense of predestination. For example, thinking to oneself that one feels averse to performing oral sex because one is in fact immutably UNABLE to accommodate that action due to the imagined risk of damage to the psyche (in cases where there is no trauma precedent.) I think that is why it is important to be willing to try something at least once and/or at the very least, in a committed monogamous relationship, willing to discuss in detail one's sensible, intact reasoning for not being willing to do so, without stonewalling the issue. I also want to go on record as saying even though I personally don't find scat a turn on and wouldn't be willing to play with or eat it, I'd have no issue with defecating on someone who I was comfortable enough to have anal sex with. It takes some time to get to that point of biological comfort with a partner, but it can be done. Every individual makes a choice as to how much he/she is uncomfortable with bodily functions, and that choice is not destiny. It can change over time and in the right context.
Posted by zell_zyte on April 23, 2011 at 8:31 AM · Report this
197
Dan: "stay the hell away from heterophobic post-gender/post-modern/pan-sexual cultural-studies majors whose immaturity, self-loathing, and anger all manifest in a refusal to accept that a good guy can also be a straight guy."

Amen. But why can't we just shoot them?
Posted by Nils on April 23, 2011 at 9:13 AM · Report this
198
@194/195 Yes! poop fetish is not so far removed from anal fetish. And, Yes! whatever it takes to give your spouse the "wake-up call," once they get it and try to give you what you want, give them a chance, for the sake of the love that brought you together.

(And corollary: MAKE SURE THEY KNOW, really really, how serious this is to you, long before you start hating their guts.)
Posted by EricaP on April 23, 2011 at 12:01 PM · Report this
199
EricaP, zell_zyte (@196, @198), indeed. It's interesting that it's our common disgust for poop itself that transfers to our judgment of poop fetishists (we do feel angry when we realize the dog pooped where he shouldn't have, and we do feel disgusted by having to pick it up and throw it away, don't we?). I note that Dan, when he talks about anal sex, makes sure to note how he tries NOT to think about what the anus is for, to forget that it's an exit and think of it as an entrance, etc. (Similarly, remember how many homophobes are grossed out by anal sex because they think, as that person -- who was it again? -- put it, that they're 'wiggling their penises in excrements'?)

Yep, there's a disgust feeling associated with faeces. I feel it too; I don't like picking up dog faeces just like any other dog owner. I do feel intrigued by scat play (I have some vivid scenarios in my mind), but since I've never tried it there's a good chance that if someone ever said 'OK, let's try' to me I'd chicken out and run away or, if I went as far as trying it, I'd still feel disgusted and grossed out by 'the real thing'. I don't know. As I say, I just find the idea... intriguing. (One thing I did try once was, well, playing with a partner's farts. Allow me the shyness of not describing the details... But I'll say I enjoyed it even more than I had expected. It was very... intense.)

Dan mentioned once -- and I agree with him -- that he thought sex itself in all its forms is 'icky' if you think about it, and if it weren't so much fun nobody would understand why people would actually do it. (As a friend of mine put it, why is saliva so disgusting when someone spits it on our face, but so delightful when we're kissing? Isn't it the 'same' saliva?)
Posted by ankylosaur on April 23, 2011 at 12:25 PM · Report this
200
Men not only have nipples, they have fully functional mammary glands. Look it up. Have MILK work on it for a while and do it himself.
Posted by Oolagah on April 23, 2011 at 7:42 PM · Report this
201
Men not only have nipples, they have fully functional mammary glands. Have MILK work on it for a while and do it himself.
Posted by Oolagah on April 23, 2011 at 7:47 PM · Report this
202
As a scat fetishist I think it is awesome that so many people are supportive. I went through some terrible experiences in my life related to this, and tried to kill myself after being outed by a hateful person. After that I got counseling from psychologist who focused on paraphilias, and thank god for that. It took a while, but he was able to help me come around and accept that it is okay for me to want love and sex this way, and it is reasonable to think I can find it.

One thing people are missing about Dan is the language he uses when talking about scat. I know he isn't the sort of columnist to be "nice," but his writing really suggests scat fetishist shouldn't be tolerated.

one thing he iterates over and over is using the internet to "remove guys like your boyfriend from the dating pool." The verbage used indicates Dan is more concerned with cutting scatsters out of the love lives of other kinksters. He has consistently used variations on the verbage "removed from the dating pool" in the past, which indicates to me it isn't just an unfortunate choice of words.

It is silly to expect someone not to pursue a partner without knowing their kinks first. Maybe very useful and practical, but often times we find the people we love through more organic interaction.

It may be more compassionate for Dan to focus on scat kinksters to use the internet to increase their chances, and broaden their dating pool.

Other points on his verbage:
Using "suppose" to undermine the fact that it truly is wonderful that CSE's boyfriend confided in her.

reasonable vs unreasonable as already discussed by many already. Unreasonable is clearly used with a negative connotation, no need to look further than "unfuckingreasonable."

If he truly meant unreasonable as in high-risk, socially taboo, or even statistically unlikely to happen, he really could have used different language.

I'm sure it seems silly to focus on Dan's language, when a portion of his success is due to the sharpness of both his tongue and wit. Though rhetoric has power, and Dan clearly carries a significant influence with his rhetoric. It really sucks to turn to someone looking for hope and help, to be faced with disdain. The only thing that sucks more, is to know that person is actively using his power to plant that seed of disdain in others.
More...
Posted by GuyShyly on April 24, 2011 at 1:38 AM · Report this
203
Oolaqah,

You need less looking it up, and more experience.
Posted by Hunter78 on April 24, 2011 at 6:23 AM · Report this
204
I don't think anal sex is like poo play. Anal sex is another variation of the popular Bury the Sausage game. Poo play is part of a network of elimination fascination games, which diminish the role of the sex organs.
Posted by Hunter78 on April 24, 2011 at 6:47 AM · Report this
shw3nn 205
@186 anlyosaur I don't think your definition of GGG contradicts what I think Dan's is. I don't think that what you describe is GGG, I think it's just being a kind person and a loving partner.

But, I think you're missing my point.

I never said it should matter to a GGG person how frequent a certain fetish is or isn't. If you can accommodate the poo, you should. We aren't talking about that.

If you can't accommodate the poo, does the other person have a right to be annoyed? The answer is no. If it were a request for spanking, the asker would be in a position to be annoyed at the refusal and question how GGG you really are.

That's the difference I'm talking about and that is what is informed by statistics.

Statistics totally inform your partner's right to be annoyed and question just how GGG you really are.

But, absolutely, if your partner refuses and calls you pervert and is just generally a dick about a fetish you have that exclusively involves consenting adults, fuck that POS.

I mean, maybe they are GGG and maybe they aren't but they are definitely callous and self-absorbed and inconsiderate and DTMFA and all that.
Posted by shw3nn on April 24, 2011 at 11:01 AM · Report this
206
@205: If a spanking fetishist asked off-the-bat for a scene at a public party, with you wielding a hairbrush on his naked ass - that would put most people off. So the spanking fetishist starts small.

If a scat fetishist starts small, only asking you to leave the door open a crack when you sit on the toilet, or to read a couple of stories about sexualizing poo... is that different?
Posted by EricaP on April 24, 2011 at 11:34 AM · Report this
Bluejean Baby 207
@ 195 - Suzy - i guess if you read 178 before you read 179, you would get the gist of it. I write on a personal level, i really was referring only to myself regarding asking and getting turned down the first time. I learned that there really is no use in begging. Begging is pathetic (unless you're into begging, of course - i'm not). As things went, sex totally disappeared because he just couldn't be bothered more than once per every 3 months or so, which is not my idea of a sex life. So when you have to beg for the very basics, and you also have the milk question declined to boot, then there really is no use in asking again, is there?

Also, talk about marriage vows: he is just as complicit in dissing the vows when he does not come across with his part of the physical relationship, no? Worry not, Suzy, he and i have had "the talk" many times, to no avail.
Posted by Bluejean Baby on April 24, 2011 at 12:00 PM · Report this
shw3nn 208
Erica, I think a spanking scene at a public party is asking for more than just spanking. At the very least, you're also asking for exhibitionism. At most, it sounds like you're asking your partner to get all into the BDSM scene with you.

I am talking about honest, simple requests. Saying, "I am into X. Are you open to exploring that," where X is the variable.
Posted by shw3nn on April 24, 2011 at 12:06 PM · Report this
Lechugo 209
LOL at COLD's advice xD
Posted by Lechugo on April 24, 2011 at 1:57 PM · Report this
210
@208, How about if a scat fetishist says, a couple of months into a new, fairly vanilla relationship: "I should tell you, I have an unusual fetish. I like to think about scat when I masturbate. Would you be into that, or is there anything specific I could do for you, so you would consider talking about scat with me, and maybe participating in some way, once you were comfortable with the idea?"

Would that be an honest, simple request?
Posted by EricaP on April 24, 2011 at 1:59 PM · Report this
211
And if so, could someone say they were GGG if they wouldn't even consider talking about the idea of scat with their partner?
Posted by EricaP on April 24, 2011 at 2:01 PM · Report this
shw3nn 212
Erica, are you trying to turn this into some sort of Zeno's paradox of kink?

I don't think it's very nice or reasonable to refuse to discuss the idea but we're talking about the outcome of that discussion, aren't we?

You can try to get there by increments the width of hydrogen atoms, but you're likely going to hit your partner's limit very quickly...much more quickly than if you're trying to edge your partner towards a more commonly acceptable fetish.
Posted by shw3nn on April 24, 2011 at 3:02 PM · Report this
213
@202 (GuyShyly), I hear your voice. I have some of the same concerns as you about Dan's treatment of certain kinds of kinks; as if there were, you know, 'first class' kinksters and 'second class' kinksters, and the latter should go as deep into the closet as possible so that the latter wouldn't have to put up with them.

I think you're totally right. I see your point regarding the fact that Dan's success is partially on his sharp tongue; and I can appreciate his tongue (I'm so often in agreement with him, it's almost painful to disagree with respect to so-called "unreasonable kinks"). I'll even go as far as suggesting that if the lack of consistency of thusly dividing kinks is pointed out to him, he will refrain from using the language you describe in the future (he did so when he replaced 'retard' with 'leotard', and when he stopped using 'pussy' in the pejorative sense, didn't he?)

I'm not so much a believer in "language" as that which should be changed; I think it's the thoughts/feelings that should change, and language only secondarily (or perhaps not at all). It would be better to get rid of the racist frame of mind than of words like "nigger". I support your position here because I think there is a viewpoint, an attitude, a belief in Dan's mind that is reflected in his choice of vocabulary, and like you I hope he will change that someday.

Who knows, GuyShyly? As Dan says, it does eventually get better. I hope it will get better for you, too. :-)
Posted by ankylosaur on April 24, 2011 at 3:31 PM · Report this
mommyducky 214
ankylosaur @192

I appreciate the last sentence you wrote. Because it's important to separate the person from the fetish. Some people with blood fetish or a fetish for hurting people might actually be the type of people who would go too far and kill someone. But like you said it's not because of their fetish. There are probably some people who are pretty average in their sexual interests but still could be serial killers. And not all blood or death enthusiasts are serial killers. The fetish has nothing to do with the person and it would be ridiculous to think all people are the same just because they share a common fetish. The way we think and how we act on our desires is what is most important. If there is a way to get what you need in a healthy, positive way than nobody has any right to tell us there is something wrong with us. It doesn't matter what the fetish, be it poop, blood or dead bodies. And if someone who claims to love and care for us can't even give us the time to talk and think about our needs then they probably don't love or care as much as they claim. I wouldn't force my partner to play in my blood just because it would turn me on. And I wouldn't consider him/her to be not GGG if he/she thought about it and said it wasn't for him/her. I can live with that and not think he was a horrible person for not indulging me. As long as I'm not made to feel like there is something horribly wrong with me because of my interest. And there should never be any reason to tell someone that their fetish is wrong just because it's different from yours (different and not worse or more disgusting. it's unfair to judge what is "worse" as a fetish or... as was said, more "unreasonable"). So we're definitely in agreement, you and I, on this particular topic. :o)
More...
Posted by mommyducky on April 24, 2011 at 3:54 PM · Report this
215
@205 (swh3nn), you made an interesting point here, and one that made me realize what exactly I think is wrong with your viewpoint. Let's see if I can express it here in a way that is not confusing (we probably both agree that this topic is fraught with the possibility of confusion...).

If you can accommodate the poo, you should. We aren't talking about that.
Good. That's part of what I said, and I'm glad to see we're in agreement here.

If you can't accommodate the poo, does the other person have a right to be annoyed? The answer is no. If it were a request for spanking, the asker would be in a position to be annoyed at the refusal and question how GGG you really are.
That's the difference I'm talking about and that is what is informed by statistics.


You see, here is clearly where I have a problem. When you talk about statistics here, you obviously don't mean statistics in general, because I think we can agree that most Americans would still have a problem with a spanking fetish -- it's not really gone that much mainstream, you know. It's on its way, but it is still far from being there.

So, by your definition, a person who can't accommodate a spaking fetish could still claim to be GGG -- by pointing out that spanking fetishes, statistically speaking, are still overwhelmingly rejected by Americans.

I am guessing that when you talk about statistics, you don't mean the whole set of all Americans, but rather, say, the set of all people who actually care about the concept of GGG (and would like to think they are GGG). That's a much smaller set, and one defined by people who already realized that certain kinds of prejudice still widely found among other Americans are in fact childish and should be abandoned.

This group is making a moral judgment -- a non-statistical moral judgment -- about the larger group. They're basically saying, "I don't care if a spanking fetish is something still overwhelmingly disliked by Americans; they should not dislike it, because there is nothing terribly bad or sinful about it. The group of people who agrees with me on that I will call GGG."

You see the similarity: the same relationship can be found between this group (let's call it GGG-1) and the smaller subset of this group that contains the people who also are OK with scat fetishes (call them GGG-2, or GGG+).

In other words: if GGG-1 people think they have the right to be annoyed with someone who can't accommodate a spanking fetish, despite the fact that people who can't accommodate a spanking fetish are still the vast majority in the population as a whole, then, by the same token, GGG+ people would claim they have the right to be annoyed with someone who can't accommodate a scat fetish -- again despite the fact that such people would be the majority of the GGG-1 population (to say nothing of the American population as a whole).

Do you see my point? Ultimately, GGG is a moral judgment ('we shouldn't be prejudiced against certain kinks') that does not depend on statistics (the frequency of a certiain kink in the population as a whole), but on something else -- call it 'the eeewww factor' -- which is not far from, well, simple prejudice.

Do I make myself clear? Do you see what it is that I'm trying to get at? GGG cannot depend on statistics (frequency: more or less than 50%, or some other threshhold level) for its definition because it already doesn't: if GGG depended on statistics, anything beyond oral sex (and actually maybe even oral sex itself) could be refused without losing one's GGG-ness, since 'most people are still not comfortable with it'.
More...
Posted by ankylosaur on April 24, 2011 at 3:57 PM · Report this
216
shw3nn, let me make another parallel that may make my point about statistics not being a good thing to take into account when moral judgments are involved (and I do think GGG or no-GGG is a moral judgment, like 'bigotted' vs. 'not bigotted').

I know, by the way, that homosexuality is not a kink; I don't mean in my comparison to imply that it is one. But homosexuality is still (as the news never let us forget) something that many people feel very uncomfortable with, so I think it's a good standard of comparison.

Consider people who want to be seen as non-bigotted. Let's say that they tried to use a similar frequency argument; they might say something like:

"Well, I think 'homosexuals' really aren't a simple category. There are many kinds; and some are statistically more acceptable than others. I, for instance, can accept homosexual who could pass as straight, or who are not too effeminate; and I would be offended if someone disrespected them. That would be bigotted. But I'm not bigotted; I respect them. Now, the more flamboyant types of homosexuals -- drag queens and the like; now, these are still rejected by an overwhelmingly majority of Americans. Therefore, I think it's OK for me to be prejudiced against these flamboyant types and still claim that I'm not bigotted. I don't see a problem or a contradiction here. I think that a more straight-looking homosexual is right if he feels annoyed at someone who discriminates him; but the flamboyant types, they don't have a right to be annoyed if someone expresses open displeasure at their kind of homosexuality."

Do you see the parallel with saying that the fact some kinks are statistically more acceptable than others? To me, it does sound like saying that flamboyant homosexuals and "straight looking" homosexuals are two different species and that being prejudiced only against the former isn't enough for you to be considered bigotted or homophobic.
More...
Posted by ankylosaur on April 24, 2011 at 4:09 PM · Report this
217
@214 (mommyducky), we are indeed in perfect agreement. And I say this as someone who would have a problem accommodating your blood fetish (as you perhaps would with a scat fetish, even as gentle/weak a scat fetish as mine. :-) Did you see @202 (GuyShyly)'s message, by the way? He makes some of the same points.

I think GGG was invented because people (specifically Dan, who invented the term, but also many others) were beginning to realize that at least some kinks were not 'revolting' or 'disgusting' as people used to think, but could be accepted or tolerated in a loved one; enough even that a certain level of willingness to accommodate them should become a standard part of the deal, and that a partner (as sh3nn above says) can even claim the right to be 'annoyed' at someone who doesn't show this willingness to accommodate.

But once you think about it, it isn't logical to distinguish them on account of statistics, because the overwhelming majority of Americans still doesn't accept fetishes of any kind (they're 'paraphilias' and should be treated to that kinksters can 'become normal' again). If you take statistics seriously, no kinksters should have the right to be annoyed at partners who don't want to accommodate them, because all kinks are still rejected by most Americans. If, however, we do agree with Dan that this is not so, despite the statistics, and that some fetishes are so OK that one can indeed be justifiably annoyed at a parnter who won't accommodate them... then it is difficult to see why this right to be annoyed can't be extended to all fetishes. Dan is actually making an implicit hierarchy (of 'reasonableness', which I think is really ultimately 'reverse eeeww-ness') which is not based on statistics but simply on 'how awful' a certain fetish seems to be.

Basically, if your fetish is 'too awful' or 'too disgusting', you don't have the right to be annoyed at a person who won't accommodate it. Just imagine if we said this about races or ethnic groups: you know, some of them are 'too awful' or 'too disgusting,' so they don't have the right to be annoyed if someone doesn't want to have them living next doors...

GGG isn't statistics. 'Reasonableness' isn't statistics. GGG is about people trying to see that their partners are human, that their fetishes are not "horrible", and making honest efforts, as far as they can (but not further), to accommodate them. The 'right to be annoyed' is, I think, irrelevant. It either should be there for all fetishes, or then for none.
More...
Posted by ankylosaur on April 24, 2011 at 4:41 PM · Report this
shw3nn 218
215 When you talk about statistics here, you obviously don't mean statistics in general,because I think we can agree that most Americans would still have a problem with a spanking fetish

You're getting miles away from my initial post which was specifically about Dan's letters. In my first point about statistics, I was explicitly talking about the set of people who know about GGG. I was talking about Dan Savage's readers.

Once again, whether or not you should indulge a kink has nothing to do with statistics. Whether or not you should trust that your partner has made a good faith effort to indulge yours can be well informed by statistics.

That distinction is necessary and you are not being careful to make it.

If Dan gets 150x more letters from people who are finding themselves unable, despite their best efforts, to accommodate a scat fetish than he gets from people who are having the same difficulty with spanking, then we can get from that that poo is probably more difficult to accommodate than spanking amongst the GGG.

You can take from that that you can't reasonably expect a GGG person to be able to accommodate your scat fetish while you can reasonably expect them to accommodate your spanking one.

Posted by shw3nn on April 24, 2011 at 4:54 PM · Report this
219
@ 218
Or it could mean that Dan's pro-BDSM anti-scat stance has attracted readers of similar mindset?
Posted by tiare on April 24, 2011 at 5:32 PM · Report this
220
(come to think of it) maybe their mindset was shaped to an extent by Dan - maybe those who used to be disgusted by bondage and spanking started thinking of it as non-threatening fun thanks to Dan, but Dan has certainly done nothing to help those disgusted by poop to get over their hangups. Self-fulfilling prophecy of sorts.
Posted by tiare on April 24, 2011 at 5:36 PM · Report this
mydriasis 221
ankylosaur, if I may?

Though I can certainly understand why you would dislike Dan's use of the word 'reasonable' I don't think what he really means is to label the FETISH reasonable or unreasonable, but rather the expectation of the partner who has it.

So let me put it as an example. Say I had a spanking fetish (P.S. I wasn't even aware that this was un-mainstream enough to even be CALLED a fetish. "spanking fetish" to me sounds like "blowjob fetish" but I digress). Maybe my SO is completely vanilla. It would be reasonable to to expect that she might be willing to try out this harmless kink even though it might not be personally interesting to her.

If on the other hand, if my fetish is poop, it would be unreasonable for me to expect that I will have a partner who will come around to it. That's not saying that it's immoral, it's just something so viscerally disgusting to basically everyone that it would be unreasonable to expect it out of a partner who I didn't seek out for that specific quality.

It's not a moral judgement, and it's not a comment on how reasonable the fetish itself is, it's a comment on the fact that even someone who is GGG will be unlikely to indulge it.

Or to put it in kind of unromantic terms. If I have a spanking "fetish" and my SO won't indulge. I could break up with them and would be likely to find someone else who would. This isn't so for scat fetish. (Again, with the exception of seeking someone out specifically in fet circles).
Posted by mydriasis on April 24, 2011 at 6:35 PM · Report this
222
You can take from that that you can't reasonably expect a GGG person to be able to accommodate your scat fetish while you can reasonably expect them to accommodate your spanking one.

That is true, sh3nn; but you went a bit further than that. You said people have the right to be annoyed that someone wasn't willing to accommodate a certain fetish. I tend to think that being annoyed by simply this -- without looking at the whole range of things this person could accommodate for a better assessment -- is too quick. It's not the person's fault.

Whether or not you are GGG cannot be a consequence of your specific reaction to one fetish; it must be based on how broad (or narrow) your overall spectrum is. Someone may be unable to accommodate a spanking fetish and still claim GGG-ness because s/he can accommodate many other things.

GGG scores must be averaged over more than one fetish. To judge one person's GGG-ness by how s/he reacts to only one fetish is, I think, just wrong.

In summary: scat fetishists are rare, and so are those who can at least accommodate their fetish, even within the set I called GGG-1. (Whetheer this should remain so, or whether we should fight for people to realize that accommodating a scat fetish shouldn't be as hard as it is, is a different story). That's true, it's OK, nobody is protesting against that. But the 'being annoyed' thing to me implies more than mere frequency; it implies a moral judgement ('scat is too disgusting/demeaning'). And that, I think, is not good.
Posted by ankylosaur on April 24, 2011 at 7:01 PM · Report this
223
@221 (mydriasis), you're welcome! I love discussions, as you may have noticed.

Judging by other things Dan wrote about scat (and contrasting them with BDSM -- see what @202 above said about that), I think he didn't mean what you said, mydriasis. I think Dan was actually disgusted by scat, and so would rather tell scat fetishists to go to the closet and stay there so that 'normal' kinksters don't have to run into them while searching for dates. I don't think he was thinking in terms of statistics, but in terms of how personally disgusted he himself was.

But he is a good guy, so I'm pretty sure he would now agree with the position you're now describing if you asked him directly.

Now let's again consider your example. 'Reasonableness of expectation' is a nice concept, and indeed expecting a self-styled GGG person to be able to accommodate a spanking fetish even if it does nothing for him/her is in this sense reasonable. (Mainstream? I guess it depends where you are. Where I was born, any 'spanking fetishists' would immediately be advised to seek counseling and get nervous messages from their concerned parents...).

In this sense, of course I agree. It stands to reason that there are more people capable of accommodating a spaking fetish than people capable of accommodating a scat fetish.

And I even agree that this doesn't necessarily imply a common on how reasonable the fetish itself is.

But I'll contend that (again statistically) people who are disgusted by poo and can't therefore accommodate a scat fetish will quite often also think ill of the scat fetishist: expect 'weird behavior' from him/her, think ill of him/her, etc. I again direct you to what @202 above said of Dan's language concerning scat fetishists and how they should stay in the closet so that other fetishists don't have to put up with them).

Also, consider your "unromantic terms" version. You say you could reasonably break-up with your SO who was unwilling to accommodate your spanking fetish and be likely to find someone else who would accommodate it, while this is not as likely to happen with scat fetish. Indeed.

But others here also claimed that you'd also have the right to be annoyed at yoru SO for not indulging in the spanking fetish, but not in the case of the scat fetish. To them (and perhaps to you, if you agree with them), I would say that feeling 'annoyed' rather than simply 'sad' or 'unlucky' is a moral judgment. You're implying that the person should (not simply 'is statistically more likely to,' but actually morally should) be able to accommodate this fetish, i.e. s/he is a little bit bad because s/he doesn't. Not so for the scat fetish. My claim: this goes beyond mere statistical frequency or likelihood and already into 'moral condemnation' territory.

If all you guys are trying to say is that it's logical to think that there is a higher probability of finding someone who will accommodate a spanking fetish than someone who will accommodate a scat fetish -- just like it's logical to think there is a higher probability of successfully guessing the outcome of tossing a coin than there is of successfully guessing the outcome of throwing dice -- then I totally agree. This is true. But I claim that this is not what Dan meant, and is not what most others here mean when they talk about "reasonable" or "unreasonable" fetishes: I think most people are passing moral judgment on the fetishist him/herself rather than simply estimating their possibilities of finding an accommodating partner. And I claim this is visible in the language Dan uses to talk about them (again, see @202 above).
More...
Posted by ankylosaur on April 24, 2011 at 7:27 PM · Report this
224
sh3nn, in case you're still reading, let's see if we can agree on this.

Here's a wording of what I think you're claiming that I can agree with:

"If I guess that my partner is not really GGG (despite his/her claims to the contrary) based entirely on the fact that s/he was unable to accommodate my spanking fetish, I am more likely to be correct than if I make the same guess based on the fact that s/he was unable to accommodate by scat fetish -- given how much more frequent GGG people who can accommodate spanking fetishes are than GGG people who can accommodate scat fetishes (and also conversely, i.e. given that GGG people who cannot accommodate spanking fetishes are much rarer than GGG people who cannot accommodate scat fetishes)."

Is that so? In this case, I am in agreement.

My claim now would be: most people -- most GGG people, most Dan Savage readers -- who talk about scat fetish as 'unreasonable' do not mean simply this. They usually also include the feeling/thought that scat fetishes are less reasonable than spanking fetishists because they are, well, more disgusting, closer to old traditional ideas about 'dirty pervs,' a feeling motivated by our usual distaste for human waste. That maybe some discrimination against them is, well, deserved. (Cf. the observations about Dan's language on the topic.)

In other words, I doubt that, for most people here, the meaning of 'unreasonable' when applied to scat fetishists is as purely statistical and non-judgmental as your claim would have us believe. I may be wrong, but I don't think I am. (Comments, anyone?)
Posted by ankylosaur on April 24, 2011 at 7:55 PM · Report this
mydriasis 225
I see what you mean. Sexuality is indeed a sliding scale.

Personally, for the record, I'm 100% fetish-free. Under kink I would have to write "often". But I'd be willing to indulge any kink not listed on Dan's list of unreasonables.

But it all depends on what circles you run in. Certainly if a friend of mine said "oh my boyfriend wants to try anal but I'm not going to" I'd think they were being needlessly uptight (unless they had some sort of unpleasant experience in their past) and not GGG. Whereas in other circles her friend might reply "OH MY GOD! That pervert!". Dan tries to impose a somewhat arbitrary and unscientific idea of what should be considered "reasonable" to try and what isn't. I agree with his guidelines (and so, seemingly do his readers) but you're right, they aren't really based on anything - even stats, because you could draw a similar line at a much more conservative point.

For the record, personally, if my boyfriend wanted to do something in the poop realm I wouldn't do it ever but it wouldn't make me disgusted with him. I feel like that's somewhat shallow.
Posted by mydriasis on April 24, 2011 at 8:02 PM · Report this
226
@212 / 225 - why do you assume that you know what the "outcome" is, and that it's something awful?

My husband wanted me to leave the door open when pooping. For years, I couldn't. But I could poop with him in the next room. Then I could poop with him in the next room, having a conversation with me. Then, I could poop with him in the next room, and the door open. And now, he can be in the bathroom with me. We're 18 years into our relationship. What's the "outcome"? Am I eventually going to poop on him? I don't know. I don't think so. He has never asked me to. But, is it possible, that in ten years, I'll be ready for that? Yes, it's possible.

Right now, he's working on getting me to enjoy anal. Not to put up with it, but to enjoy it. It's going slow, one orgasm, one finger at a time. Soon, maybe two fingers. Will I get to a point where I can be anally fisted, before I'm 80 and in a nursing home and he's in the ground? We don't know. There's no "outcome" in sight, there's just fun to be had.

If you love your partner, and they fetishize poop, just talk to them about it. Don't shut them out, anymore than you shut out your baby who needs his poopy diaper changed. Shit happens.
Posted by EricaP on April 24, 2011 at 8:52 PM · Report this
mommyducky 227
It's fine if you aren't able to accommodate a scat fetish or a blood fetish or any fetish. I don't think anybody has a right to be annoyed with their partner for being unable to accommodate their fetish. Even if it's "just a spank fetish." Really, there are probably some fetishes that most would consider pretty tame that I myself wouldn't be able to accommodate and I'm someone who likes blood. So does that mean they can be annoyed with me if I can't do what they're into (let's pretend it's spanking) but I have no right to be annoyed at them for not going along with my blood thing? How about this? I'm open and willing to at least try to accommodate whatever fetish my partner has as long as they are equally open to trying mine. So if someone wants to play with my poop, even though that's not my thing, I'd at least try it one time (assuming this person is someone important to me and who I care about enough to do something that might make me uncomfortable in order to make them happy). But in return I expect them to try some blood play with me just once. And sometimes, you may come to find that something you thought you couldn't do before becomes something you can tolerate if you just give it a try. And if not, then at least you can say you tried and that's very GGG, in my opinion. You don't have to continue doing it if it isn't for you but at least you made an effort and didn't just immediately dismiss it because it's "gross." My motto has always been, "I'll try anything twice." :o)
Posted by mommyducky on April 24, 2011 at 10:12 PM · Report this
mommyducky 228
@226 Erica, you're brilliant!

I was the same way about using the bathroom with people around. I couldn't go at all. I couldn't even pee in public bathrooms. Now I have no problem peeing and pooping while my husband is in the bathroom talking to me.

I absolutely agree that you need to think in steps instead of thinking about the outcome. You can't just jump into something like this. You have to start small. baby steps.

When my daughter was born, I was afraid to change a diaper (I had never done it before and hell, I was scared I'd break her, she was so tiny and I was such a nutcase). So I started small by watching my husband and my mother change her. then I changed just pee diapers for a bit. Then after awhile, I was able to change her poops and wipe her butt (something that before I had a baby, I could never have seen myself doing... ewww changing a poopy diaper? wiping a poopy butt? yuck!) but hey, it's nothing.

People shouldn't just dismiss something because they think it's gross if they have absolutely no experience with it. How do you know it's gross? Because society tells you it's gross? That's ridiculous. Don't listen to anyone else, not even to so-called experts. Try it yourself and form your own opinion. Whatever the fetish. I was totally and completely 100% grossed out by the idea of anal sex. My husband was really into it and I'll admit, it took some time before I warmed up to the idea but I eventually did and I tried it. And it was incredibly uncomfortable and unpleasant for me. But I tried it again. And again. And even though it's not my favorite thing and I could go without it, I now know that it's not something so vile and off-limits. I actually CAN accommodate it. So yeah, start small and work your way up. But most importantly, have fun along the way. :o)
More...
Posted by mommyducky on April 24, 2011 at 10:24 PM · Report this
229
I dunno, I think if something makes you horribly uncomfortable, you should not try it. I would not want my partner to try some of my sick as fuck fantasies that *really* made him horrified. (I will *never* tell *anyone* the worst of the worst! I am disturbed by them, and probably best they remain fantasies!!! Eeek!). And if I had a partner who had a thing for dead bodies...sorry, nope, just could never, ever in a million years do that, it would just make me too uncomfortable. Thank goodness, this is NOT an issue, lol! But really, I would not want a partner to be so GGG they felt ikky, and wretched the whole time. But I guess I have no true fetishes, wherein I NEED something specific to get off; I have no idea what that is like for those people. I just like naughty games, and for 98% of my fantasies, they run pretty much the mild submissive-garden variety, so no biggie. I can hear the yawns now, lol!!

But I do think there are fetishes too far, and agree with Dan's limits for the most part. Reading about scat, I feel a bit educated, and although I don't think I would personally ever be up for it, I don't think I would show revultion (especially since I am totally game for anal sex....and yes, now I realize the slight hypocrasy, but I guess I am ingrained with the societal double standard of accidental vs. deliberate defecation on someone...maybe its the quantities invovled!). But now scat is seeming more harmless....but necrophila and pedophila? Sorry folks...I will never ever be open minded about that stuff. Dan is dead on there (sorry, could not resist, lol!!). There is just something I find vicerally horrifying about those, even if they are "gold star" pedophiles as Dan calls them. I can have compassion for their situation, I know no one chooses that horrific situation, but still...it is a visceral reaction I have. *shudder*
More...
Posted by badgirl on April 25, 2011 at 10:22 AM · Report this
230
Here are a couple of things MILK should think about, should his wife become amenable to the idea of satisfying his lactation kink:

Her breasts may start leaking in pregnancy or at the time of birth. The fluid she'll be leaking, this early in the game, is colostrum – a clear or yellowish, thicker, sticky fluid that provides the baby with important early-life antibodies. Colostrum isn't endlessly renewable, like milk, so it's important they don't reduce her colostrum supply. Their baby will need it.

Likewise, when and how to fit him into her nursing schedule is equally important. The last part of the milk, right before a breast is drained, is the most nutrient-rich (called hindmilk). This is why nursing moms are encouraged to drain one breast completely and then nurse part of the other, rather than nurse just a little off each. Draining one completely (and remembering to start on alternating sides in each nursing session) guarantees that the baby has access to the maximum amount of hindmilk.

I'm not a lactation specialist, although I've nursed a baby and am a trained doula. That said, my best guess would be that the beginning, rather than end, of the nursing cycle would provide a plentiful spray-for-play, and not rob the baby of essential nutrients.

Finally, babies don't "suck" like adults do. Nursing isn't like sucking on a straw. Rather, babies use their tongues and mouth suction to draw milk down the nipple and express it with tongue pressure. They latch on to the complete areola. It's a complicated action and MILK might want to read up on it before any "nursing" play. Simply sucking on her over-used nipples might be painful and exacerbate any irritation she has.

Finally, yes. I can vouch that some women do spray milk during orgasm, if their breasts are full. Breast tissues can swell during arousal and muscles around the nipples contract causing them to become erect during orgasm, hence the spraying or leaking.

More...
Posted by Geek Porn Girl http://www.geekporngirl.com on April 25, 2011 at 12:51 PM · Report this
231
People hate shit. People like sex, unless they're weirdly repressed. If shit is your idea of fun, expect difficulties hooking up. Why would someone want to mix the two? How can you beat the internet for finding like-minded?
Posted by Hunter78 on April 25, 2011 at 12:59 PM · Report this
232
@229 oh, badgirl, sweetie,... why give "the worst of your worst fantasies" that much power over you? It won't make them real, to tell us or your lover or your husband... It will just mean that you get some help understanding why they are interesting to you, and maybe start exploring safe ways to still get that thrill.

@231 If you love someone who fantasizes about shit, you can walk away, or you can try to become the kind of person who can deal with it. Why am I not surprised to learn that Hunter78 is the kind of person who would walk away?
Posted by EricaP on April 25, 2011 at 1:30 PM · Report this
233
Hunter78. What experience do I need? None of my experience will change the fact that all human men have functional mammary glands and can lactate all by themselves for sexual pleasure if they so choose.
Posted by Oolagah on April 25, 2011 at 2:00 PM · Report this
234
By the way. Human male lactation does not have to be only for sexual pleasure. It can be done for the same reason human females do it: to feed a baby.
Posted by Oolagah on April 25, 2011 at 2:20 PM · Report this
235
Oolaqah,

Male lactation is very uncommon, probably rarer than shit eaters.

If you had suckled more female breasts, you wouldn't have wild expectations about male ones.
Posted by Hunter78 on April 25, 2011 at 2:59 PM · Report this
236
ALL human males are capable of lactation. ALL. That's 100% (save for a few who have something *wrong* with them, or have had their mammary glands removed- so maybe it's 99%). So actually it's extremely common. All it takes is some effort. Your comments about my "experience" and the amounts of female breasts i've suckled are ad hominem.
Posted by Oolagah on April 25, 2011 at 4:12 PM · Report this
xjuan 237
(What's the use of writing comment #237? Just the testimony.)

In regards to the scat fetish Dan so overtly rejects I say: Get over it. Dan oposes scat fetish as well as pedophilia and bestialism for clear reasons. You can go back in history and read his previous answers, but they can be compressed in simple form like this: scat is way too unhealthy (hey, we're talking feces here!); pedophilia and bestialism do hurt other inocent beings who are unable to defend themselves and/or give consent. To me, those are pretty reasonable reasons why a sex columnist should reject them. Dan's open minded as few people in this world, but that doesn't mean he has to have no restraints or limitations. After all, it's not like there are no parameters in life. The "It's all relative" way of thinking is very posmodern but useless: in the end, we all learn that the ARE some limits and there are things we should not admit. Dan has drawn a clear line and some people will get ofended. That's just part of life. Deal with it. Even more: he is the only one here who uses his name, so he has to be aware of the legal consequences of what he does and says.
Posted by xjuan on April 25, 2011 at 7:00 PM · Report this
238
I love Joe Newton's art, but I don't get this week's illustration. How does it relate? Could someone explain it me in my cold-medicine-fogged haze?
Posted by ridia on April 25, 2011 at 7:05 PM · Report this
239
MILK - it is a super-emotional time for her, and she may need you to be strong and "manly", not another baby for her to have to suckle and nurture. If you come at this issue as a sexy, fun exploration of deeper intimacy, that could work. I could spray a distance of three feet, in multiple directions, and eventually she might, too, but if you can start by taking it slowly, and just flicking the tip of your tongue gently across her nipples without suction, that's where I'd start. Let her know you like the taste without downright suckling her like she's your Mommy, too.

PEGGY - 1. Condoms (and probably lots of lube) on the toys. 2. For such a height difference, I recommend the peggee on top in cowgirl position. Depending on the bed height and flexibility of the pals, other positions can be tricky. 3. The fellers can wear thong underwear while their junk is near your face. 4. I know you know this, but you can't feel your "cock", so be careful and slow, at least at first. Anal is different from vaginal. 5. I can come from being the pegger. I have a traditional strap-on with harness, and a Feeldoe. Love 'em both.
Posted by HRH on April 25, 2011 at 10:49 PM · Report this
240
Lol EricaP. Nah, my naughtiest fantasies don't have any "power" over me. I just realize they are of the catagory "best to remain a fantasy", and one in my own head at that. I have many others that are shared but not acted upon, and others that are shared and played out.

Doesn't everyone? I actually thought that was a pretty healthy attitute. Not *everything* needs to be shared, we are allowed to have some privacy, even within our sexuality, provided we share most of our turn ons. I seriously doubt my most disturbed fantasies would turn me on if realized anyway...again, far better in fantasy then in reality, and fleeting thoughts at that. I roleplay more milder themes with my lover on a regular basis.
Posted by badgirl on April 26, 2011 at 8:24 AM · Report this
241
@240 - oh, I'm just dying of curiosity, and was hoping to push your buttons enough to get you to spill. Can't blame me for trying -- you're one of the hottest things going on around here :-)
Posted by EricaP on April 26, 2011 at 8:47 AM · Report this
242
Not *everything* needs to be shared, we are allowed to have some privacy, even within our sexuality, provided we share most of our turn ons.

Amen sister.
Posted by knkycva on April 26, 2011 at 8:59 AM · Report this
243
@238 - I think it's just a cute representation of "not my cup of tea." (which applies to all the letters, except maybe the last?)
Posted by EricaP on April 26, 2011 at 9:59 AM · Report this
244
Lol EricaP! And now the flattery route! *grin* Nice try, but this goes to the grave with me...I chose my nick accordingly. I am *naughty naughty*, and twisted beyond all belief! Lol!!! ;) I am sure you have encountered similar indivuduals on Fetlife, but my poor lover would pass out, and oh my! My hubby would DIE from shock!! *giggle*

I wonder if we as Americans were to reveal the true extents of our deepest perversions, where the chips would truly fall? It would be interesting, to say the least!
Posted by badgirl on April 26, 2011 at 10:51 AM · Report this
245
As a long time reader this is one of the first times I thought you were a little unfair someone. Everyone has kinks. Or rather, everyone has something they are into that at least one other person in the world is not into. What makes one "kink" unreasonable and another not? I guarantee you that there are people out there that would find "feet or crossdressing or bondage" to be unreasonable, end of story. Certainly there are fewer people that would find defecation reasonable but why should those who are into it slither off to their own kind and leave the rest of us "reasonable" people alone? Kudos to the girlfriend for at least being open minded. Shame on you for not being so.
Posted by frogger1995 on April 26, 2011 at 10:55 AM · Report this
246
I think you were a little bi-phobic with response to COLD's question. I read the question and the writer sounded very similar to my 38 year old husband. We are both bi and in a 10 year long open relationship. He has explored and knows what he likes at this point in his experience. He likes men and women, but his desire for men is based more around actual sex and desire for dick rather than dating or emotional connection. He likes men that are most like himself: confident and more on the masculine side.
My advice to COLD is to explore all you want, it is the college experience after all and make up your own mind rather than seeking other people's advice or approval.
Posted by blknblue on April 26, 2011 at 12:20 PM · Report this
247
I think you were a little bi-phobic with response to COLD's question. I read the question and the writer sounded very similar to my 38 year old husband. We are both bi and in a 10 year long open relationship. He has explored and knows what he likes at this point in his experience. He likes men and women, but his desire for men is based more around actual sex and desire for dick rather than dating or emotional connection. He likes men that are most like himself: confident and more on the masculine side.
My advice to COLD is to explore all you want, it is the college experience after all and make up your own mind rather than seeking other people's advice or approval.
Posted by blknblue on April 26, 2011 at 12:26 PM · Report this
248
@242/244 - Certainly, incest and pedophile fantasies are difficult to reveal to anyone. But I hope people will consider opening up more to their partners. It took many years for my husband to tell me about his fantasy of having sex with a trans-woman. But now that he has told me, we talk about it in bed, and he may get to fulfill it. Plus, I just feel that I understand him more and more...

Posted by EricaP on April 26, 2011 at 2:16 PM · Report this
O my Captain 249
Almost 250 comment???!!!
This must be some kind of record! Dan, would you care to comment on what you think the success of this particular column has been?
Posted by O my Captain on April 26, 2011 at 2:49 PM · Report this
250
I'm one of those genetically wired GGG girls. I love sex, I love kink and I love to play with the weirdest ideas, much to my husband's delight. However when I was pregnant with my son, and looking at these very large boobs and large tummy that was in the way of everything ... sex went into the background. Once he was born the sex want came back but the milk thing was freaky in my mind. I had issues with the milk, never produced enough, bad latch, my son and I just didn't get it. My husband was totally interested in lactation play but honestly we only got to it once. He thought it was awesome, I thought it was painful and not at all sexy ... much like most of my lactation experience. So given that the woman is probably going through a lot, hormone wise, sleep deprivation etc. you may want to give her a break and just understand even if she is usually GGG this may be one thing that is just not so much in the cards.
Posted by samjane on April 26, 2011 at 3:17 PM · Report this
251
@249 - FYI, last week's Savage Love hit 377.
Posted by EricaP on April 26, 2011 at 3:20 PM · Report this
252
I'm one of those genetically wired GGG girls. I love sex, I love kink and I love to play with the weirdest ideas, much to my husband's delight. However when I was pregnant with my son, and looking at these very large boobs and large tummy that was in the way of everything ... sex went into the background. Once he was born the sex want came back but the milk thing was freaky in my mind. I had issues with the milk, never produced enough, bad latch, my son and I just didn't get it. My husband was totally interested in lactation play but honestly we only got to it once. He thought it was awesome, I thought it was painful and not at all sexy ... much like most of my lactation experience. So given that the woman is probably going through a lot, hormone wise etc. you may want to give her a break and just understand even if she is usually GGG this may be one thing that is just not so much in the cards.
Posted by samjane on April 26, 2011 at 3:23 PM · Report this
253
@250/252 we can get there without double-posting! Have faith!
Posted by EricaP on April 26, 2011 at 4:59 PM · Report this
254
@131, Canuck--

I totally get what you're saying, and I do agree to a certain extent that he's being non-aggressive (in this forum, at least). But I do think his language in his question points to a kind of disconnect between her needs as a human being and his as a sexual one. Even as an extremely sex positive woman, his comment that "this seemed like a good time to bring it up" rubbed me the wrong way. It read to me as "this seemed like a great time to talk about ME!" Perhaps that's unfair and maybe he really was trying to cheer her up in that way, as other commenters have suggested. But it's important to acknowledge the chance that he's placing his sexual needs above hers--both sexually and not--and that's all I was really trying to point out. You're right about communication and compromise, and mea culpa if I jumped the gun by assuming that's not what he was trying to accomplish.

For what it's worth, though, I do think "my body, my rules" is a perfectly legitimate way to live your life. Especially in a world in which women's bodies are particularly sexually vulnerable, I don't think it's an unreasonable boundary. Just my two cents.

@134, EricaP--

I certainly do not have the attitude that "if your wife is feeling unsexy, leave her alone and don't try to show her that she is still sexy." That is completely derailing my point. Communing with your partner by ensuring she feels appreciated inside and out is beautiful and noble--using compliments and manipulating her so that she'll do what you want in the bedroom is decidedly NOT. That may be a little reductive in this case since we can't know how genuine this guy (or anyone) is in their execution. The fact remains, though, that making someone feel sexy because you honestly believe they are and making someone feel sexy so they'll exit their comfort zone and fetishize their breastmilk are two very different things. There's little evidence this guy in particular is on that train, so I was just trying to address some of the points of the other commenters.

And for the record, you can still be sex positive and acknowledge that everything may not come down to sex with this one person. In this forum especially I get the feeling that people forget that sex isn't the end-all-be-all for everyone. It isn't anti-woman or anti-sex to point out the danger of placing one person's sexual needs over the emotional/physical comfort of another.
More...
Posted by blissmine on April 26, 2011 at 7:19 PM · Report this
255 Comment Pulled (Spam) Comment Policy
256
blissme @254, sorry, I still don't think it's useful to distinguish between "good", sincere compliments and "bad" manipulative compliments.

Also, it isn't anti-woman to point out that sexual needs are a part of "emotional/physical comfort." The guy's "sexual needs" shouldn't be in conflict with his partner's "emotional/physical comfort," but if they are, that needs to be discussed and dealt with, not swept under the rug for years.
Posted by EricaP on April 27, 2011 at 10:12 AM · Report this
257
I can't help wondering if IBS is a closet hetero. She admits that she finds at least some men attractive, but is "freaked out" by their equipment. Perhaps, with a loving gentle gentleman, she can become accustomed to male equipment and overcome her freak out.
Posted by dick tater on May 8, 2011 at 10:08 PM · Report this
258
Sooooooooo . . . any signs of that "full report"?
Posted by NT on April 8, 2012 at 10:55 PM · Report this

Add a comment