Savage Love Podcast
Check out the all new Savage Lovecast site!
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
-
Jun 5
Husbanding -
May 29
Amazing Guys -
May 22
Closure -
May 15
Shorties -
May 8
Reading Comprehension Fail
More from Dan Savage
-
SL Letter of the Day: Let Me Think...
-
SL Letter of the Day: The Tell-Tale Handjob
-
Youth Pastor Watch
-
WSJ Asks: If I Could Require One Person to Read American Savage, Who Would It Be and Why?
-
SLLOTD: Campus Drama
Books by Dan Savage
American Savage
It Gets Better: Coming Out, Overcoming Bullying, and Creating a Life Worth Living
The Commitment: Love, Sex, Marriage, and My Family
Things I've Learned from Women Who've Dumped Me
Skipping Towards Gomorrah
The Kid: What Happened After My Boyfriend and I Decided to Go Get Pregnant
Savage Links
- Babeland
- Fleshbot
- Good Vibrations
- Joe Newton/Savage Illustrations
- Planned Parenthood
- Spreading Santorum
- Planned Parenthood's Teen Wire
- Kinsey Confidential
- Carnal Nation
- Tiny Nibbles
Want a Second Opinion?
Contact Dan Savage
Savage on YouTube
Loading...
Sweat Ickquity
August 24, 2011
+ Enlarge this Image
Joe Newton
I'm unemployed in Oregon and trying to come up with simple ways to make rent. My dear wife and I would like your opinion on the legality of selling my teenage son's sweaty gym clothes online. It sounds rather skeezy, I realize, and I'm only half-joking here. If we had a nonsexual website with pictures that weren't necessarily of my son, would that be buffer enough? Would this be seen as me whoring out the boy? He's up for it—as long as he gets his cut—but could I go to jail for this? He is 14.
Pimpin' Out Real Teen's Leftover, Acrid, Nasty Duds
Speaking parent-to-parent, PORTLAND, informing your 14-year-old son that there are perverts all over the internet who would be willing to pay him for his sweaty gym clothes wasn't the best idea. Whatever you ultimately decide to do with his sweaty jocks, shorts, and T-shirts—and I vote for tossing them in the wash—dangling the money your son could make catering to the desires of online pervs in front of him might inspire him to go into business for himself, whatever you decide to do. So keep an eye on his internet usage, okay? As for the legal issues...
"Selling a physical property—sweat—might be an issue," said Chris O'Connor, a public defender in Portland, Oregon. "Also, he could be [charged with] fraud and misrepresentation for selling clothing he says is his 14-year-old son's but isn't."
Even if no dissatisfied customers go running to the chamber of commerce, PORTLAND, there are other potential problems. For instance, as your son's sweaty gym clothes make their way from his bedroom floor to the hands of underpants-huffing pervs all over the world, some items would travel—via US mail or UPS or FedEx—through different jurisdictions. While there may not be a statute in Oregon that you could be prosecuted under for selling his undies, Mississippi or Illinois or Vatican City "may have specific laws, too," says O'Connor, laws that you could be violating.
The biggest potential problem: Underpants huffers wanna know exactly whose underpants they're huffing. That means you'll have to include pictures and biographical info on your website, PORTLAND, and involving a minor—even a fake/buffer one—in what many police officers, district attorneys, judges, and some sex-advice columnists see as a kind of gateway sex work will quickly add arrest, prosecution, incarceration, crushing legal bills, and a lifetime on a sex-offender registry to your current troubles. Even if the authorities can't point to a particular law that criminalizes your home business, they'll find something to charge you with.
I'm sorry you're hurting right now, PORTLAND, but I think you should come up with another way to make rent.
Six months ago, my 17-year-old son told me that he was seeing [insert male name]. No biggie. What troubles me: My son and his boyfriend are "furries" and open about it. The boyfriend is 18 and sweet, but he's clearly the more dominant one. I'm worried that my son may not know how to say no to him. Adding to my concerns: I found a dog collar in the kitchen with an engraved tag with my son's name on it. Dog collars seem like a heavy activity for a lad, Dan, and today I noticed a bruise on his throat that's the size of a collar buckle. How do I ensure he is exploring safely without freaking him out?
Why This Fetish?
Go ahead and freak him out, WTF.
Your son is being open with you about his sexuality—openly gay, openly furred, openly collared—and you shouldn't hesitate to be open about your concerns. You won't be able to talk him out of his kinks, WTF, if they're his kinks (and not, say, a teenage affectation), so focus on the issues: power dynamics and sexual safety. Tell him it's important that he be able to say no to his boyfriend, and let him know that you're there for him if he has questions or concerns or needs a sounding board. Then ask him about the bruise on his neck. Dog collars are harmless—lots of kids and kinksters wear 'em—but if he and his boyfriend are playing choking games with that collar, and that's where the bruise came from, that's a very dangerous activity and it has to stop immediately.
In your shoes, WTF, I would bark at the boyfriend about that bruise, too. Furry, schmurry. It's erotic asphyxiation that you should be worried about.
A friend of mine came out as asexual this week on his blog. A couple of questions:
1. Part of me wonders if this is a "real" orientation. Is this the result of some sort of trauma or psychological stuff that could potentially be dealt with through a therapist? I realize that sounds close to the whole "ex-gay therapy" thing, and of course I don't want to go down that path, but I guess it's just hard for me to understand how someone can't form a sexual connection with another person and still be 100 percent okay psychologically.
2. How do I react the next time I see this friend? Not sure about the etiquette.
Does LGBT Need An "A"?
1. Asexuality, according to asexuals and the people who love (but don't fuck) 'em, is a real sexual orientation... or lack thereof. Usually. Because, you see, some asexuals do "experience attraction," according to Asexuality Visibility Network (www.asexuality.org), "[but] feel no need to act out that attraction sexually." So it's an orientation. Or a disorientation. Or something. But whatever it is, it's for real.
"I've been where your friend is," says David Jay, the founder of Asexuality Visibility Network. "He wouldn't have come out without spending a lot of time mulling it over, so respect that he's done a lot more thinking about this than you have. If he identifies as asexual or anything in the big wide spectrum, you should respect that, period."
First, I agree 100 percent with Jay. Second, it's entirely possible that your friend isn't really asexual, just as it's possible that I'm not really gay and Marcus Bachmann isn't really straight. Your friend may have decided to identify as asexual because he can't deal with his sexuality or wants to opt out because he finds the games required exhausting. Or he may actually be asexual. Whichever it is, you're not the sexual identity police. So long as your friend isn't externalizing an internal conflict and making other people miserable in the process—à la Marcus Bachmann—your friend doesn't need to be confronted or rescued. (And for the record: No one is "100 percent okay psychologically," and not everyone needs sex and/or a romantic relationship to feel content and enjoy life.)
2. "Hey, how's it going."
"Good, man, you?"
"Good. Did you see Rise of the Planet of the Apes?"
"Yeah—terrible."
"And James Franco was never shirtless—what's up with that?"
"You know, if you need tits with your science fiction, you should check out Misfits on Hulu. It's like Lost before it went to shit. And it's got tits—lots and lots of tits."
"I'll check it out—and, hey, I saw that blog post about you ID'ing as asexual. If that's something you want to talk about, I'd love to learn more. But if it's not something you want to talk about, we can talk about other shit."
Share via
1
Kids these days. I recently saw a cute little 14ish(at least they looked like kids) couple in Chicago. They had huge gauged earrings, tattoos, dyed hair, elegantly put together etc etc. I really felt sad for them cause where do you go from there? Petty soon it's cutting off fingers, nullo or god forbid Republicanism.
2
I'm worried that the real perv here is the father. Shouldn't he have thought of selling his own underwear or his wife's first?
3
@Ricardo
YES! Seriously creepy. Or god damn, sell your toaster.
@Hybrid
I wouldn't worry about it. I'm on the front end of that generation and when they grow up, you know what happens? They take the gauges out. Nbd. The tattoos are for life though.
*Cue angry people at my insuination that appearance = maturity*
YES! Seriously creepy. Or god damn, sell your toaster.
@Hybrid
I wouldn't worry about it. I'm on the front end of that generation and when they grow up, you know what happens? They take the gauges out. Nbd. The tattoos are for life though.
*Cue angry people at my insuination that appearance = maturity*
5
@ 4 - They might not "hate" gays, but they'll vote agains their rights to save their career anyway. And that's the problem.
6
Thanks for the heads-up on Misfits. Gotta love sci-fi with tits.
As for PORTLAND- dude, no. As a father to two (now grown) boys, I gotta say that's pretty fucked up. Pimp out your own sweaty gym clothes, but leave the underage aspect out of it, okay? Stirring up the nonces can lead to no good.
As for PORTLAND- dude, no. As a father to two (now grown) boys, I gotta say that's pretty fucked up. Pimp out your own sweaty gym clothes, but leave the underage aspect out of it, okay? Stirring up the nonces can lead to no good.
7
I agree with Ricardo @2: That father is indeed an abusive asshole.
I also agree with Dan in regards to the other parent worrying about their son. And yes, it should be communicated to both the child and his BF.
On a somewhat related note: Being a kinkster of some sort- in your own private space and NEVER involve your own offspring in any way- doesn’t mean you can’t be a devoted, loving, and responsible parent.
I also agree with Dan in regards to the other parent worrying about their son. And yes, it should be communicated to both the child and his BF.
On a somewhat related note: Being a kinkster of some sort- in your own private space and NEVER involve your own offspring in any way- doesn’t mean you can’t be a devoted, loving, and responsible parent.
8
The half of me that's not puking would like to kick the half of him that's not joking squarely in the taint.
9
I'm curious what makes WTF call his son & son's bf "furries." There's a wide spectrum there -- some people like to put on full furry costumes, head to toe, and have sex that way, sure. I've never known anyone openly like that.
But I know a lot of people who wear dog collars and occasionally a tail or ears, and act like puppies when they're at home or the right kind of party. Others who wear bridles and other pony gear; still others who wear no collars or props but act very much like playful kitty cats. In all these cases, their costumes are minimal, and most of the play is carried out by their body language. It seems one of the most harmless of games and not something for a dad to be freaking out about. Unless the boy is wearing a full on plush dog costume and Dad is concerned about the dry-cleaning costs, I guess.
As far as erotic asphyxiation, though, WTF might also want to mention to the boy the specific dangers of autoerotic asphyxiation.
But I know a lot of people who wear dog collars and occasionally a tail or ears, and act like puppies when they're at home or the right kind of party. Others who wear bridles and other pony gear; still others who wear no collars or props but act very much like playful kitty cats. In all these cases, their costumes are minimal, and most of the play is carried out by their body language. It seems one of the most harmless of games and not something for a dad to be freaking out about. Unless the boy is wearing a full on plush dog costume and Dad is concerned about the dry-cleaning costs, I guess.
As far as erotic asphyxiation, though, WTF might also want to mention to the boy the specific dangers of autoerotic asphyxiation.
10
@ 9 - I think it's because the son and his BF are self-identifying as furries, and WTF doesn't want to sound furry-phobic by casting doubts on their furriness because of their young age.
But seriously, you're right, EricaP, the asphyxiation thing is something he needs to address RIGHT NOW.
(Oh, and by the way, you were right too the other day about enemas not being something one should do unless necessary, as it fucks up the digestive tract in the long term, but I just got tired of the pointless debate)
But seriously, you're right, EricaP, the asphyxiation thing is something he needs to address RIGHT NOW.
(Oh, and by the way, you were right too the other day about enemas not being something one should do unless necessary, as it fucks up the digestive tract in the long term, but I just got tired of the pointless debate)
11
Let's put a different spin on PORTLAND:
I'm a marginally employed skeevy mother who is always looking for a way to make a few bucks. I have a 14 year old daughter, and I am planning to peddle her panties online. I'll post a picture of another underaged girl, maybe a few vidoes as well. Does this make me a lowlife and borderline child pimp?
Answer: YES.
What the fuck? Bad enough that there are people out there who want to sniff a 14 year old's skivvies, but a parent who's willing to be the source? And a kid who's down with it as long as he gets his cut. Good old American values at work here.
I'm a marginally employed skeevy mother who is always looking for a way to make a few bucks. I have a 14 year old daughter, and I am planning to peddle her panties online. I'll post a picture of another underaged girl, maybe a few vidoes as well. Does this make me a lowlife and borderline child pimp?
Answer: YES.
What the fuck? Bad enough that there are people out there who want to sniff a 14 year old's skivvies, but a parent who's willing to be the source? And a kid who's down with it as long as he gets his cut. Good old American values at work here.
12
I hate to say it, but PORTLAND could probably make more money selling used 14-year-old boy underwear than used middle-aged housewife panties. And unless he's a total DILF, he certainly couldn't make much selling his own used underwear.
Obviously the prospect of making money doesn't mean that it's a morally acceptable thing to do - I'm just responding to the question about why he'd consider selling his son's underwear, rather than his own underwear, or his wife's.
At one point, there was an episode of one of the Law & Order shows where a minor part of the storyline was that a teenage girl's elderly aunt (who was her legal guardian) made a small fortune from selling the girl's "genuine used prom queen panties" online. That may be where he got the idea (I'm pretty sure the plot involved the teenage girl getting a "cut," too.)
For the record, though, in that episode, one of their regular customers tracked the girl down and traumatized her sexually (he masturbated right in front of her, after getting her to trust him, and see him as the father figure she never had), so if PORTLAND got the idea from that episode, that just makes it creepier.
Obviously the prospect of making money doesn't mean that it's a morally acceptable thing to do - I'm just responding to the question about why he'd consider selling his son's underwear, rather than his own underwear, or his wife's.
At one point, there was an episode of one of the Law & Order shows where a minor part of the storyline was that a teenage girl's elderly aunt (who was her legal guardian) made a small fortune from selling the girl's "genuine used prom queen panties" online. That may be where he got the idea (I'm pretty sure the plot involved the teenage girl getting a "cut," too.)
For the record, though, in that episode, one of their regular customers tracked the girl down and traumatized her sexually (he masturbated right in front of her, after getting her to trust him, and see him as the father figure she never had), so if PORTLAND got the idea from that episode, that just makes it creepier.
15
Monkeywithcarkeys @8 so glad I found you
No, I’m not the abusive parent so please don’t kick me.
This is in relation to your post couple of weeks ago. Please go to: http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/Savag…
And check #164
No, I’m not the abusive parent so please don’t kick me.
This is in relation to your post couple of weeks ago. Please go to: http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/Savag…
And check #164
16
@ 14 - Thanks! Didn't think I could handle it anymore.
@ 12 - I agree with your first point (although there's a market for everything, I believe), but from the tone of his letter, it just seems like he didn't explore any other options. "Hey, everyone, we need money, but I've got a great idea: we'll sell the kid's underwear online!"
I would never have had children because I always knew I wouldn't be a great father (to say the least), but if I had, I'd definitely would have thought about many other things before involving my child (or any other) in something so vile if I needed money to pay the rent. (And just so you know, I cleaned toilets and picked up junkies' syringes for a few years, so I'm not talking hypothetically.)
@ 12 - I agree with your first point (although there's a market for everything, I believe), but from the tone of his letter, it just seems like he didn't explore any other options. "Hey, everyone, we need money, but I've got a great idea: we'll sell the kid's underwear online!"
I would never have had children because I always knew I wouldn't be a great father (to say the least), but if I had, I'd definitely would have thought about many other things before involving my child (or any other) in something so vile if I needed money to pay the rent. (And just so you know, I cleaned toilets and picked up junkies' syringes for a few years, so I'm not talking hypothetically.)
18
@14 Thank you andie! Damned italics were giving me a headache.
The first letter writer brought to mind a euphemism for Satan from the classic Brit-com "Bedazzled": Creepy Drawers.
Its from the Moore/Cook version, not the shitty remake with Liz Hurley.
The first letter writer brought to mind a euphemism for Satan from the classic Brit-com "Bedazzled": Creepy Drawers.
Its from the Moore/Cook version, not the shitty remake with Liz Hurley.
19
@5
you're on fire! I agree again.
@9/Erica
I don't think the parent is freaked out, but in fairness, the harmless premise of furry..ism... whatever you'd call it, is based on the idea that there's no beastiality crossover. I certainly hope there isn't! but it wouldn't be an unreasonable idea to think that there is, or could be.
I hope we can all agree that beastiality is not harmless.
P.S. I'm pretty sure in that episode, the panties actually belonged to the grandmother and she was a FORMER prom queen. They busted the house looking for Ellie or whoever and this old lady steps out of her bridge game to greet them.
... not that I'm a rabid SVU fan or anything
you're on fire! I agree again.
@9/Erica
I don't think the parent is freaked out, but in fairness, the harmless premise of furry..ism... whatever you'd call it, is based on the idea that there's no beastiality crossover. I certainly hope there isn't! but it wouldn't be an unreasonable idea to think that there is, or could be.
I hope we can all agree that beastiality is not harmless.
P.S. I'm pretty sure in that episode, the panties actually belonged to the grandmother and she was a FORMER prom queen. They busted the house looking for Ellie or whoever and this old lady steps out of her bridge game to greet them.
... not that I'm a rabid SVU fan or anything
21
@19 the ones I know have human lovers who are their "owners." It's just a different way of doing D/s (owner/pet) and does not involve bestiality.
22
@10 "WTF doesn't want to sound furry-phobic by casting doubts on their furriness because of their young age"
LOL
LOL
24
It boggles my mind that PORTLAND even thought of selling his son's underthings. That's insane. You want to make money pandering your child to pedophiles?
WHAT in HELL.
There is something seriously wrong with a parenting thought process that could even spawn that thought.
I can't even fathom it. Dan was much kinder to PORTLAND than I could be. I wanna just give him a sound smack on the back of his head and say loudly and sternly "NO, NO, NO, YOU MORON."
It's your job to protect this kid, PORTLAND, not pimp him out, even if you feel you're doing so in an abstract way, you're still trying to sexually sell your child.
I hope you will one day be as disgusted with yourself as I am with you right now. That you even discussed this with him was seriously inappropriate. Consider family counseling, because your dynamics are fucked up.
WHAT in HELL.
There is something seriously wrong with a parenting thought process that could even spawn that thought.
I can't even fathom it. Dan was much kinder to PORTLAND than I could be. I wanna just give him a sound smack on the back of his head and say loudly and sternly "NO, NO, NO, YOU MORON."
It's your job to protect this kid, PORTLAND, not pimp him out, even if you feel you're doing so in an abstract way, you're still trying to sexually sell your child.
I hope you will one day be as disgusted with yourself as I am with you right now. That you even discussed this with him was seriously inappropriate. Consider family counseling, because your dynamics are fucked up.
25
Yeah, if you knew nothing *about* furries, I could see where they'd confuse things w/ bestiality, maybe. Good on you, WTF, for being open-minded about your son's choices & wanting to make sure they --are-- his choices. HE could just have a furry phase. Talking to both of them, even if it's uncomfortable, is necessary. What a great dad you are.
But speaking of dads - "PORTLAND" - seriously? When I was the brokest I've ever been, last year, I sold tons of stuff dear to me. Jewelry, artworks, half my shoe collection. Stuff I still miss & think about. Even those of us living close to the bone likely have a pile of things we don't need or want, we just have as shelf filler. I did some really crap, mind-numbing temp work. I echo 16 in saying, it doesn't sound like you've done absolutely everything else you can do before coming up with this really bad idea. Trust me, it's a really bad idea. Even if your kid says he's okay with it, even if you research the laws the everywhere you were gonna send the sweaty skivvies, it's just not okay to make money off of sexually exploiting your child. Or anyone else's minor child. & who cares if the son gets a cut: what kinda message are you sending, here? When things get tough, sell yourself! GAH.
All I can do this week is nod & say - Dan! Great advice.
But speaking of dads - "PORTLAND" - seriously? When I was the brokest I've ever been, last year, I sold tons of stuff dear to me. Jewelry, artworks, half my shoe collection. Stuff I still miss & think about. Even those of us living close to the bone likely have a pile of things we don't need or want, we just have as shelf filler. I did some really crap, mind-numbing temp work. I echo 16 in saying, it doesn't sound like you've done absolutely everything else you can do before coming up with this really bad idea. Trust me, it's a really bad idea. Even if your kid says he's okay with it, even if you research the laws the everywhere you were gonna send the sweaty skivvies, it's just not okay to make money off of sexually exploiting your child. Or anyone else's minor child. & who cares if the son gets a cut: what kinda message are you sending, here? When things get tough, sell yourself! GAH.
All I can do this week is nod & say - Dan! Great advice.
26
This; @24.
The stupid we will always have with us. Forbid it the kid should find this out.
-Isis Jane
The stupid we will always have with us. Forbid it the kid should find this out.
-Isis Jane
27
Hey PORTLAND-- did you see the cultural headlines this week? The West Memphis 3 were released after 18 years, Damien Echols spent that time on death row. They were found guilty because they wore black & listened to heavy metal music. Yep. There are judges, juries & prosecutors just as, if not more so, ignorant as that.
This just goes to show that it hardly matters if what you're doing is legal or not. This is America, and if the Terrified Right get a hold of you, your goose is cooked.
Just something to think about.
This just goes to show that it hardly matters if what you're doing is legal or not. This is America, and if the Terrified Right get a hold of you, your goose is cooked.
Just something to think about.
28
Echoing the WTF sentiment about PORTLAND. Good thing he's anonymous cause god damn if someone said that to me about their kid in real life I'd be calling CPS so fast.
The fact that there are a LOT of ways you could be making money - including whoring yourself and your presumably consenting wife out, dealing pot; never mind the legally legit routes of selling all your non-essentials or applying for govt assistance - without involving your minor son in sex work really makes me think this is something you'd like to do and you're looking for an excuse. Get help.
The fact that there are a LOT of ways you could be making money - including whoring yourself and your presumably consenting wife out, dealing pot; never mind the legally legit routes of selling all your non-essentials or applying for govt assistance - without involving your minor son in sex work really makes me think this is something you'd like to do and you're looking for an excuse. Get help.
30
@13, 14: Andie! We've been trying to figure out how to do that for a while. Do you just do a close italics HTML tag by itself in a comment?
32
As one, let me say that "furriness" is not easy to shake - kudos for 'accepting' it (the perceived and real drama in my life around *explaining* it and trying to come out as a sexual critter in my mid-teens wrecked me, even if my folks really couldn't have given two shits as long as I never tried to meet anyone out of my age group).
So, point here: Have the 'choking' talk, but don't panic. Collars have their appeal for certain people, but from someone who's spent enough time in one - humans don't have fur, our necks are quite sensitive, and just sleeping in one can leave a terrible mark (as well as being uncomfortable!) if you roll the wrong way.
There's also a motivation to wear them too tight to get them to sit 'right' - not to be asphyxiated, but to feel fully wrapped and 'collared' rather than 'necklaced' (and to try to stop the thing from sliding down and scraping your shoulders). It takes a while to get over that, if someone's going to, and just enjoy the wearing.
A trick hint - "I dunno, kid, I've never seen a dog with one tight enough to get bruised" - might do the trick and get him to move on to exploring a new and even-weirder kink (while still imagining he has a tail).
So, point here: Have the 'choking' talk, but don't panic. Collars have their appeal for certain people, but from someone who's spent enough time in one - humans don't have fur, our necks are quite sensitive, and just sleeping in one can leave a terrible mark (as well as being uncomfortable!) if you roll the wrong way.
There's also a motivation to wear them too tight to get them to sit 'right' - not to be asphyxiated, but to feel fully wrapped and 'collared' rather than 'necklaced' (and to try to stop the thing from sliding down and scraping your shoulders). It takes a while to get over that, if someone's going to, and just enjoy the wearing.
A trick hint - "I dunno, kid, I've never seen a dog with one tight enough to get bruised" - might do the trick and get him to move on to exploring a new and even-weirder kink (while still imagining he has a tail).
33
Anyone have a link to the previous week's column? The one on the main archive page doesn't lead to the column, if there (presumably) was one...
34
Motherfucker, you sell everything in your fucking house on eBay and "donate" your fucking blood. You pimp your wife out (you know, because she's a consenting adult) if you really need an X-box that bad. And your kid? Maybe he goes and shovels some driveways, mows some lawns. Retrieves carts at the supermarket. Whatever light labor they allow CHILDREN to do these days. But his underwear? Fuck you. I don't care if you're living in your car, your kid's underwear is not for sale to the general public.
35
My first thought regarding PORTLAND: Fucking Christ, what the fuck is fucking wrong with you you fucking fuckhead?
And good on you for pointing out that WTF's son being a furry isn't the issue (too bad you couldn't make that same distinction for the podcast this week). That said, odds are they're not trying out choking play: the kid probably just doesn't yet know how to wear the collar right and either had it on too tight, slept with it on, or both.
And good on you for pointing out that WTF's son being a furry isn't the issue (too bad you couldn't make that same distinction for the podcast this week). That said, odds are they're not trying out choking play: the kid probably just doesn't yet know how to wear the collar right and either had it on too tight, slept with it on, or both.
36
Agree with @34. Also, the 14 year old kid isn't old enough to consent to the use of his images for sexual purposes, so his consent is a nullity.
And since everything on the internet is permanent, your plan to exploit your child will stay out there when he is at college, applying for jobs, etc. I look forward to your son writing to Savage one day: "Hey Dan, I have this great girlfriend and we are very serious. Problem is, she googled my name and found out my parents used to sell my underwear when I was 14....."
At a minimum, PORTLANDs plan violates the campsite rule.
And since everything on the internet is permanent, your plan to exploit your child will stay out there when he is at college, applying for jobs, etc. I look forward to your son writing to Savage one day: "Hey Dan, I have this great girlfriend and we are very serious. Problem is, she googled my name and found out my parents used to sell my underwear when I was 14....."
At a minimum, PORTLANDs plan violates the campsite rule.
37
Portland isn't selling his son's clothes, he's selling the sexual fantasy of his son. How can any parent think it's right to let their kid know that's OK? Fourteen year olds don't have the most common sense, how long before he's meeting old dudes on his own?
39
"the ones I know have human lovers who are their "owners." It's just a different way of doing D/s (owner/pet) and does not involve bestiality."
Logic: premise (NO crossover between furries and beastiality) is disproved by a contradicting case, not proved by a handful of confirming cases.
I said the idea that it's harmless is based on the idea there is NO crossover. I wasn't even saying there WAS any, but just because you haven't seen it, doesn't mean it's not there.
I'm not even being anti-furry or whatever the heck, I'm just saying we don't need to jump on a concerned parent for being concerned. It would be intuitive that if someone likes their partner to look and act like an animal they might be fantasizing about the real deal (which, while squicky, isn't inherently immoral since they're not harming a living thing). Again: I said, it would be intuitive, not that it's what's actually happening.
If a guy asked me to put my hair in pigtails, put on some frilly pink panties and bring one of those oversized lollipops next time we get together... well... I'd have some questions. Especially since I could pass for 16, no props necessary.
But I'm old-fashioned, so whatever.
Finally: hickeys are traditonally on the side of the neck, collar buckles are traditionally on the front.
Logic: premise (NO crossover between furries and beastiality) is disproved by a contradicting case, not proved by a handful of confirming cases.
I said the idea that it's harmless is based on the idea there is NO crossover. I wasn't even saying there WAS any, but just because you haven't seen it, doesn't mean it's not there.
I'm not even being anti-furry or whatever the heck, I'm just saying we don't need to jump on a concerned parent for being concerned. It would be intuitive that if someone likes their partner to look and act like an animal they might be fantasizing about the real deal (which, while squicky, isn't inherently immoral since they're not harming a living thing). Again: I said, it would be intuitive, not that it's what's actually happening.
If a guy asked me to put my hair in pigtails, put on some frilly pink panties and bring one of those oversized lollipops next time we get together... well... I'd have some questions. Especially since I could pass for 16, no props necessary.
But I'm old-fashioned, so whatever.
Finally: hickeys are traditonally on the side of the neck, collar buckles are traditionally on the front.
40
I never do this but I call fake on PORTLAND. This seems like an attempt to discredit Dan by seeing if he would green light this.
42
@ 39 - "hickeys are traditonally on the side of the neck"
You are indeed old-fashioned. I leave hickeys all around, but especially on the back of the neck and shoulders (if my partner's into it of course).
You are indeed old-fashioned. I leave hickeys all around, but especially on the back of the neck and shoulders (if my partner's into it of course).
43
"http://socialmoderatefiscalconservative.…
not all republicans are bad and hate gays!! "
And are there any Republican candidates who espouse those positions? No? Then yes, all Republican politicians are bad and hate gays. If you are a fiscal conservative who doesn't hate gays, then why not vote for one of the Democratic politicians who's a fiscal conservative but social moderate? They've been the dominant force in the Democratic party for a long time.
not all republicans are bad and hate gays!! "
And are there any Republican candidates who espouse those positions? No? Then yes, all Republican politicians are bad and hate gays. If you are a fiscal conservative who doesn't hate gays, then why not vote for one of the Democratic politicians who's a fiscal conservative but social moderate? They've been the dominant force in the Democratic party for a long time.
44
@39 Didn't mean to suggest no one ever. Just meant, perfectly possible for it to be totally harmless fun, as it is with the people I know. For the record, lots of people are into "Daddy/baby" games, too, without being interested in pedophilia.
45
I have a question about the asexuality letter. Do asexuals masturbate or become sexual aroused? Also, are there asexuals who identify as gay or straight? Seems like this would be the case.
47
@32 - "I dunno, kid, I've never seen a dog with one tight enough to get bruised" -- excellent suggestion!
48
@9 - I'm with you on this one. Furries, pet play and collars are three different things. Correct me if I'm wrong (and forgive me for my shitty spelling, English is not my first language), but a furry is a anthropomorphized animal character that may or may not be sexualized - the furry fan wears full a full-body fursuit. Pet-play is a BDSM type of roleplay that where one or more of the participants acts out in a way characteristic of an animal (usually a dog, cat or horse) and another participant plays the role of its owner - although a pet could be wearing a collar (leash), he may or may not be *collard* by the owner. A collar is a symbol in the BDSM community that the submissive/slave is owned by a Dominant/Master.
49
@mydriasis
re: kinksters..
I'm 29 and I really don't get the whole ear stretching thing, plenty of people my age do this, but really, when you take them out are your ears not permanently stretched?? Ever seen those pics of tribal women in National Geographic when they take their 'gauges' out? Jesus, can't wait to see what these people look like when they are 50+.. Ugh. The urge to cover one's self with tattoos is also going to look pretty fucking stupid past a certain age too.. well good luck to them I guess.
re: kinksters..
I'm 29 and I really don't get the whole ear stretching thing, plenty of people my age do this, but really, when you take them out are your ears not permanently stretched?? Ever seen those pics of tribal women in National Geographic when they take their 'gauges' out? Jesus, can't wait to see what these people look like when they are 50+.. Ugh. The urge to cover one's self with tattoos is also going to look pretty fucking stupid past a certain age too.. well good luck to them I guess.
50
@39:
The problem with that premise is that it's inherently flawed by the nature of 1. people being able to have multiple interests, and 2. asking even furries themselves to pin down the definition of what "furry" is is like trying to nail Jello to a wall.
Speaking as someone who has longtime knowledge of the subject, I (and the vast majority of furries I know) find it a tad annoying that being a furry automatically makes folks unfamiliar with the fandom assume that you either like to have sex in fursuits or with real animals. I'd say easily that 95% of self-identified furries/furry fans/whatever they feel like calling themselves do NOT even own fursuits (expensive, hot, difficult to transport, etc) and the small community that does, very few of them choose to deliberately get them messy for *any* reason (mostly due to the expense and difficulty of cleaning something that large, made out of pretty pricey specialty material). Even at the largest furry convention in the US (an event where one might imagine wearing a fursuit would be the most likely), out of 4400 attendees this year, there were less than 900 fursuiters in attendance.
I do not believe that furry itself has any crossover with bestiality (as the point of furry is animals with human characteristics, or humans with animal characteristics--furries tend to treat their characters as if they were simply people that happen to look like animals, and perhaps with some touches of what one might imagine animal behavior would be like in a humanlike society), but that being said, much like there are an assortment of furries who are into BDSM and assorted kink play, there are furries who are also interested in less than...stellar conduct. Especially with bestiality, people outside the fandom sometimes have a hard time understanding the difference between "animal people" and animals, and the fact that the fandom is often seen as heavily sexualized only adds to the misconception.
I often see the sexual kink assortment of the furry community as kinda just mirroring the world at large...furry fans are just people, after all...if a tad geeky, and a tad more open about their sexuality. (The most boring answer is never the one people want to hear, though. Haha.) That being said, bestiality is actually one of the few things I've seen the furry community at large truly and loudly shun, despite being open to much else. Are there some folks who do? I don't deny it. But over and over again I've seen those people get mocked, harassed, and often banned from events and online communities when found out, so the idea that being a furry automatically puts you under suspicions of bestiality inclinations is, well, an idea that only gets formed on the outside, I think.
I often use this metaphor:
Many people like chocolate. Some people are HUGE fans of chocolate and read books about it, think about it often, like spending time talking to other chocolate fans, or even learn to create their own chocolate art. Some people involve chocolate in sex. It does not logically follow that EVERYONE who likes chocolate wants to have sex with it.
More...
The problem with that premise is that it's inherently flawed by the nature of 1. people being able to have multiple interests, and 2. asking even furries themselves to pin down the definition of what "furry" is is like trying to nail Jello to a wall.
Speaking as someone who has longtime knowledge of the subject, I (and the vast majority of furries I know) find it a tad annoying that being a furry automatically makes folks unfamiliar with the fandom assume that you either like to have sex in fursuits or with real animals. I'd say easily that 95% of self-identified furries/furry fans/whatever they feel like calling themselves do NOT even own fursuits (expensive, hot, difficult to transport, etc) and the small community that does, very few of them choose to deliberately get them messy for *any* reason (mostly due to the expense and difficulty of cleaning something that large, made out of pretty pricey specialty material). Even at the largest furry convention in the US (an event where one might imagine wearing a fursuit would be the most likely), out of 4400 attendees this year, there were less than 900 fursuiters in attendance.
I do not believe that furry itself has any crossover with bestiality (as the point of furry is animals with human characteristics, or humans with animal characteristics--furries tend to treat their characters as if they were simply people that happen to look like animals, and perhaps with some touches of what one might imagine animal behavior would be like in a humanlike society), but that being said, much like there are an assortment of furries who are into BDSM and assorted kink play, there are furries who are also interested in less than...stellar conduct. Especially with bestiality, people outside the fandom sometimes have a hard time understanding the difference between "animal people" and animals, and the fact that the fandom is often seen as heavily sexualized only adds to the misconception.
I often see the sexual kink assortment of the furry community as kinda just mirroring the world at large...furry fans are just people, after all...if a tad geeky, and a tad more open about their sexuality. (The most boring answer is never the one people want to hear, though. Haha.) That being said, bestiality is actually one of the few things I've seen the furry community at large truly and loudly shun, despite being open to much else. Are there some folks who do? I don't deny it. But over and over again I've seen those people get mocked, harassed, and often banned from events and online communities when found out, so the idea that being a furry automatically puts you under suspicions of bestiality inclinations is, well, an idea that only gets formed on the outside, I think.
I often use this metaphor:
Many people like chocolate. Some people are HUGE fans of chocolate and read books about it, think about it often, like spending time talking to other chocolate fans, or even learn to create their own chocolate art. Some people involve chocolate in sex. It does not logically follow that EVERYONE who likes chocolate wants to have sex with it.
51
@48:
Not all furry fans wear fursuits, but outside of that I think you have the idea, yes. (Also, some furry fans call themselves "furries" as well as the actual characters themselves, which only adds to the confusion...)
Not all furry fans wear fursuits, but outside of that I think you have the idea, yes. (Also, some furry fans call themselves "furries" as well as the actual characters themselves, which only adds to the confusion...)
53
It's been said we are all the funny-cartoon animal of the stories of our lives.
It's like in "Understanding Comics" when Scott McCloud talks about how even though we don't see ourselves when we interact with others, we still hold an image of ourselves in our imagination. Because of the remove, this image of ourselves tends to be more idealized from how we literally present ourselves. This relates to how anime is suited to drawing-in readers to identify with their protagonists. This association carries over into the presentation of funny-animal cartoons.
In this way, the appeal of furriness could be in reconciling the idealization of something like porn with actual sex, since the participants are literally adopting the roles. Associating furriness with bestiality rather than this dynamic isn't inherently something the practitioners bring to the kink, it's something the outsiders do. It's like when children are made ashamed for things that are completely innocent. It's crapping on what it takes for the practitioners to be unself-conscious when they have sex. We should hope to do better than to walk away from others with chunks of them in our stomachs.
It's like in "Understanding Comics" when Scott McCloud talks about how even though we don't see ourselves when we interact with others, we still hold an image of ourselves in our imagination. Because of the remove, this image of ourselves tends to be more idealized from how we literally present ourselves. This relates to how anime is suited to drawing-in readers to identify with their protagonists. This association carries over into the presentation of funny-animal cartoons.
In this way, the appeal of furriness could be in reconciling the idealization of something like porn with actual sex, since the participants are literally adopting the roles. Associating furriness with bestiality rather than this dynamic isn't inherently something the practitioners bring to the kink, it's something the outsiders do. It's like when children are made ashamed for things that are completely innocent. It's crapping on what it takes for the practitioners to be unself-conscious when they have sex. We should hope to do better than to walk away from others with chunks of them in our stomachs.
54
I don't think it's ethical to put up a picture of someone else's 14 year old your site. Maybe a picture of yourself at 14, but nothing else passes the ethical sniff test.
55
@43:
There were 4 Republican state senators in NY who voted for the gay marriage bill, so maybe they don't all hate gays.
There were 4 Republican state senators in NY who voted for the gay marriage bill, so maybe they don't all hate gays.
56
@43:
There were 4 republican state senators in NY who voted for the gay marriage bill, and it couldn't have passed without them, so maybe they don't all hate gays.
There were 4 republican state senators in NY who voted for the gay marriage bill, and it couldn't have passed without them, so maybe they don't all hate gays.
57
As a fiscal conservative + social liberal, I get tired of hearing about how voting for Republicans = hating gays. At least Ron Paul and Gary Johnson have said they would allow states to legalize it if they want.
I haven't heard a lot of high-profile gay marriage support from Obama or other prominent Democrats or the party as a whole. They don't campaign against it either, but that's how they sucker everyone.
Face it, mainstream politicians of either party are hostile to gays and marijuana. If you want to vote for Democrats for other reasons, fine, but admit that vote is just as anti-gay as a Republican vote it.
I haven't heard a lot of high-profile gay marriage support from Obama or other prominent Democrats or the party as a whole. They don't campaign against it either, but that's how they sucker everyone.
Face it, mainstream politicians of either party are hostile to gays and marijuana. If you want to vote for Democrats for other reasons, fine, but admit that vote is just as anti-gay as a Republican vote it.
58
@23: yes.
Savage Love: http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/Rss.x…
Slog: Savage Love: http://slog.thestranger.com/seattle/Rss.…
Savage Love: http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/Rss.x…
Slog: Savage Love: http://slog.thestranger.com/seattle/Rss.…
59
@57 - so, as a fiscal conservative, who are your favorite politicians at the national level today?
60
@ 55 - Gee, FOUR of them! Out of a total of...?
You're right, maybe they don't ALL hate the gays... But the overwhelming majority do.
Besides, as some rich NY businessmen had already stated their support for gay marriage, it might also just have been a business decision for those senators. Don't want to lose those precious campaign funds!
You're right, maybe they don't ALL hate the gays... But the overwhelming majority do.
Besides, as some rich NY businessmen had already stated their support for gay marriage, it might also just have been a business decision for those senators. Don't want to lose those precious campaign funds!
61
@57 I'm sorry but...no. That is absolutely not the case. Are democrats guilty of not fighting hard enough for equality? Absolutely, we can agree on that for sure. But their indifference does not even come close to the Republicans balls-to-the-wall-out-and-out attack on gay people! The Dems are culpable, I agree. But you cannot possibly be suggesting that these two evils are the same! Can you??
Unfortunately, when it comes to making a choice in politics these days, the choice is usually between the lesser of two evils. Does that suck? Yeah, but it doesn't make the choice any less important.
Unfortunately, when it comes to making a choice in politics these days, the choice is usually between the lesser of two evils. Does that suck? Yeah, but it doesn't make the choice any less important.
62
@59 - Rand and Ron Paul at least qualify as fiscally conservative, and for my social liberal side they stand up for the 4th Amendment. Ron preaches against the drug war as well as all our current foreign wars. And they have actually operated and voted consistently with what they say. There are other issues I'm not so comfortable with them on and they're not perfect.
@61 - "Republicans balls-to-the-wall-out-and-out attack on gay people!"
There aren't many Democrats at the Santorum level, but they do not give a shit about equality. Also consider I never claimed to be a single-issue voter and often don't vote at all.
@61 - "Republicans balls-to-the-wall-out-and-out attack on gay people!"
There aren't many Democrats at the Santorum level, but they do not give a shit about equality. Also consider I never claimed to be a single-issue voter and often don't vote at all.
63
re: Portland, what i find weird is that he wants to use his REAL son's stuff and that he TOLD his son his plans.
if he's so broke, he could have easily created a fake son with a fake bio and fake photos (photos easily purchased from many online stock photo sites that let u use the photos legally.) then go out to fucking TJ Maxx or Walmart or any other cheap clothing emporium and buy teenage sized gym clothes, jock, undies etc, put them on yourself and go jogging around Porland's lovely riverwalk - you'll not only sweat but get a nice work out as well, douchbag. And then sell them on ebay or what ever place you can, using fake son as bait.
I agree with other posters, he's got a thing for the son, and this is a way sublimate his sexual feelings for his boy.
AND LASTLY MOM.... if you're reading this, you better have a REAL direct talk with you husband and find out his real intentions and then have a heart to heart talk to your son and see if three has been any inappropriate funny stuff between him and his dad.
if he's so broke, he could have easily created a fake son with a fake bio and fake photos (photos easily purchased from many online stock photo sites that let u use the photos legally.) then go out to fucking TJ Maxx or Walmart or any other cheap clothing emporium and buy teenage sized gym clothes, jock, undies etc, put them on yourself and go jogging around Porland's lovely riverwalk - you'll not only sweat but get a nice work out as well, douchbag. And then sell them on ebay or what ever place you can, using fake son as bait.
I agree with other posters, he's got a thing for the son, and this is a way sublimate his sexual feelings for his boy.
AND LASTLY MOM.... if you're reading this, you better have a REAL direct talk with you husband and find out his real intentions and then have a heart to heart talk to your son and see if three has been any inappropriate funny stuff between him and his dad.
64
@61 - Let me rephrase: you are correct when it comes to their rhetoric, the Republicans are worse when chasing after the ignorant old people vote. As far as what they actually do in office and their voting record, the difference becomes marginal. This is not unique to gay issues.
66
I have to say, it's nice to get some good ol'-fashioned weird sexuality back into Savage Love. The mushy relationship stuff gets kind of boring.
67
*sigh*
okay, here goes...
@42
yes, that's why I said "traditionally". I did not say "that's the only place I've ever had/given a hickey".
@EricaP
yup. I was just trying to say that just because she's concerned doesn't make her closeminded. Not everyone is super-initiated to Dan's Magical Mystery Tour of kink (I've been reading his column for years, and had lots of kinky/poly/nontraditional friends when I was younger, several of whom I'm still in various degrees of contact with today) and we should give people credit, and the chance to be open minded and not pounce on any sign of hesitation or relunctance as some kind of hidden bigotry. I'm not talking so much as you in specific, more the tone of a lot of people's answers to things in general.
@Mr. J.
Seriously? Needlessly obtuse.
"Hey do you want to have sex with prepubescent girls? Because it seems like you might." is a question I might ask such a partner.
okay, here goes...
@42
yes, that's why I said "traditionally". I did not say "that's the only place I've ever had/given a hickey".
@EricaP
yup. I was just trying to say that just because she's concerned doesn't make her closeminded. Not everyone is super-initiated to Dan's Magical Mystery Tour of kink (I've been reading his column for years, and had lots of kinky/poly/nontraditional friends when I was younger, several of whom I'm still in various degrees of contact with today) and we should give people credit, and the chance to be open minded and not pounce on any sign of hesitation or relunctance as some kind of hidden bigotry. I'm not talking so much as you in specific, more the tone of a lot of people's answers to things in general.
@Mr. J.
Seriously? Needlessly obtuse.
"Hey do you want to have sex with prepubescent girls? Because it seems like you might." is a question I might ask such a partner.
68
Oh
@49 star,
I believe ears stretched under a 00 will return back to normal after the gauges are taken out. If you don't know: gauges indicate smaller thickness with larger numbers, so I think your traditional earring post is about 14 or 16 gauge if I'm not mistaken. A 00 and above usually doesn't return to normal but if the person really wants I think there's a little procedure that will restore the lobes.
I've never stretched my ears and have no interest but I think mildly stretched ones can be kind of cute.
I have no tattoos but I think they can be nice on other people. Though the idea of putting on what is essentially a fashion accessory that you can't take off seems foolish to me. "I'm going to love this (slapbracelet/tamagotchi/moodring/pair of mchammer pants) FOREVAR!" Tattoos almost always date people. I can usually tell how old someone is by looking at their tattoo, estimating what year it's from and then assuming they were in their late teens or early twenties around then. :p
Only non-ear peircing I ever got was my tongue, and that generally doesn't even scar when it gets taken out.
@49 star,
I believe ears stretched under a 00 will return back to normal after the gauges are taken out. If you don't know: gauges indicate smaller thickness with larger numbers, so I think your traditional earring post is about 14 or 16 gauge if I'm not mistaken. A 00 and above usually doesn't return to normal but if the person really wants I think there's a little procedure that will restore the lobes.
I've never stretched my ears and have no interest but I think mildly stretched ones can be kind of cute.
I have no tattoos but I think they can be nice on other people. Though the idea of putting on what is essentially a fashion accessory that you can't take off seems foolish to me. "I'm going to love this (slapbracelet/tamagotchi/moodring/pair of mchammer pants) FOREVAR!" Tattoos almost always date people. I can usually tell how old someone is by looking at their tattoo, estimating what year it's from and then assuming they were in their late teens or early twenties around then. :p
Only non-ear peircing I ever got was my tongue, and that generally doesn't even scar when it gets taken out.
69
Scruff, you put your finger perfectly on what's so disturbing about that father. He could have easily done it himself without involving his son at all. He has the hots for his son.
By the way, can you imagine the kind of trashy family that in which that kind of conversation happens? Poor kid.
By the way, can you imagine the kind of trashy family that in which that kind of conversation happens? Poor kid.
70
Your friend may have decided to identify as asexual because he wants to opt out because he finds the games required exhausting.
And if that's the case, it's a perfectly valid lifestyle choice. Not every self-identified asexual is someone who has never gotten laid, or couldn't. Some of them have, and could, but have decided that the returns yielded just don't justify the cost of time, energy, and resources. Some people gave sex and romantic relationships the old college try, found them ultimatley overrated, and decided that their time, energy, and resources were better allocated elsewhere.
Maybe, as a certain popular web-based critic phrased it, "I can still see the appeal of emptying …
And if that's the case, it's a perfectly valid lifestyle choice. Not every self-identified asexual is someone who has never gotten laid, or couldn't. Some of them have, and could, but have decided that the returns yielded just don't justify the cost of time, energy, and resources. Some people gave sex and romantic relationships the old college try, found them ultimatley overrated, and decided that their time, energy, and resources were better allocated elsewhere.
Maybe, as a certain popular web-based critic phrased it, "I can still see the appeal of emptying …
72
@71
I read his whole post.
While your comment that "Some of them have, and could" is likely true of many asexuals, I doubt it's true of him in particular. He sounds pretty insufferable.
In reference to that direct quote, I have to give you my favourite comparison.
The idea that sex is akin to masturbation is absolutely insane to me. But that's just personal perspective.
Do you remember in Pulp Fiction, when John Travolta's character is trying to convince Samuel Jackson's character that a footrub is akin to oral sex? And he says 'it's not the same thing!' and Travolta's character replies 'it's not the same thing, but it's at least the same ballpark.'
I believe his response is "it's not the same ballpark, it's not even the same SPORT".
That is how I feel about sex and masturbation.
I read his whole post.
While your comment that "Some of them have, and could" is likely true of many asexuals, I doubt it's true of him in particular. He sounds pretty insufferable.
In reference to that direct quote, I have to give you my favourite comparison.
The idea that sex is akin to masturbation is absolutely insane to me. But that's just personal perspective.
Do you remember in Pulp Fiction, when John Travolta's character is trying to convince Samuel Jackson's character that a footrub is akin to oral sex? And he says 'it's not the same thing!' and Travolta's character replies 'it's not the same thing, but it's at least the same ballpark.'
I believe his response is "it's not the same ballpark, it's not even the same SPORT".
That is how I feel about sex and masturbation.
73
Alright, I'm not condoning PORTLAND's behavior at all. Engaging in anything that could be seen as child pornography is seriously icky and not at all a good idea. But, we don't know how this whole conversation came about. I highly doubt that the first time they were having trouble making rent the goto solution was selling Jr's underwear. My first thought on the subject was that Jr probably thought of it. He saw that episode of Law and Order or he heard some friends talking about a website and mentioned it because he knew mom and dad were having some financial troubles. After that its not hard to believe that PORTLAND's response was, "no, no we could never...wait, we could get how much money?" I could just be making up excuses because I don't want to believe that any parent could be that despicable. But I do think before we draw and quarter PORTLAND we should consider how this whole thing came about.
74
FINALLY! A return to the good old "Damn, you're a hot mess!" pervs we all remember and love from your columns of yesteryear. You're a gentleman and a scholar, Dan, and if you keep this up you'll have droves of new readers beating a path to your door.
@66: Exactly!
@33: Yeah, I finally managed to get to it from a link in the "most commented articles" list on the side of the page, but apparently when Dan titles his column with a web address, there's no normal way to get to that column. Is there a place to file a bug report about that? Anyway, here's the link: http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/Savag… It's the column with the title "www.humpseattle.com" that starts "I went to Craigslist to look..."
@66: Exactly!
@33: Yeah, I finally managed to get to it from a link in the "most commented articles" list on the side of the page, but apparently when Dan titles his column with a web address, there's no normal way to get to that column. Is there a place to file a bug report about that? Anyway, here's the link: http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/Savag… It's the column with the title "www.humpseattle.com" that starts "I went to Craigslist to look..."
75
Trying again:
thestranger.com/seattle/SavageLove?oid=9…
That's "/seattle/SavageLove?oid=9539475", in case it truncates.
thestranger.com/seattle/SavageLove?oid=9…
That's "/seattle/SavageLove?oid=9539475", in case it truncates.
76
@63: Excellent point: he should use his own underwear and pretend that they're his son's. He was clear about not wanting to use his son's actual name and picture.
@67: Huh? So if someone wants to engage in rape fantasies, would you ask if they actually want to rape someone? Or if someone wants to engage in consensual BDSM, would you ask if they actually want to beat up someone nonconsensually?
People often want all sorts of fantasies that they think are wrong or wouldn't do in real life. And the age play you describe is pretty common and tame.
@67: Huh? So if someone wants to engage in rape fantasies, would you ask if they actually want to rape someone? Or if someone wants to engage in consensual BDSM, would you ask if they actually want to beat up someone nonconsensually?
People often want all sorts of fantasies that they think are wrong or wouldn't do in real life. And the age play you describe is pretty common and tame.
78
I've got it: LW posts pictures of himself at age 14, and sells drawers that he's soiling now, with his nasty, hairy, middle-aged man body. Throw a little 'rhoid blood in there, and the perverts can let their imaginations run wild.
79
@76 BlackRose
Thanks for your response to @67.
Just as people who are into bestiality get drummed out of furry society (see above), so too do pedophiles get drummed out of adult baby/age play circles. And not just drummed out but reported to the authorities.
Thanks for your response to @67.
Just as people who are into bestiality get drummed out of furry society (see above), so too do pedophiles get drummed out of adult baby/age play circles. And not just drummed out but reported to the authorities.
81
@79: You mean child molesters and abusers get drummed out, don't you? Though the word is frequently abused and used as an insult, 'pedophile' just means anyone who is turned on by the idea of age play, which is pretty common. Age play is a consensual way to enact fantasies. That doesn't mean they would actually molest a kid.
84
Gibson99,
1) The ” mushy relationship” stuff is the heart of the column. Kink shit can be found in abundance in the net. The partner too demanding? Dtmf? Figuring the details and dynamics of a relationship from a couple one-sided paragraphs is the challenge of this column. Better than crosswords.
2) Ron Paul and similar do not represent tne GOP, and he will never be their national candidate. The mainstream GOPs are falling all over each other to condemn gay marriage. The Dems are staying quiet because it'll only hurt them to defend gays.
1) The ” mushy relationship” stuff is the heart of the column. Kink shit can be found in abundance in the net. The partner too demanding? Dtmf? Figuring the details and dynamics of a relationship from a couple one-sided paragraphs is the challenge of this column. Better than crosswords.
2) Ron Paul and similar do not represent tne GOP, and he will never be their national candidate. The mainstream GOPs are falling all over each other to condemn gay marriage. The Dems are staying quiet because it'll only hurt them to defend gays.
85
@64 I do get what you are saying, and I respect conservatives like you, meaning ones who are not crazy and hateful, and just have a more traditionally conservative view of domestic economic policy. If that were the case with all conservatives we could have a very productive debate that would benefit the country as a whole. Unfortunately what Hunter78 @84 says is true. At least right now, those few fair-minded individuals do not speak for the group as a whole.
86
It's wrong to assume at someone who is a "furry" HAS to be into beastiality. But being a furry doesn't not ensure that one isn't also into beastiality and it's not unreasonable to think that a connection could exist. See all those modifiers? They were there from the start. So there's no need for people to be jumping down my throat as if I said "OMG FURRIES LIKE DOING ANIMALS THAT'S GROSS".
I didn't.
Though "age play" is mild in the kink scene. "Common" might be a bit of a stretch for the rest of the sexual universe. Depending on what you mean by "common" and also what you mean by "age play" and also on what the definition of "is" is. :p
So again. Though not all people into pretending their partner is prepubescent are likely to actually hurt a young child, it is possible they are a pedophile.
By the way, pedophile is a real word with a real defintion which is not "someone into age play". Are you kidding? I know Dan likes to make up new meanings to people's names as it suits him but jeez.
Though the DSM has a lengthy definition of what pedophilia is, let's just go to our trusty dictionary, shall we?
pe·do·phile /ˈpidəˌfaɪl/ Show Spelled[pee-duh-fahyl] Show IPA
noun Psychiatry .
an adult who is sexually attracted to young children.
Again, this is NOT the same as someone who molests/rapes children. We can all agree on that. Someone can be attracted to one group and not act on it (ask any closeted married gay person from days of yore).
But it's not unreasonable logic for someone to think that someone into age play is more likely to be a pedophile than someone who isn't. If you can show me data that says otherwise, please do.
Therefore: not an unreasonable question to ask. If a guy asked me to pretend to be male I might also wonder if he was gay or bisexual. It's possible he's not! But it's not unreasonable to wonder if he is.
More...
I didn't.
Though "age play" is mild in the kink scene. "Common" might be a bit of a stretch for the rest of the sexual universe. Depending on what you mean by "common" and also what you mean by "age play" and also on what the definition of "is" is. :p
So again. Though not all people into pretending their partner is prepubescent are likely to actually hurt a young child, it is possible they are a pedophile.
By the way, pedophile is a real word with a real defintion which is not "someone into age play". Are you kidding? I know Dan likes to make up new meanings to people's names as it suits him but jeez.
Though the DSM has a lengthy definition of what pedophilia is, let's just go to our trusty dictionary, shall we?
pe·do·phile /ˈpidəˌfaɪl/ Show Spelled[pee-duh-fahyl] Show IPA
noun Psychiatry .
an adult who is sexually attracted to young children.
Again, this is NOT the same as someone who molests/rapes children. We can all agree on that. Someone can be attracted to one group and not act on it (ask any closeted married gay person from days of yore).
But it's not unreasonable logic for someone to think that someone into age play is more likely to be a pedophile than someone who isn't. If you can show me data that says otherwise, please do.
Therefore: not an unreasonable question to ask. If a guy asked me to pretend to be male I might also wonder if he was gay or bisexual. It's possible he's not! But it's not unreasonable to wonder if he is.
87
@62, thanks. I gather your socially liberal side doesn't mind Ron and Rand Paul's desire to make abortion illegal wherever possible?
88
"Fiscal conservative, Social liberal" in a nutshell:
I know that conservative social policy is hateful and wrong, that gay people, women, and minorities deserve equal rights... but I care about my money more so I'm going to vote Republican. But I want everyone to know I'm not ignorant... just greedy.
I grew up in a family of them, don't front.
I know that conservative social policy is hateful and wrong, that gay people, women, and minorities deserve equal rights... but I care about my money more so I'm going to vote Republican. But I want everyone to know I'm not ignorant... just greedy.
I grew up in a family of them, don't front.
89
@81 BlackRose
Yes. I had in mind the actual case I know of concerning a person who came sniffing around my local BDSM group's age players for access to an actual child. That person was turned in to the cops immediately. This was the one and only time such an incident occurred in all the years of this group's existence.
@86 mydriasis
"it is possible they are a pedophile"
It is possible that anyone is. And it's up to you, the person casting aspersions (modifiers are beside the point), to provide positive correlations. It's not for the rest of us to prove the negative.
Yes. I had in mind the actual case I know of concerning a person who came sniffing around my local BDSM group's age players for access to an actual child. That person was turned in to the cops immediately. This was the one and only time such an incident occurred in all the years of this group's existence.
@86 mydriasis
"it is possible they are a pedophile"
It is possible that anyone is. And it's up to you, the person casting aspersions (modifiers are beside the point), to provide positive correlations. It's not for the rest of us to prove the negative.
90
@ 73 - Yes, parents CAN be "that despicable." Nice try blaming it on the kid though. Gee, that is exactly what pedophiles do! They transfer their neuroses on to the victims instead of taking responsibility for THEIR actions. It is extremely doubtful that the kid approached his parents unless you think the whole family is some white trash, sit-com inspired hot mess, in which case, you could be right. Again, doubtful and certainly ridiculous.
I could tell you stories of what I've seen parents do to their children which they perceive as totally acceptable without a question of whether their actions are "right or wrong." Such things that the child will accept because they are the children and the only role models they have are the adults in their homes. Later, in the adult years, we get to see how the treatment manifests itself in the form of anti-social and self-harming behaviour in varying degrees.
So, stop blaming the kid, even by implying it. They are the adults and let's be clear to ALL so-called parents on this thread, YOU are the adult role model in your child's life whether you like it or not. ANY sort of treatment towards the child which does not benefit the child WILL eventually cause damage.
Too many people think that just because they've had sex, they can be parents. That is certainly not the case. I'd even go so far to say that there are a few on here who exhibit classic sexually abused pasts. They are quite easy to spot through the wording of some of the posts here. Think back to how that betrayal felt when you realised that everyone else's parents weren't doing that to them.
It is never the child's fault. Never.
I could tell you stories of what I've seen parents do to their children which they perceive as totally acceptable without a question of whether their actions are "right or wrong." Such things that the child will accept because they are the children and the only role models they have are the adults in their homes. Later, in the adult years, we get to see how the treatment manifests itself in the form of anti-social and self-harming behaviour in varying degrees.
So, stop blaming the kid, even by implying it. They are the adults and let's be clear to ALL so-called parents on this thread, YOU are the adult role model in your child's life whether you like it or not. ANY sort of treatment towards the child which does not benefit the child WILL eventually cause damage.
Too many people think that just because they've had sex, they can be parents. That is certainly not the case. I'd even go so far to say that there are a few on here who exhibit classic sexually abused pasts. They are quite easy to spot through the wording of some of the posts here. Think back to how that betrayal felt when you realised that everyone else's parents weren't doing that to them.
It is never the child's fault. Never.
91
@86: Sure, a furry might be into bestiality. And someone who plays Grand Theft Auto might be into shooting actual prostitutes. But that's not the way to bet, ya know? The two really have little to do with each other.
Most furries I know have fetishes that revolve around fantasy roleplay, either online or in person. Those fantasies are centered around animals that are anthropomorphic, i.e. have human characteristics. This is rather different from wanting to fuck something that's not human in any way, shape, or form.
Most furries I know have fetishes that revolve around fantasy roleplay, either online or in person. Those fantasies are centered around animals that are anthropomorphic, i.e. have human characteristics. This is rather different from wanting to fuck something that's not human in any way, shape, or form.
92
@86: If someone's into age play, presumably they're turned on by the fantasy of sex with a young child... that is usually the whole point of age play. Hence, they'd fall under the definition of a pedophile (being attracted to young children). I think we agree on that, and that there's nothing wrong with consensually expressing the attraction or fantasies through age play.
What I'm not understanding is why you think that's a problem, or why you would feel the need to ask a bunch of questions. Again, if someone was turned on by rape play, they'd be a "rapeophile" (or whatever the actual term is for being aroused by forced sex, if there is one) but not a rapist. Would you feel concerned that someone who wanted to play rape might actually rape someone? Do you understand that having fantasies and acting them out consensually doesn't make someone more likely to abuse another person?
What I'm not understanding is why you think that's a problem, or why you would feel the need to ask a bunch of questions. Again, if someone was turned on by rape play, they'd be a "rapeophile" (or whatever the actual term is for being aroused by forced sex, if there is one) but not a rapist. Would you feel concerned that someone who wanted to play rape might actually rape someone? Do you understand that having fantasies and acting them out consensually doesn't make someone more likely to abuse another person?
93
Dan, I want to thank you for coming out and saying this: 'And for the record: No one is "100 percent okay psychologically," and not everyone needs sex and/or a romantic relationship to feel content and enjoy life.'
Past discussions you've had about asexuality had led me to believe you didn't understand or perhaps didn't believe that not everyone needed sex in their lives. I now realize you do get it.
Past discussions you've had about asexuality had led me to believe you didn't understand or perhaps didn't believe that not everyone needed sex in their lives. I now realize you do get it.
94
@ Mr. J
That's an issue of freedom, my friend. I may require whatever I like of a sexual partner, and they may pick whatever requirements they like of me.
@Blackrose
Acting it out doesn't make it more likely (I believe it makes it less likely) but HAVING the fantasy does make it more likely.
Or are you trying to say that those who fantasize about rape are no more likely to rape than someone who does not.
I think it's about... roughly 80% of men who have fantasized about rape?
As for pedophilia inherently, it's not a problem in general, although it is a problem for me. If someone is primarily attracted to prepubescent children, then I'd prefer not to have sex with them. Not because it's "wrong" to have an attraction, but for the same reason I'd prefer a straight guy over a gay guy (or a bisexual man who is primarily attracted to men).
P.S. that's my right, innit?
That's an issue of freedom, my friend. I may require whatever I like of a sexual partner, and they may pick whatever requirements they like of me.
@Blackrose
Acting it out doesn't make it more likely (I believe it makes it less likely) but HAVING the fantasy does make it more likely.
Or are you trying to say that those who fantasize about rape are no more likely to rape than someone who does not.
I think it's about... roughly 80% of men who have fantasized about rape?
As for pedophilia inherently, it's not a problem in general, although it is a problem for me. If someone is primarily attracted to prepubescent children, then I'd prefer not to have sex with them. Not because it's "wrong" to have an attraction, but for the same reason I'd prefer a straight guy over a gay guy (or a bisexual man who is primarily attracted to men).
P.S. that's my right, innit?
95
@80: Like saying that non-violent people forfeit their right to defend themselves against violence. Not tolerating those who seek to destroy us and our tolerance is not hypocrisy; it's self-defense.
98
@71: "I can still see the appeal of emptying one's grubby little speed bag. I'm just lost on why it's so important that you catch the residue in another person's organic waste paper basket."
Jeez, has the point of sex ever been missed as much as this?
Jeez, has the point of sex ever been missed as much as this?
99
@96
Well that was productive.
Thanks for your enlightening feedback. I think we both learned more about the world.
Well that was productive.
Thanks for your enlightening feedback. I think we both learned more about the world.
100
Hey, PORTLAND a-hole: the phrase is "Keep Portland Weird (or Beered, or Beard, or Queer, or whathaveyou)" NOT "Keep Portland Skeezy". Quit making us look bad.
101
Oh P.S. if everything I said was bullshit... let me correct all of it.
Interpreting my sexual partner's desires is NOT a matter of personal freedom
I may NOT require whatever I like of a sexual partner, and they may NOT pick whatever requirements they like of me.
Acting it out a fantasy DOES make it more likely that a person will want the real thing.
But HAVING the fantasy makes it no more likely the person will want the real thing.
*speculation based on a vaguely rememebered statistic from a textbook*
As for pedophilia inherently, it's IS a problem in general, (although it is a problem for me.)
If someone is primarily attracted to prepubescent children, then I'd prefer not to have sex with them. Not because it's "wrong" to have an attraction, but for the same reason I'd prefer a straight guy over a gay guy (or a bisexual man who is primarily attracted to men). (the above were my personal preferences, I didn't know how to adjust them to Mr. J's liking. Maybe he could let me know)
and finally...P.S. it is NOT my right to choose whom I do and do not have sex with.
Interpreting my sexual partner's desires is NOT a matter of personal freedom
I may NOT require whatever I like of a sexual partner, and they may NOT pick whatever requirements they like of me.
Acting it out a fantasy DOES make it more likely that a person will want the real thing.
But HAVING the fantasy makes it no more likely the person will want the real thing.
*speculation based on a vaguely rememebered statistic from a textbook*
As for pedophilia inherently, it's IS a problem in general, (although it is a problem for me.)
If someone is primarily attracted to prepubescent children, then I'd prefer not to have sex with them. Not because it's "wrong" to have an attraction, but for the same reason I'd prefer a straight guy over a gay guy (or a bisexual man who is primarily attracted to men). (the above were my personal preferences, I didn't know how to adjust them to Mr. J's liking. Maybe he could let me know)
and finally...P.S. it is NOT my right to choose whom I do and do not have sex with.
102
@81:
As Austin Powers said "That train had sailed" -- boy has it sailed. you want to reclaim the word pedophile? good luck, sweetie; and I'm saying that as someone with fantasies that range considerably out of my age range.
As Austin Powers said "That train had sailed" -- boy has it sailed. you want to reclaim the word pedophile? good luck, sweetie; and I'm saying that as someone with fantasies that range considerably out of my age range.
103
@ 67 (about 42) - Sorry for attempting some mild and innocuous humor on you. I sure don't think I'll do it again!
104
Letter Writer #1: Gross. Do not involve your kid. Just don't.
For that matter, why involve anybody? Personally, I'm thinking a spray bottle with some heavily diluted soy sauce and rice vinegar, maybe just a touch of anchovy paste or some sort of ripe cheese. Presto, shorts with that "worn" smell by the truckload! And no skeevy, unethical, child endangerment issues to deal with.
Except maybe he might get a visit from the Federal Trade Commission, for false advertising? Though my two cents are that the bastards ordering up underaged underwear deserve to be bilked.
For that matter, why involve anybody? Personally, I'm thinking a spray bottle with some heavily diluted soy sauce and rice vinegar, maybe just a touch of anchovy paste or some sort of ripe cheese. Presto, shorts with that "worn" smell by the truckload! And no skeevy, unethical, child endangerment issues to deal with.
Except maybe he might get a visit from the Federal Trade Commission, for false advertising? Though my two cents are that the bastards ordering up underaged underwear deserve to be bilked.
105
If your wife has nice ankles/feet and is game, you could sell her used shoes (preferably heels) to foot fetishists. Much lower creep factor, everyone involved is a consenting adult, no legal gray areas. I knew someone who did this for a while on eBay. I think I recall that if the shoes were really well-used, i.e. they had a foot-shaped stain in them, that was what the buyers were looking for. Probably they wouldn't even need to be your wife's real shoes, if you found suitable used heels at thrift stores and then photographed her feet in them.
106
Underwear? You fucking fuck, mister your fucked!
Put a elastic band around your fucking head and give it a fucking snap ya fucker.
God your a fucking dumb ass or good at trolling.
Put a elastic band around your fucking head and give it a fucking snap ya fucker.
God your a fucking dumb ass or good at trolling.
107
@45/46/KF79
Those are great questions. Some asexuals masturbate and some don't - just like people of other orientations. I haven't actually asked other aces (people who's orientation is asexual) about whether or not they experience arousal though I know of at least one study (Brotto) who tested levels of arousal in asexual women and I don't recall exactly what the conclusion was but I remember that her asexual participants did experience arousal. While it isn't incorrect to call it "sexual arousal" it is important to keep in mind that women who identify as asexual may not view the arousal as necessarily relating to sex. Since I can only speak for myself I'll use myself as an example with the disclaimer that my experience is not everyone's experience. When I was a teen I walked around in a state of arousal almost all the time... like constantly, and now as an adult I still experience arousal frequently but the thought of intercourse is actually a huge turn off for me. There are other things that turn me on and masturbating does relieve the tension (and help me relax and help me sleep, etc) but that's all chemical reactions - not sexual attraction, not sexual desire. I've talked to a lot of other aces and some of them use masturbation as a way to relax or help them get to sleep but some have compared it to getting a massage- it just feels good and isn't about sex at all for them - they may or may not fantasize but, like me, it probably isn't a fantasy about intercourse. I've also met aces who have told me that they do not masturbate- some had tried it and said it just didn't really do anything for them or wasn't worth the energy and others found the idea disgusting. But then I know lots of non-ace women who find the idea of masturbating to be totally disgusting (probably related to this whole socializing of girls to think of their vulvas as dirty, sadly). Anyway, the Brotto study and my own surveys suggest that asexual men masturbate slightly less frequently then men of other orientations and asexual women masturbate less frequently as well (something like 10% less likely to masturbate? It's been a while since I looked at the numbers). Anyway, I have a little bit of information on my website which I haven't updated in ages, but hopefully will get back to soon! : http://AsexualSexologist.com
More...
Those are great questions. Some asexuals masturbate and some don't - just like people of other orientations. I haven't actually asked other aces (people who's orientation is asexual) about whether or not they experience arousal though I know of at least one study (Brotto) who tested levels of arousal in asexual women and I don't recall exactly what the conclusion was but I remember that her asexual participants did experience arousal. While it isn't incorrect to call it "sexual arousal" it is important to keep in mind that women who identify as asexual may not view the arousal as necessarily relating to sex. Since I can only speak for myself I'll use myself as an example with the disclaimer that my experience is not everyone's experience. When I was a teen I walked around in a state of arousal almost all the time... like constantly, and now as an adult I still experience arousal frequently but the thought of intercourse is actually a huge turn off for me. There are other things that turn me on and masturbating does relieve the tension (and help me relax and help me sleep, etc) but that's all chemical reactions - not sexual attraction, not sexual desire. I've talked to a lot of other aces and some of them use masturbation as a way to relax or help them get to sleep but some have compared it to getting a massage- it just feels good and isn't about sex at all for them - they may or may not fantasize but, like me, it probably isn't a fantasy about intercourse. I've also met aces who have told me that they do not masturbate- some had tried it and said it just didn't really do anything for them or wasn't worth the energy and others found the idea disgusting. But then I know lots of non-ace women who find the idea of masturbating to be totally disgusting (probably related to this whole socializing of girls to think of their vulvas as dirty, sadly). Anyway, the Brotto study and my own surveys suggest that asexual men masturbate slightly less frequently then men of other orientations and asexual women masturbate less frequently as well (something like 10% less likely to masturbate? It's been a while since I looked at the numbers). Anyway, I have a little bit of information on my website which I haven't updated in ages, but hopefully will get back to soon! : http://AsexualSexologist.com
108
@45/46/KF79
(sorry if this is a double post, this is the first time I've commented here and I'm not sure if it's supposed to show up right away or if I did something wrong... won't try again, promise)
Those are great questions. Some asexuals masturbate and some don't - just like people of other orientations. I haven't actually asked other aces (people who's orientation is asexual) about whether or not they experience arousal though I know of at least one study (Brotto) who tested levels of arousal in asexual women and I don't recall exactly what the conclusion was but I remember that her asexual participants did experience arousal. While it isn't incorrect to call it "sexual arousal" it is important to keep in mind that women who identify as asexual may not view the arousal as necessarily relating to sex. Since I can only speak for myself I'll use myself as an example with the disclaimer that my experience is not everyone's experience. When I was a teen I walked around in a state of arousal almost all the time... like constantly, and now as an adult I still experience arousal frequently but the thought of intercourse is actually a huge turn off for me. There are other things that turn me on and masturbating does relieve the tension (and help me relax and help me sleep, etc) but that's all chemical reactions - not sexual attraction, not sexual desire. I've talked to a lot of other aces and some of them use masturbation as a way to relax or help them get to sleep but some have compared it to getting a massage- it just feels good and isn't about sex at all for them - they may or may not fantasize but, like me, it probably isn't a fantasy about intercourse. I've also met aces who have told me that they do not masturbate- some had tried it and said it just didn't really do anything for them or wasn't worth the energy and others found the idea disgusting. But then I know lots of non-ace women who find the idea of masturbating to be totally disgusting (probably related to this whole socializing of girls to think of their vulvas as dirty, sadly). Anyway, the Brotto study and my own surveys suggest that asexual men masturbate slightly less frequently then men of other orientations and asexual women masturbate less frequently as well (something like 10% less likely to masturbate? It's been a while since I looked at the numbers). Anyway, I have a little bit of information on my website which I haven't updated in ages, but hopefully will get back to soon! : http://AsexualSexologist.com
More...
(sorry if this is a double post, this is the first time I've commented here and I'm not sure if it's supposed to show up right away or if I did something wrong... won't try again, promise)
Those are great questions. Some asexuals masturbate and some don't - just like people of other orientations. I haven't actually asked other aces (people who's orientation is asexual) about whether or not they experience arousal though I know of at least one study (Brotto) who tested levels of arousal in asexual women and I don't recall exactly what the conclusion was but I remember that her asexual participants did experience arousal. While it isn't incorrect to call it "sexual arousal" it is important to keep in mind that women who identify as asexual may not view the arousal as necessarily relating to sex. Since I can only speak for myself I'll use myself as an example with the disclaimer that my experience is not everyone's experience. When I was a teen I walked around in a state of arousal almost all the time... like constantly, and now as an adult I still experience arousal frequently but the thought of intercourse is actually a huge turn off for me. There are other things that turn me on and masturbating does relieve the tension (and help me relax and help me sleep, etc) but that's all chemical reactions - not sexual attraction, not sexual desire. I've talked to a lot of other aces and some of them use masturbation as a way to relax or help them get to sleep but some have compared it to getting a massage- it just feels good and isn't about sex at all for them - they may or may not fantasize but, like me, it probably isn't a fantasy about intercourse. I've also met aces who have told me that they do not masturbate- some had tried it and said it just didn't really do anything for them or wasn't worth the energy and others found the idea disgusting. But then I know lots of non-ace women who find the idea of masturbating to be totally disgusting (probably related to this whole socializing of girls to think of their vulvas as dirty, sadly). Anyway, the Brotto study and my own surveys suggest that asexual men masturbate slightly less frequently then men of other orientations and asexual women masturbate less frequently as well (something like 10% less likely to masturbate? It's been a while since I looked at the numbers). Anyway, I have a little bit of information on my website which I haven't updated in ages, but hopefully will get back to soon! : http://AsexualSexologist.com
109
Pedophilia as a disorder is not attraction to underage people, it is attraction to prepubescent children. There is a difference morally if not legally. I'm not saying PORTLAND is a great guy, or that he ought to do what he's proposed (which he shouldn't) but let's condemn people for legitimate reasons and not gut check reactions.
The guy probably does not want to have sexual contact with his son, and probably never has. Maybe he and his wife are hideous (can't sell themselves), and have hepatitis (can't sell blood), and own nothing nonessential, and are truly desperate. Maybe they have been turned down for state aid. Oregon's economy is crap right now, and there really are no jobs.
Even if all of the above is true, he still shouldn't sell his kid's underwear. Encouraging a 14yr old to view himself as a sexual commodity is a problem no matter what the motivation. The kid is just forming a sexual self, which is not the best time to introduce money into the situation. No matter how badly you need the money, you are not going to starve to death in this country, so don't fuck up your kid, ok?
The guy probably does not want to have sexual contact with his son, and probably never has. Maybe he and his wife are hideous (can't sell themselves), and have hepatitis (can't sell blood), and own nothing nonessential, and are truly desperate. Maybe they have been turned down for state aid. Oregon's economy is crap right now, and there really are no jobs.
Even if all of the above is true, he still shouldn't sell his kid's underwear. Encouraging a 14yr old to view himself as a sexual commodity is a problem no matter what the motivation. The kid is just forming a sexual self, which is not the best time to introduce money into the situation. No matter how badly you need the money, you are not going to starve to death in this country, so don't fuck up your kid, ok?
110
For anyone who reads this far:
I'm active in the furry fandom, and not only are we NOT into bestiality (it's a fantasy, guys, all in the head), for a lot of us it's not even a sexual fetish. It's a fandom, like Trekkies or Star Wars fans. They fan over space ships and aliens, we fan over anthropomorphic animals. So whatevs.
However, being a furry is not an exclusive thing, so you could find furries who are kinky and stuff, just like you can find Christians and Republicans who are kinky.
Dan summed it up really well: Furry is not an issue, autoerotic asphyxiation IS.
I'm active in the furry fandom, and not only are we NOT into bestiality (it's a fantasy, guys, all in the head), for a lot of us it's not even a sexual fetish. It's a fandom, like Trekkies or Star Wars fans. They fan over space ships and aliens, we fan over anthropomorphic animals. So whatevs.
However, being a furry is not an exclusive thing, so you could find furries who are kinky and stuff, just like you can find Christians and Republicans who are kinky.
Dan summed it up really well: Furry is not an issue, autoerotic asphyxiation IS.
111
Oh, and KF79, I forgot to answer your other question: Some aces identify as a "gay asexual" or a "lesbian asexual" or a "bi asexual" but often they are referring to their romantic orientation - ie who do they fall in love with even if they aren't sexually attracted.
112
@34. if only dan had asked you to answer this one for him. you said it perfectly. even sucking dick yourself is better than selling your kid
113
Ace,
I very glad to see an asexual spokesperson on these pages, even if only self-proclaimed.
I find "asexual" a bad term. Much better would be "microsexual", as it's more inclusive. All the examples you threw out to us were micro- not a- sexual. They had levels of arousal. They just weren't interested in fucking.
In my experiences "asexuals" have generally been rape victims.
Even NASA, which deals often in free-fall conditions, describes such orbits as microgravity, not zero-gravity.
I very glad to see an asexual spokesperson on these pages, even if only self-proclaimed.
I find "asexual" a bad term. Much better would be "microsexual", as it's more inclusive. All the examples you threw out to us were micro- not a- sexual. They had levels of arousal. They just weren't interested in fucking.
In my experiences "asexuals" have generally been rape victims.
Even NASA, which deals often in free-fall conditions, describes such orbits as microgravity, not zero-gravity.
114
Don't buy the asexuality thing as an orientation. The explanation that it's an orientation because "some aren't opposed to sex but feel the pursuit is not worth it" and "some get aroused at exposure to sex but insist they aren't experiencing a sexual fantasy" and "some masturbate but insist it's merely a massage" all sound a lot more like inexperience, and/or bitterness and/or fear and/or self-esteem issues locking their trains of thought away from the body's normal sexual urges. Avoidance is a common approach to dealing with a fear of "risk" (which emotionally and physically, is inherent in sexual interactions), and given the frequency with which arousal, masturbation, and "yeah I have sex sometimes but the pursuit it's not worth it" is the descriptor for what it is, it's far more likely to be a symptom of low self-esteem and depression, which indeed is markedly higher in those who are "asexual" (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asexuality#…)
All that said, the meaning of someone identifying that way is still deserving of respect. They made their choice, it's their life, I accept and respect that. "Asexual" - easy to understand what it means. But as an "orientation?" I doubt it. There may be degrees of libido, but at the most extreme ends often lurks untreated mental health issues that contribute to the emergent behavior. You'll note, for example, that "Nymphosexual" is not on the list of orientations on that wiki page.
All that said, the meaning of someone identifying that way is still deserving of respect. They made their choice, it's their life, I accept and respect that. "Asexual" - easy to understand what it means. But as an "orientation?" I doubt it. There may be degrees of libido, but at the most extreme ends often lurks untreated mental health issues that contribute to the emergent behavior. You'll note, for example, that "Nymphosexual" is not on the list of orientations on that wiki page.
115
@113: In my experiences "asexuals" have generally been rape victims.
That definitely does not count as a "sexual orientation," either.
That definitely does not count as a "sexual orientation," either.
116
Where does Mr. Savage, or society, draw the line between a kink and being a pervert? Is it solely based upon physical proximity? One can fantasize about and/or watch thier partner being ravaged by a stranger with a kinky pleasure, but once they purchase the undergarments of a stranger and fantasize with those, they are a pervert?
117
@86:
It's wrong to assume at someone who is a "furry" HAS to be into beastiality. But being a furry doesn't not ensure that one isn't also into beastiality and it's not unreasonable to think that a connection could exist.
You sort of missed my point, though. When it comes down to it, it's no more a reasonable or unreasonable connection than any other "kind" of person. Being a furry doesn't ensure a lack of interest in bestiality any more than a person NOT being a furry doesn't ensure a lack of interest in bestiality. In fact, given the amount of human-on-animal bestiality websites out there vs. the relative lack of bestiality art as represented kink in the furry community, I'd say NOT being a furry is possibly a more likely connection to being interested/involved in bestiality.
You could put any other interest/identity/hobby vs. disturbing kink in those sentences and it'd make for one pretty obviously fallacious argument.
Examples:
"Being a dedicated volunteer at an animal shelter doesn't ENSURE that one isn't also into bestiality. Therefore it's not unreasonable to think that a connection COULD exist."
"Being a competition horse-drawn carriage driver doesn't ENSURE that one isn't also into BDSM-style pony-play. Therefore it's not unreasonable to think that a connection COULD exist."
"Being a butcher doesn't ENSURE that one isn't also into dismemberment porn/sex. Therefore it's not unreasonable to think that a connection COULD exist."
Sorry, but I don't immediately jump to thinking of the possibility that someone expressing an interest in meat products means they want to dismember people or animals in a sexual manner. It's not logical to place two items with sort of a superficial similarity together and claim it's not unreasonable to think of the possibility that SEX OMG.
More...
It's wrong to assume at someone who is a "furry" HAS to be into beastiality. But being a furry doesn't not ensure that one isn't also into beastiality and it's not unreasonable to think that a connection could exist.
You sort of missed my point, though. When it comes down to it, it's no more a reasonable or unreasonable connection than any other "kind" of person. Being a furry doesn't ensure a lack of interest in bestiality any more than a person NOT being a furry doesn't ensure a lack of interest in bestiality. In fact, given the amount of human-on-animal bestiality websites out there vs. the relative lack of bestiality art as represented kink in the furry community, I'd say NOT being a furry is possibly a more likely connection to being interested/involved in bestiality.
You could put any other interest/identity/hobby vs. disturbing kink in those sentences and it'd make for one pretty obviously fallacious argument.
Examples:
"Being a dedicated volunteer at an animal shelter doesn't ENSURE that one isn't also into bestiality. Therefore it's not unreasonable to think that a connection COULD exist."
"Being a competition horse-drawn carriage driver doesn't ENSURE that one isn't also into BDSM-style pony-play. Therefore it's not unreasonable to think that a connection COULD exist."
"Being a butcher doesn't ENSURE that one isn't also into dismemberment porn/sex. Therefore it's not unreasonable to think that a connection COULD exist."
Sorry, but I don't immediately jump to thinking of the possibility that someone expressing an interest in meat products means they want to dismember people or animals in a sexual manner. It's not logical to place two items with sort of a superficial similarity together and claim it's not unreasonable to think of the possibility that SEX OMG.
119
@117
context, context, context
If you look at what I was trying to say, (and in fairness, I was responding to Erica's point, not yours if I'm remembering correctly) it's that people were jumping on this parent as if they were wrong to be concerned. Concern, and curiousity are allowed. They aren't bad. And making erroneous connections doesn't make that parent a bad person either, or a bigot, or "furryphobic". All I was trying to explain is "here are some reasons someone might be concerned, they are not outlandish suspicions to have if you aren't educated on the subject". And everyone wants to come down with "well if you actually know about the subject, then THIS"
Well yes, but you've missed my point.
We're all better off if we respond to eachother with open minds. Sometimes people are so rabidly defensive of their kinks they miss oppotunities to educate people who are poised to be tolerant.
I suggested the way a parent who is concerned about the kink might be thinking (and for the record, I see no evidence of the parent being concerned about the kink itself, I believe that was Erica's fabrication). The tone of the replies was fairly negative/hostile towards any speculation that the kink could be implicated with anything bad. And I get it, people are defensive of their kinks. I just don't think it's a productive tone, and not useful for helping concerned parents become supportive parents.
Whatever.
context, context, context
If you look at what I was trying to say, (and in fairness, I was responding to Erica's point, not yours if I'm remembering correctly) it's that people were jumping on this parent as if they were wrong to be concerned. Concern, and curiousity are allowed. They aren't bad. And making erroneous connections doesn't make that parent a bad person either, or a bigot, or "furryphobic". All I was trying to explain is "here are some reasons someone might be concerned, they are not outlandish suspicions to have if you aren't educated on the subject". And everyone wants to come down with "well if you actually know about the subject, then THIS"
Well yes, but you've missed my point.
We're all better off if we respond to eachother with open minds. Sometimes people are so rabidly defensive of their kinks they miss oppotunities to educate people who are poised to be tolerant.
I suggested the way a parent who is concerned about the kink might be thinking (and for the record, I see no evidence of the parent being concerned about the kink itself, I believe that was Erica's fabrication). The tone of the replies was fairly negative/hostile towards any speculation that the kink could be implicated with anything bad. And I get it, people are defensive of their kinks. I just don't think it's a productive tone, and not useful for helping concerned parents become supportive parents.
Whatever.
120
Oh, P.S. I didn't look at your furry stuff in too much detail (as it's irrelevant to my point, but I'll get around to it out of curiousity) but to be clear, the context people were talking about is "furry" being already in the context of a sexual kink.
If you're talking about furry in nonsexual terms? Then no, I definitely wouldn't see a beastiality connection. But then you're linking non-sex to sex and that's less intuitive than linking sex-with-someone-dressed-as-x and sex-with-x which is less of a mental leap, as you can imagine.
P.S. for the record! As a tween I picked up a lot of drawing style from a website that was all (non-porn) furries. I thought they were super cute. http://yerf.artspots.com/yerfartists but it's mostly gone now. It used to be pages and pages.
My point isn't "BOO unconventional/kinky people" my point is "let's be understanding of the point of view of conventional/nonkinky people" and bridge that gap. Also: singing kumbaya.
If you're talking about furry in nonsexual terms? Then no, I definitely wouldn't see a beastiality connection. But then you're linking non-sex to sex and that's less intuitive than linking sex-with-someone-dressed-as-x and sex-with-x which is less of a mental leap, as you can imagine.
P.S. for the record! As a tween I picked up a lot of drawing style from a website that was all (non-porn) furries. I thought they were super cute. http://yerf.artspots.com/yerfartists but it's mostly gone now. It used to be pages and pages.
My point isn't "BOO unconventional/kinky people" my point is "let's be understanding of the point of view of conventional/nonkinky people" and bridge that gap. Also: singing kumbaya.
121
@119 - "Erica's fabrication"???
From the letter: 'What troubles me: My son and his boyfriend are "furries" and open about it.'
I was providing some reassurance to the parent-- hey, in my experience, furries are harmless. (But warn your kid about autoerotic asphyxiation.) Where do you see me being rabidly intolerant of the parent's concern?
From the letter: 'What troubles me: My son and his boyfriend are "furries" and open about it.'
I was providing some reassurance to the parent-- hey, in my experience, furries are harmless. (But warn your kid about autoerotic asphyxiation.) Where do you see me being rabidly intolerant of the parent's concern?
122
Ohhh lord, here we go with a whole lot of accusations of pedophilia and "I'd call CPS so fast" and all this noise.
First off: Calm down. The 14-year-old is okay with it. There's nothing sexual about what they're doing. There IS something sexual going on when it comes to the fetishists purchasing those items, and I'm with Dan when it comes to not actually going through with it, because that 14-year-old shouldn't have to have his face posted everywhere for old guys to masturbate to... but not because he's a 14-year-old boy, but because they're only doing it for the money, and he's got a lot of years ahead of him, and god forbid those postings land his parents in trouble or end up coming back to haunt him later in life.
They aren't whoring him out. They're thinking of selling his used dirty clothing online, and there is a big difference. "Well, what difference is that?" The difference between letting some guy smell your socks and letting him put his dick in your ass is probably a pretty damn big one, I'd say.
So, to reiterate, calm down. There are way bigger fish to fry when it comes to the issue of pedophilia. PORTLAND is not a monster. Save that label for the people who would get a lynch mob together over the *possibility* of him *maybe* selling *some* clothes online.
First off: Calm down. The 14-year-old is okay with it. There's nothing sexual about what they're doing. There IS something sexual going on when it comes to the fetishists purchasing those items, and I'm with Dan when it comes to not actually going through with it, because that 14-year-old shouldn't have to have his face posted everywhere for old guys to masturbate to... but not because he's a 14-year-old boy, but because they're only doing it for the money, and he's got a lot of years ahead of him, and god forbid those postings land his parents in trouble or end up coming back to haunt him later in life.
They aren't whoring him out. They're thinking of selling his used dirty clothing online, and there is a big difference. "Well, what difference is that?" The difference between letting some guy smell your socks and letting him put his dick in your ass is probably a pretty damn big one, I'd say.
So, to reiterate, calm down. There are way bigger fish to fry when it comes to the issue of pedophilia. PORTLAND is not a monster. Save that label for the people who would get a lynch mob together over the *possibility* of him *maybe* selling *some* clothes online.
123
*It depends on how you read the letter, and where you think the text included after the ":" ends. They way I read it, she seemed more concerned about the D/S nature of the relationship and (again, erroneously) was thinking that it was because of the furry thing. In terms of the tone of responses, I wasn't as much referring to you as a general intolerance of anyone raising an objection/concern to kink.
Ever. Even in terms of personal preference. Maybe Mr. J, for an example.
Oh well.
Ever. Even in terms of personal preference. Maybe Mr. J, for an example.
Oh well.
124
*It depends on how you read the letter, and where you think the text included after the ":" ends. They way I read it, she seemed more concerned about the D/S nature of the relationship and (again, erroneously) was thinking that it was because of the furry thing. In terms of the tone of responses, I wasn't as much referring to you as a general intolerance of anyone raising an objection/concern to kink.
Ever. Even in terms of personal preference. Maybe Mr. J, for an example.
Oh well.
Ever. Even in terms of personal preference. Maybe Mr. J, for an example.
Oh well.
125
@122, you miss the point. Why make the kid a participant in this at all, other than giving the father the sexual jollies? Something very improper is going on there between the father and the son, and any kid who is not completely oblivious must be aware of it at some level, and may possibly be scarred by it.
126
@124, thanks. We had a phrase, back in the early days of kinky online discussion groups: YKIOKIJNMK: "Your kink is ok, it's just not my kink." Came in handy in these sorts of discussions, to reassure people that you didn't think they were bad just because they hit people (consensually) or dressed up as schoolgirls.
129
@122, 125: The kid would only be marginally involved, and it sounds like his name or picture would not be used. So the only reason not to is the legal problems, which is what the LW asked about and Dan answered. Everything else is besides the point.
And as the letter made clear, the reason to use his son's stuff is that there's a much bigger market for it.
And as the letter made clear, the reason to use his son's stuff is that there's a much bigger market for it.
130
@113, 114: You're misinformed about the definition of asexuality. Which is understandable because the name is a little misleading.
Asexuality has nothing to do with sex drive. It has to do with who you're attracted to. Just like you can be gay or straight with a high or low sex drive, you can be asexual with a high or low sex drive.
Asexuals just aren't attracted to anyone else. Just like gay and lesbian people aren't attracted to people of the opposite sex, and straight people aren't attracted to people of the same sex. It's just how people are wired.
All your criticisms of asexuality have been made over and over against LGBT folk as well, with equal validity: abused as kids, rape victims, higher rates of mental illness, avoidance, immaturity, inexperience, self-esteem issues, and so forth.
Asexuality has nothing to do with sex drive. It has to do with who you're attracted to. Just like you can be gay or straight with a high or low sex drive, you can be asexual with a high or low sex drive.
Asexuals just aren't attracted to anyone else. Just like gay and lesbian people aren't attracted to people of the opposite sex, and straight people aren't attracted to people of the same sex. It's just how people are wired.
All your criticisms of asexuality have been made over and over against LGBT folk as well, with equal validity: abused as kids, rape victims, higher rates of mental illness, avoidance, immaturity, inexperience, self-esteem issues, and so forth.
132
a·sex·u·al [ey-sek-shoo-uhl] Show IPA
adjective
1.
Biology .
a.
having no sex or sexual organs.
b.
independent of sexual processes, especially not involving the union of male and female germ cells.
2.
free from or unaffected by sexuality: an asexual friendship.
adjective
1.
Biology .
a.
having no sex or sexual organs.
b.
independent of sexual processes, especially not involving the union of male and female germ cells.
2.
free from or unaffected by sexuality: an asexual friendship.
133
@129, no, you still miss the point. If he's going to put up a false identity anyway, why use his son's stuff at all? He can buy and wear the damn underwear himself, or stick it down his crotch and wipe his ass juice with it if he's too fat to wear it, and still say it comes from a 14 year old. Since any idiot can figure that out for himself (except apparently you) the fact that he dragged his son into it should ring all kinds of alarm bells to any sane person.
134
@126
Bingo!
I think for my part I'd just want to say that not all people turn their traumatic lemons into kinky lemonade and the idea that someone should be ok with a suggestion of "age play" from a partner, or that it's somehow bigoted to be put off by it... well, I just don't think that's fair. Maybe the person isn't anti-kink, more just anti-PTSD.
Again, that's not in reference to you specifically. Jus' saying.
@Hunter
re: trolling.
Bitter middle-aged man is bitter.
Bingo!
I think for my part I'd just want to say that not all people turn their traumatic lemons into kinky lemonade and the idea that someone should be ok with a suggestion of "age play" from a partner, or that it's somehow bigoted to be put off by it... well, I just don't think that's fair. Maybe the person isn't anti-kink, more just anti-PTSD.
Again, that's not in reference to you specifically. Jus' saying.
@Hunter
re: trolling.
Bitter middle-aged man is bitter.
135
@122 Speaking as a Psych grad and a sex worker: It's absolutely inappropriate regardless of whether the kid is into it. The kid is unable to give meaningful consent. The power dynamic of this being between parents and a child is what makes this insidious: if he wasn't into it, could he genuinely say no to mom and dad, believing they might lose their house without his help? Highly debatable. Does he actually understand the ramifications of catering to the desires of people who seek out the soiled clothes of 14 year olds? Probably not.
And yes, they are whoring him out. They're selling his (or another's, or a fake teenager's) sexual image, as someone else pointed out. The clothes are worthless without the impression on the part of the buyer that there is a person under the age of consent involved. Profiting from the sexuality of pedophiles in any way is pretty gross and alarming - profiting by selling the sexualized image of your own kid: yes, I'd call CPS. Even if daddy doesn't want to fuck him, there are very few ways that conversation could have come about that don't indicate something being very wrong.
And yes, they are whoring him out. They're selling his (or another's, or a fake teenager's) sexual image, as someone else pointed out. The clothes are worthless without the impression on the part of the buyer that there is a person under the age of consent involved. Profiting from the sexuality of pedophiles in any way is pretty gross and alarming - profiting by selling the sexualized image of your own kid: yes, I'd call CPS. Even if daddy doesn't want to fuck him, there are very few ways that conversation could have come about that don't indicate something being very wrong.
137
@135 It's difficult to believe anyone could be so obtuse as to require an explanation here... but you did a marvelous job of it.
138
@124
I called BS because you want to play intellectual whack-a-mole. You went from spewing a bunch of bigoted opinions about people as some kind of received wisdom that you have right into "I date who I want." So yeah, that was a bullshit response.
Have you noticed how often you make generalizations about people? You're saying I'm totally intolerant of all people's concerns because of my annoyance with you.
I called BS because you want to play intellectual whack-a-mole. You went from spewing a bunch of bigoted opinions about people as some kind of received wisdom that you have right into "I date who I want." So yeah, that was a bullshit response.
Have you noticed how often you make generalizations about people? You're saying I'm totally intolerant of all people's concerns because of my annoyance with you.
139
I love reading your column so much it's crazy. You're a great voice of reason. Kids should never play choking games as the lack of oxygen causes cell damage, which is detrimental to developing minds. I'm so glad you mentioned for the father to talk to his son. You are awesome Dan, love you.
140
@134: It's fine to not be into age play or any other kink... but judging people who are into it and saying you wouldn't want to date them, or saying you'd have a bunch of questions, is very different. After all, just cause someone has a kink doesn't mean they need to engage in it with you.
I understand what you mean about not wanting to date someone who is not primarily attracted to adult women... but that's an extreme case and doesn't include most people into age play. Presumably, these hypothetical people who are into age play and want to date you are very attracted to you, hence the desire to date you.
I understand what you mean about not wanting to date someone who is not primarily attracted to adult women... but that's an extreme case and doesn't include most people into age play. Presumably, these hypothetical people who are into age play and want to date you are very attracted to you, hence the desire to date you.
141
Age play: it's a kink. People who are into age play are into other consenting adults*. That's why it's age PLAY. Just like BDSM tops don't actually want to abuse their partners, nor would the vast majority be attracted to a partner who was so broken they would be okay with a real abusive relationship.
Is that really hard to understand? If you're not into it, don't do it. If you really suspect your partner might be a pedophile, by all means, run - what we're trying to tell you is that you're actually not going to be able to make very accurate decisions using the assumption you're making about kink. Of course if someone asked me if I'm a top because I secretly want to abuse my partners I would laugh so hard.
*I don't think it's a legitimate argument to point out that some very, very small number of them could be real pedos. That's really the equivalent of responding to a discussion of consensual straight sexuality with, "Yeah but some men are RAPISTS!" Yeah, well, they are, and watch out for them, but that's not what we're talking about at all.
Is that really hard to understand? If you're not into it, don't do it. If you really suspect your partner might be a pedophile, by all means, run - what we're trying to tell you is that you're actually not going to be able to make very accurate decisions using the assumption you're making about kink. Of course if someone asked me if I'm a top because I secretly want to abuse my partners I would laugh so hard.
*I don't think it's a legitimate argument to point out that some very, very small number of them could be real pedos. That's really the equivalent of responding to a discussion of consensual straight sexuality with, "Yeah but some men are RAPISTS!" Yeah, well, they are, and watch out for them, but that's not what we're talking about at all.
143
@ 142
I agree completely. I forgot in that comment to specify that I was responding to the general argument about age play indicating pedophilia or it being at all appropriate to assume someone who reveals they're into age play is not actually attracted to adults.
I've already made my feeling on PORTLAND clear ala comments 28 and 135. Quick refresher: it's unequivocally inappropriate (and has nothing to do with age play); there's something gone really wrong in that family.
I agree completely. I forgot in that comment to specify that I was responding to the general argument about age play indicating pedophilia or it being at all appropriate to assume someone who reveals they're into age play is not actually attracted to adults.
I've already made my feeling on PORTLAND clear ala comments 28 and 135. Quick refresher: it's unequivocally inappropriate (and has nothing to do with age play); there's something gone really wrong in that family.
144
@141: Wrong.
Pedophilia, by definition, is an attraction to prepubescents. Most pedophiles are not child molesters, no more than most straight men rape women. Age play, like rape play, is a safe and consensual way for people to deal with attractions or turn-ons, such as pedophilia or being turned on by rape, that would be unethical, illegal, or impossible to practice in real life.
Why is this so hard to understand?
Pedophilia, by definition, is an attraction to prepubescents. Most pedophiles are not child molesters, no more than most straight men rape women. Age play, like rape play, is a safe and consensual way for people to deal with attractions or turn-ons, such as pedophilia or being turned on by rape, that would be unethical, illegal, or impossible to practice in real life.
Why is this so hard to understand?
145
A lot of the rhetoric against Portland is inflamed. Not all 14-year-olds have the same maturity. The more mature deserve to be spoken to at their level of understanding. The family is endangered, and he has a right to participate in the salvation. The father asked the question, and the answer is no, but only because society is batshit about anything linking sexuality and children, and he would not wish society's punishment on his enemy.
I think this is an above average family and this can be discussed, but the answer remains no.
I think this is an above average family and this can be discussed, but the answer remains no.
146
Hunter and Blackrose, the problem is not pedophilia, the problems are a minor in a position of dependency being pimped out by his own father, and even worse, the underlying incestuous yearnings of the father for his son (the only possible reason to have involved the son at all, and unless the kid is thick he will have picked up on this and could be damaged by it).
147
@146: My earlier comment was a slight tangent. But in this case, I don't see the kid being "pimped out." His name and picture wouldn't be used. All that's going on is that he's selling some old clothes.
It's crazy to say there's anything incestuous about this. It's just an idea for making money. And I know you said he could pretend that the clothes were his son's, without actually using his son's clothes. (I suspect he just wanted to be honest about everything.) But I really don't see what would be different about that.
How would you feel if he used his son's clothes without discussing it with him? Better? Would that be very different from him selling/donating the clothes to a thrift shop or something? And if that's ok, what's the harm in telling him that people are interested in his used clothes? He's 14: I doubt sex and porn and fetishes are unknown to him.
It's crazy to say there's anything incestuous about this. It's just an idea for making money. And I know you said he could pretend that the clothes were his son's, without actually using his son's clothes. (I suspect he just wanted to be honest about everything.) But I really don't see what would be different about that.
How would you feel if he used his son's clothes without discussing it with him? Better? Would that be very different from him selling/donating the clothes to a thrift shop or something? And if that's ok, what's the harm in telling him that people are interested in his used clothes? He's 14: I doubt sex and porn and fetishes are unknown to him.
148
I'd just like to point out to the asexual guy's friend that the papers are full of people who make sexual connections and are 100% not okay psychologically. I came to a similar conclusion myself when I admitted that whenever I was with a guy, I felt like I was impersonating a gay man, and not too happy about it. I love good-looking guys, but I like everyone to keep their penises to themselves.
149
I need HELP from Savage Love readers!
I'm supposed to do a reading at my son's wedding.
All the others will be reading poetry about love, every single one. Not kidding.
I wish to counter with something from Dan, something he wrote about love or marriage or toegetherness that I read in the ARCHIVES. It was three or four paragraphs long, one of his longer classics and talked about the lies we tell, the lies we try to believe, the blind eyes we turn. IT WAS GLORIOUS IN ITS TRUTH.
BUT NOW I CAN'T FIND IT AND I CAN'T MAKE IT THROUGH ALL LEVENTEEN HUNDRED ARCHIVE ENTRIES BY TOMORROW NIGHT (when it must be submitted - don't ask, long story, local government involved).
HELP ME! Anyone remember this answer????
M.
I'm supposed to do a reading at my son's wedding.
All the others will be reading poetry about love, every single one. Not kidding.
I wish to counter with something from Dan, something he wrote about love or marriage or toegetherness that I read in the ARCHIVES. It was three or four paragraphs long, one of his longer classics and talked about the lies we tell, the lies we try to believe, the blind eyes we turn. IT WAS GLORIOUS IN ITS TRUTH.
BUT NOW I CAN'T FIND IT AND I CAN'T MAKE IT THROUGH ALL LEVENTEEN HUNDRED ARCHIVE ENTRIES BY TOMORROW NIGHT (when it must be submitted - don't ask, long story, local government involved).
HELP ME! Anyone remember this answer????
M.
150
I need HELP from Savage Love readers!
I'm supposed to do a reading at my son's wedding.
All the others will be reading poetry about love, every single one. Not kidding.
I wish to counter with something from Dan, something he wrote about love or marriage or toegetherness that I read in the ARCHIVES. It was three or four paragraphs long, one of his longer classics and talked about the lies we tell, the lies we try to believe, the blind eyes we turn. IT WAS GLORIOUS IN ITS TRUTH.
BUT NOW I CAN'T FIND IT AND I CAN'T MAKE IT THROUGH ALL LEVENTEEN HUNDRED ARCHIVE ENTRIES BY TOMORROW NIGHT (when it must be submitted - don't ask, long story, local government involved).
HELP ME! Anyone remember this answer????
M.
I'm supposed to do a reading at my son's wedding.
All the others will be reading poetry about love, every single one. Not kidding.
I wish to counter with something from Dan, something he wrote about love or marriage or toegetherness that I read in the ARCHIVES. It was three or four paragraphs long, one of his longer classics and talked about the lies we tell, the lies we try to believe, the blind eyes we turn. IT WAS GLORIOUS IN ITS TRUTH.
BUT NOW I CAN'T FIND IT AND I CAN'T MAKE IT THROUGH ALL LEVENTEEN HUNDRED ARCHIVE ENTRIES BY TOMORROW NIGHT (when it must be submitted - don't ask, long story, local government involved).
HELP ME! Anyone remember this answer????
M.
152
@149 I'm not sure which passage you're talking about, but I think that you may want to reconsider your desire to tell the couple (in public, at their wedding) that they will undoubtedly lie to each other. Particularly if you have issues about lies with your son's mother, which some of the people at the wedding will know about or guess.
That said, here is one of Dan's insights about marriage: "A successful marriage is basically an endless cycle of wrongs committed, apologies offered, and forgiveness granted, all leavened by the occasional orgasm."
http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/Savag…
You might also find something you want to use at:
http://therumpus.net/2011/08/dear-sugar-…
>> Most people don't cheat because they’re cheaters. They cheat because they are people. They are driven by hunger or for the experience of someone being hungry once more for them. They find themselves in friendships that take an unintended turn or they seek them out because they're horny or drunk or damaged from all the stuff they didn’t get when they were kids. There is love. There is lust. There is opportunity. There is alcohol. And youth. And middle age. And twelve-day-long writers’ conferences in rustically genteel settings that give one the impression that the world one left no longer exists. There is loneliness and boredom and sorrow and weakness and self-destruction and idiocy and arrogance and romance and ego and nostalgia and power and need. There is the compelling temptation of intimacies with someone other than the person with whom one is most intimate.
>> Which is a complicated way of saying, it's a long damn life, Happily Ever After. And people get mucked up in it from time to time. Even the people we marry. Even us. You don't know what it is you’ll get mucked up in yet, but if you’re lucky, and if you and your fiancé really are right for each other, and if the two of you build a marriage that lasts a lifetime, you're probably going to get mucked up in a few things along the way. This is scary, but you'll be okay. Sometimes the thing you fear the most in your relationship turns out to be the thing that brings you and your partner to a deeper place of understanding and intimacy.>>
More...
That said, here is one of Dan's insights about marriage: "A successful marriage is basically an endless cycle of wrongs committed, apologies offered, and forgiveness granted, all leavened by the occasional orgasm."
http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/Savag…
You might also find something you want to use at:
http://therumpus.net/2011/08/dear-sugar-…
>> Most people don't cheat because they’re cheaters. They cheat because they are people. They are driven by hunger or for the experience of someone being hungry once more for them. They find themselves in friendships that take an unintended turn or they seek them out because they're horny or drunk or damaged from all the stuff they didn’t get when they were kids. There is love. There is lust. There is opportunity. There is alcohol. And youth. And middle age. And twelve-day-long writers’ conferences in rustically genteel settings that give one the impression that the world one left no longer exists. There is loneliness and boredom and sorrow and weakness and self-destruction and idiocy and arrogance and romance and ego and nostalgia and power and need. There is the compelling temptation of intimacies with someone other than the person with whom one is most intimate.
>> Which is a complicated way of saying, it's a long damn life, Happily Ever After. And people get mucked up in it from time to time. Even the people we marry. Even us. You don't know what it is you’ll get mucked up in yet, but if you’re lucky, and if you and your fiancé really are right for each other, and if the two of you build a marriage that lasts a lifetime, you're probably going to get mucked up in a few things along the way. This is scary, but you'll be okay. Sometimes the thing you fear the most in your relationship turns out to be the thing that brings you and your partner to a deeper place of understanding and intimacy.>>
153
RE: Asexuality, i haven't read all 150+ posts here, but i am married to an asexual person. He failed to tell me of his sexual orientation when we were dating, so therefore, a sin of omission. I am highly sexual. He tried to match my sexuality while we were dating, and because we had a long distance relationship, he hid it well. We lived together for half a year before marrying, and what do you know?... as soon as we were married, sex began to fall off... I eventually found myself begging for sex from him. This is a pathetic situation for anyone. I blamed myself for the longest time. Then i came across the website www.asexuality.org and realized just what i was dealing with.
My point here is that, had he only been upfront with me about his sexuality, we would have never married. But he realized that, and of course, that's why he was not upfront. He had to have the arm candy. I am very angry with him for this circumstance in which i find myself. I am now surfing through chat rooms, looking for someone who would like to fuck without commitment, though this is totally contrary to my standards. But i am only human. We had counselling, but to no avail; the counsellor privately told me that he is what's deemed a "cold fish".
My husband won't talk to me about his lack of libido. He gets all uptight if i try to talk about it. I have had an affair, got my heart broken, and am in the midst of a 2nd affair now all because my husband couldn't be upfront and honest about himself. We have 2 children; one is autistic. We haven't had sex since 2005. I feel painted into a corner since i am unemployed. I cannot leave without a job, and i cannot look after our autistic child myself.... life really isn't fair, is it.
I am not a bad person. I just want to love and be loved, which includes (for me) the physical expression of love and all that goes with it.
If only people would just be honest about themselves.
Thank you for listening and for being non-judgemental.
More...
My point here is that, had he only been upfront with me about his sexuality, we would have never married. But he realized that, and of course, that's why he was not upfront. He had to have the arm candy. I am very angry with him for this circumstance in which i find myself. I am now surfing through chat rooms, looking for someone who would like to fuck without commitment, though this is totally contrary to my standards. But i am only human. We had counselling, but to no avail; the counsellor privately told me that he is what's deemed a "cold fish".
My husband won't talk to me about his lack of libido. He gets all uptight if i try to talk about it. I have had an affair, got my heart broken, and am in the midst of a 2nd affair now all because my husband couldn't be upfront and honest about himself. We have 2 children; one is autistic. We haven't had sex since 2005. I feel painted into a corner since i am unemployed. I cannot leave without a job, and i cannot look after our autistic child myself.... life really isn't fair, is it.
I am not a bad person. I just want to love and be loved, which includes (for me) the physical expression of love and all that goes with it.
If only people would just be honest about themselves.
Thank you for listening and for being non-judgemental.
154
@Blackrose, I think you've got it the most right. People trying to argue that there's no age-play pedophilia link... are confused, I think. I think most people into age play do have a least some pedophilic nature. And again, if they are able to only act on that in terms of fantasy, that's fine with me, and not something I object to.
But! Because sex is a deeply subjective/personal thing, I don't understand why people are getting all up in arms about my personal preferences.
Re: your comment towards me specifically... that depends on what you mean by "judging". I wouldn't be judging on a moral sense, but rather on a personal-preference sense. And again: I'm allowed to do that.
In reference to dating, I'm pretty strongly monogamous so if someone has a kink that I can't fufil, I see that as problematic.
In reference to fucking casually? I can be even more carefree about who I choose to reject, so there's a good chance I'd show a guy the door in that context too.
I'm not saying anyone else should/must/might. All I said was my own preference. I don't understand why this makes so many people angry (well, I can speculate as to why it makes Mr. J angry).
Especially for the reason I brought up earlier: I'd just want to say that not all people turn their traumatic lemons into kinky lemonade and the idea that someone should be ok with a suggestion of "age play" from a partner, or that it's somehow bigoted to be put off by it... well, I just don't think that's fair.
Considering that for a non-insignificant number of grown women, the simulation of what is essentially a pedophilic interaction might bring back some extremely troubling memories, it's mind-boggling to me that there apppears to be zero sensitivity to the idea that "age-play" might not be something we can expect from every partner.
Finally... Mr. J
I actually reread over all my posts (boooring) and couldn't find a single generalization. Unless this is what you meant?
"I'm not talking so much as you in specific, more the tone of a lot of people's answers to things in general." Or my fiscal conservative social liberal thing? Yeah that was bitchy, but politics is rarely a civil topic.
I think you were perhaps not reading what I actually wrote closely enough or possibly I was unclear at some point or some combination of both.
If you look at what I actually said about someone requesting "age play" you'll notice that BlackRose agrees with me!
verbatim: If someone's into age play, presumably they're turned on by the fantasy of sex with a young child... that is usually the whole point of age play. Hence, they'd fall under the definition of a pedophile (being attracted to young children). I think we agree on that, and that there's nothing wrong with consensually expressing the attraction or fantasies through age play.
More...
But! Because sex is a deeply subjective/personal thing, I don't understand why people are getting all up in arms about my personal preferences.
Re: your comment towards me specifically... that depends on what you mean by "judging". I wouldn't be judging on a moral sense, but rather on a personal-preference sense. And again: I'm allowed to do that.
In reference to dating, I'm pretty strongly monogamous so if someone has a kink that I can't fufil, I see that as problematic.
In reference to fucking casually? I can be even more carefree about who I choose to reject, so there's a good chance I'd show a guy the door in that context too.
I'm not saying anyone else should/must/might. All I said was my own preference. I don't understand why this makes so many people angry (well, I can speculate as to why it makes Mr. J angry).
Especially for the reason I brought up earlier: I'd just want to say that not all people turn their traumatic lemons into kinky lemonade and the idea that someone should be ok with a suggestion of "age play" from a partner, or that it's somehow bigoted to be put off by it... well, I just don't think that's fair.
Considering that for a non-insignificant number of grown women, the simulation of what is essentially a pedophilic interaction might bring back some extremely troubling memories, it's mind-boggling to me that there apppears to be zero sensitivity to the idea that "age-play" might not be something we can expect from every partner.
Finally... Mr. J
I actually reread over all my posts (boooring) and couldn't find a single generalization. Unless this is what you meant?
"I'm not talking so much as you in specific, more the tone of a lot of people's answers to things in general." Or my fiscal conservative social liberal thing? Yeah that was bitchy, but politics is rarely a civil topic.
I think you were perhaps not reading what I actually wrote closely enough or possibly I was unclear at some point or some combination of both.
If you look at what I actually said about someone requesting "age play" you'll notice that BlackRose agrees with me!
verbatim: If someone's into age play, presumably they're turned on by the fantasy of sex with a young child... that is usually the whole point of age play. Hence, they'd fall under the definition of a pedophile (being attracted to young children). I think we agree on that, and that there's nothing wrong with consensually expressing the attraction or fantasies through age play.
155
@144
I disagree with your definition, as do most age players I'm aware of, and I think a very firm line should be drawn between people who would actually fuck children given the societal okay and people who enjoy the power dynamic inherent in age play. I disagree with your definition - because it is incorrect according to modern Psychology, which is the arbiter of the standard definition of all our philas. The diagnostic criteria of the DSM-IV is very clear that one only qualifies for a diagnosis of pedophila if one has sexual urges toward children AND acts on them with a child OR the urges disrupt the person's ability to function in society. THAT is actually "pedophilia by definition." And there's a reason that AND OR clause is included in the definition when it comes to sexual disorders. No age player who functions in society outside of their fetish and has only played with consenting adults is a pedophile. If anyone would actually fuck a child if they could get away with it (if it was practical, moral, and possible) then they have a pretty serious problem on their hands.
I honestly don't know any age players who are actually attracted to children, but rather to the abstract idea of purity and helplessness. The age play is an expression of the attraction to those concepts, and the turn on would be the same if another fantasy was found that met the same criteria. Perhaps I haven't met the right people, but in my community expressing the desire to fuck real children even if you would never REALLY do it is a surefire way end up banned.
I don't think any OTHER lines need to be drawn unless those in the former category (people who are attracted to real children) actually offend against a child. But they are in fact distinct categories IF you want to continue using the real definition of pedophilia.
More...
I disagree with your definition, as do most age players I'm aware of, and I think a very firm line should be drawn between people who would actually fuck children given the societal okay and people who enjoy the power dynamic inherent in age play. I disagree with your definition - because it is incorrect according to modern Psychology, which is the arbiter of the standard definition of all our philas. The diagnostic criteria of the DSM-IV is very clear that one only qualifies for a diagnosis of pedophila if one has sexual urges toward children AND acts on them with a child OR the urges disrupt the person's ability to function in society. THAT is actually "pedophilia by definition." And there's a reason that AND OR clause is included in the definition when it comes to sexual disorders. No age player who functions in society outside of their fetish and has only played with consenting adults is a pedophile. If anyone would actually fuck a child if they could get away with it (if it was practical, moral, and possible) then they have a pretty serious problem on their hands.
I honestly don't know any age players who are actually attracted to children, but rather to the abstract idea of purity and helplessness. The age play is an expression of the attraction to those concepts, and the turn on would be the same if another fantasy was found that met the same criteria. Perhaps I haven't met the right people, but in my community expressing the desire to fuck real children even if you would never REALLY do it is a surefire way end up banned.
I don't think any OTHER lines need to be drawn unless those in the former category (people who are attracted to real children) actually offend against a child. But they are in fact distinct categories IF you want to continue using the real definition of pedophilia.
158
@154, 155: Some of this is confusion about definitions. evolveevolve is correct to point out that the DSM does require action or marked distress for a diagnosis of "pedophilia." However, the word is sometimes also used to just mean "attraction to prepubescents." This isn't the DSM usage, just another definition (just as "depressed" or "narcissist" have other definitions besides their official diagnoses).
The DSM definition isn't related to age play, but the "attraction to prepubescents" meaning (which should have a better term, since the word is so often used as an insult and has such negative connotations) certainly is. But we're not talking about the DSM definition, just people who are attracted to prepubescents but do not meet the DSM diagnosis.
evolveevolve, I believe you that a lot of age players are all about purity, helplessness, power dynamics, and so forth. That's fine, but age play, as opposed to daddy/daughter play in general, at least sometimes focuses on age as a fetish in particular because people get turned on by it.
Another example is erotic fiction involving underage characters, which is often written because people find it a turn-on; roleplaying such fiction is a form of age play. It's just not true that age players are never into the age as an attraction, though they may use careful wording when they discuss it because of people who don't seem to understand. I know of plenty of age players who are turned on by the idea of sex with prepubescents, and for them, that is the whole reason why they engage in age play.
Desire is a complex thing. We can have desires but not really want to carry them out because we know they're wrong and harmful and don't want to risk jail time. Do people who have fantasies of raping someone "really" want to rape someone? Well, in a sense, yes, but overall, no, because even though they might have the desire to, it's more important to them to not go to jail or hurt someone. Or, I might get angry and have an intense desire to punch someone in the face, but I don't really want to do that for various reasons.
Similarly, someone who roleplays having sex with a six-year-old, say, might find the idea attractive and have the desire to do it, but not actually want to do it for real because it's illegal and harmful and so forth.
I don't understand the "firm line" you are trying to draw: there are DSM-diagnosis pedophiles who have molested kids, there are DSM-diagnosis pedophiles who suffer "marked distress" (seems like age play would help reduce that distress), there are non-DSM-pedophiles who engage in age play because they are attracted to prepubescents, and, as you say, there are others who engage in age play but don't have that attraction and do it for other reasons.
More...
The DSM definition isn't related to age play, but the "attraction to prepubescents" meaning (which should have a better term, since the word is so often used as an insult and has such negative connotations) certainly is. But we're not talking about the DSM definition, just people who are attracted to prepubescents but do not meet the DSM diagnosis.
evolveevolve, I believe you that a lot of age players are all about purity, helplessness, power dynamics, and so forth. That's fine, but age play, as opposed to daddy/daughter play in general, at least sometimes focuses on age as a fetish in particular because people get turned on by it.
Another example is erotic fiction involving underage characters, which is often written because people find it a turn-on; roleplaying such fiction is a form of age play. It's just not true that age players are never into the age as an attraction, though they may use careful wording when they discuss it because of people who don't seem to understand. I know of plenty of age players who are turned on by the idea of sex with prepubescents, and for them, that is the whole reason why they engage in age play.
Desire is a complex thing. We can have desires but not really want to carry them out because we know they're wrong and harmful and don't want to risk jail time. Do people who have fantasies of raping someone "really" want to rape someone? Well, in a sense, yes, but overall, no, because even though they might have the desire to, it's more important to them to not go to jail or hurt someone. Or, I might get angry and have an intense desire to punch someone in the face, but I don't really want to do that for various reasons.
Similarly, someone who roleplays having sex with a six-year-old, say, might find the idea attractive and have the desire to do it, but not actually want to do it for real because it's illegal and harmful and so forth.
I don't understand the "firm line" you are trying to draw: there are DSM-diagnosis pedophiles who have molested kids, there are DSM-diagnosis pedophiles who suffer "marked distress" (seems like age play would help reduce that distress), there are non-DSM-pedophiles who engage in age play because they are attracted to prepubescents, and, as you say, there are others who engage in age play but don't have that attraction and do it for other reasons.
159
@141: As a furry into age play, I've heard the same argument used against both kinks. Yes, I am attracted to canid furries. NO, that doesn't mean I want to fuck my dog. Ew.
I find it strange that in a world full of GTA players, we actually have to remind folks that people fantasize about a lot of things they would never do in real life.
I find it strange that in a world full of GTA players, we actually have to remind folks that people fantasize about a lot of things they would never do in real life.
160
mydriasis, the reason it bothers me that you'd reject someone for a kink is that no two people ever have exactly the same kinks. If you're monogamous, there will always be kinks that one or both of you can't engage in because the other person isn't interested. That doesn't seem like a good reason to dump someone. I have a whole lot of kinks and no one is going to be into all of them.
It's totally cool to be squicked by age play or any other kink. Of course it's understandable that a lot of people wouldn't be into it.
But it's not cool to reject someone because of one of their kinks, if the person is fine with not engaging in that kink. Then there's no issue of compatibility, and the only reason to reject them is that you think there's something wrong with the kink. Otherwise, why not just say "that's cool that you're into that, but I'm not comfortable with it, so we can just do other kinks"? And you seem to be setting aside age play as a special category, as opposed to any other kink that you're not into. If someone liked anal once in a while, but you weren't into it, would you dump him, or would you just say you didn't want to do it?
It's totally cool to be squicked by age play or any other kink. Of course it's understandable that a lot of people wouldn't be into it.
But it's not cool to reject someone because of one of their kinks, if the person is fine with not engaging in that kink. Then there's no issue of compatibility, and the only reason to reject them is that you think there's something wrong with the kink. Otherwise, why not just say "that's cool that you're into that, but I'm not comfortable with it, so we can just do other kinks"? And you seem to be setting aside age play as a special category, as opposed to any other kink that you're not into. If someone liked anal once in a while, but you weren't into it, would you dump him, or would you just say you didn't want to do it?
161
@Blackrose
"If you're monogamous, there will always be kinks that one or both of you can't engage in because the other person isn't interested."
Says who? Not everyone is kinky. Maybe I've just been lucky, but I'm personally a non-kinky person. I'm open to most things, though. This means that
a. I will never have to worry about an unfufilled kink
b. it is unlikely that my partner will.
And yes, I do put it in a special category for the reason I listed above.
Dan has shown us multiple cases of people trying to put aside their kinks and it catching up with them later. Why would I want to risk that?
I'm sorry but I'm firmly in the camp that people can turn eachother down for whatever reason they like. If you think it makes me a jerk, then presumably this theoretical person is better off.
"If you're monogamous, there will always be kinks that one or both of you can't engage in because the other person isn't interested."
Says who? Not everyone is kinky. Maybe I've just been lucky, but I'm personally a non-kinky person. I'm open to most things, though. This means that
a. I will never have to worry about an unfufilled kink
b. it is unlikely that my partner will.
And yes, I do put it in a special category for the reason I listed above.
Dan has shown us multiple cases of people trying to put aside their kinks and it catching up with them later. Why would I want to risk that?
I'm sorry but I'm firmly in the camp that people can turn eachother down for whatever reason they like. If you think it makes me a jerk, then presumably this theoretical person is better off.
162
@152
Erica:
Thankyou for your help. And for your words. I was going to heavily edit what Dan wrote (the parents of the bride are self-described stereotypical stuffy Brits) so even the slightest mention of sex would have thrown everyone, so maybe I'll save Dan's words for the Bach Party.
M.
Erica:
Thankyou for your help. And for your words. I was going to heavily edit what Dan wrote (the parents of the bride are self-described stereotypical stuffy Brits) so even the slightest mention of sex would have thrown everyone, so maybe I'll save Dan's words for the Bach Party.
M.
163
@160 I'm with mydriasis on this. If a guy isn't into BDSM, then I'm not compatible sexually with him, not in a long-term sense. And if a woman is squicked by ageplay, or pet play, then she probably shouldn't date someone who frequently fantasizes about those kinks. Granted, people may have to do without lactation play if that's not their partner's kink, but in general it is important to determine early on if you can handle your partner's kinks.
164
@162 - sounds like a plan. Also note that Dan posted @156 with a great potential reading choice for a wedding, from the 2003 Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court decision legalizing same-sex marriage.
165
Portland shouldn't have custody of a child he's willing to lead into prostitution. Because let's be honest, that's what he's doing. It may be items of clothing and not actual sex, but it's the same to that kid's psyche.
166
@161: What is the reason you listed above? If you mean wanting someone who is primarily attracted to you, I don't see how that applies at all. Or do you think everyone into age play is primarily attracted to prepubescents? I see age play as just one of many things that's fun to try once in a while, not something that's necessarily a really strong orientation or something that's a necessary part of someone's sex life.
"Kinks" may not have been the right word to use. I wasn't talking about being "kinky." What I meant is that everyone has lots of little things that turn them on: certain words, articles of clothing, different positions, and so forth, but it's not a big deal if not all of them are present. I'm not sure what the word for that is. Turn-ons? And those definitely aren't always going to match up perfectly.
For instance, I think black stretchy pants are kinda hot, but I don't really think about them that often, they're just fun to play with once in a while. And it definitely wouldn't catch up with me later to put it aside.
Anyway, that's how I see age play, and so it's kind of confusing that you seem to see it as an all-or-nothing orientation thing, or something that must be frequently fantasized about, like BDSM is for Erica. Not all kinks or turn-ons need to be like that. So I still don't understand why you would reject someone for having a slight interest in that type of roleplaying. Of course you can turn someone down for any reason you want; I just find it puzzling and wonder if it's based on inaccurate information.
"Kinks" may not have been the right word to use. I wasn't talking about being "kinky." What I meant is that everyone has lots of little things that turn them on: certain words, articles of clothing, different positions, and so forth, but it's not a big deal if not all of them are present. I'm not sure what the word for that is. Turn-ons? And those definitely aren't always going to match up perfectly.
For instance, I think black stretchy pants are kinda hot, but I don't really think about them that often, they're just fun to play with once in a while. And it definitely wouldn't catch up with me later to put it aside.
Anyway, that's how I see age play, and so it's kind of confusing that you seem to see it as an all-or-nothing orientation thing, or something that must be frequently fantasized about, like BDSM is for Erica. Not all kinks or turn-ons need to be like that. So I still don't understand why you would reject someone for having a slight interest in that type of roleplaying. Of course you can turn someone down for any reason you want; I just find it puzzling and wonder if it's based on inaccurate information.
167
@166 - see @134, where mydriasis wrote: "not all people turn their traumatic lemons into kinky lemonade and the idea that someone should be ok with a suggestion of "age play" from a partner... maybe the person isn't anti-kink, more just anti-PTSD."
That suggests she was abused as a child but doesn't feel like going into the details. I recommend giving her that space.
That suggests she was abused as a child but doesn't feel like going into the details. I recommend giving her that space.
168
@167: mydriasis is free to respond, or not, as she wishes.
I can certainly understand someone who was abused or traumatized being triggered by the mention of different scenes. I'm dating someone who was abused by a single-tail whip and can't stand the thought or sound of them, for instance. But rejecting or dumping someone just for asking about a certain type of play doesn't seem reasonable to me. Obviously repeatedly bringing it up or forcing the issue would be a douche move, but punishing someone for asking about something they might possibly be interested in trying seems contrary to the goals of open and honest communication and having a good sex life.
Do we really want people to be afraid they'll get dumped if they ask about their turn-ons?
I can certainly understand someone who was abused or traumatized being triggered by the mention of different scenes. I'm dating someone who was abused by a single-tail whip and can't stand the thought or sound of them, for instance. But rejecting or dumping someone just for asking about a certain type of play doesn't seem reasonable to me. Obviously repeatedly bringing it up or forcing the issue would be a douche move, but punishing someone for asking about something they might possibly be interested in trying seems contrary to the goals of open and honest communication and having a good sex life.
Do we really want people to be afraid they'll get dumped if they ask about their turn-ons?
169
@168: people into ageplay should realize that about 10% of men and 20% of women were sexually abused as children. They might consider having some intimate talks in the first couple of months of dating, to find out if your partner is among them. Armed with that knowledge, and an understanding of how traumatic it was, the kinksters can then judge how to bring up their kink with sensitivity. Similarly, people should figure out if their partner was raped, before asking for rape-play. Rape-play might still be on the table, but, come on, use some sense when asking about this stuff with people who have been traumatized.
170
Cocky,
You offer no evidence for this accusation of incestuous desire. Portland several times says his motivation is monetary.
At least he doesn't contemplate counterfeiting the duds, and that makes him more moral than some here.
You offer no evidence for this accusation of incestuous desire. Portland several times says his motivation is monetary.
At least he doesn't contemplate counterfeiting the duds, and that makes him more moral than some here.
171
@Blackrose/Erica
Thanks for pointing out the correct passage and sorry about the confusion.
With me personally, I like to err on the safe rather than sorry side. It's certainly possible that someone brings up the kink/turnon and it's only a minor interest, but (unfortunately) because of the stigma surrounding it, I'm under the impression that if someone is willing to bring it up outside of kink circles (and risk being judged) they probably have quite a strong preference.
Kind of like that "rule of threes" joke where every woman has slept with three times the number of men she admits to.
And even if that theory isn't true, the fact is, there are people who will downplay their kink for various reasons. With that specific one, it's not a risk I'm willing to take.
I'm not a gambler, in general. That's just my nature.
You also said that you thought that because I'd reject a partner over it, it's a moral thing. I disagree. For example: someone very close to me has a strong "age kink" I guess you could say. This is someone who was a friend before I knew, and a friend after I knew and I don't love them any less. It's not a moral thing. I'm just exceedingly picky about my partners.
Thanks for pointing out the correct passage and sorry about the confusion.
With me personally, I like to err on the safe rather than sorry side. It's certainly possible that someone brings up the kink/turnon and it's only a minor interest, but (unfortunately) because of the stigma surrounding it, I'm under the impression that if someone is willing to bring it up outside of kink circles (and risk being judged) they probably have quite a strong preference.
Kind of like that "rule of threes" joke where every woman has slept with three times the number of men she admits to.
And even if that theory isn't true, the fact is, there are people who will downplay their kink for various reasons. With that specific one, it's not a risk I'm willing to take.
I'm not a gambler, in general. That's just my nature.
You also said that you thought that because I'd reject a partner over it, it's a moral thing. I disagree. For example: someone very close to me has a strong "age kink" I guess you could say. This is someone who was a friend before I knew, and a friend after I knew and I don't love them any less. It's not a moral thing. I'm just exceedingly picky about my partners.
172
"Do we really want people to be afraid they'll get dumped if they ask about their turn-ons?"
I have long hair, but maybe one day I want to cut it. Lots of men love long hair and I could worry that my short hairstyle would get me dumped.... but who would want to be with that asshole?
I have long hair, but maybe one day I want to cut it. Lots of men love long hair and I could worry that my short hairstyle would get me dumped.... but who would want to be with that asshole?
174
@blackrose: rape o philes are said to be into 'Ravishment', or less used is the word "coercion" scene, and many of us prefer Ravishment over rape-ophile and rape-play since those describe a crime (but, hey, each their own).*
Blackrose, I admire your simple reasoning. It's solid and non-alarmist - kinda refreshing for this place. I pray you don't lose it anytime soon.
* There's also the Dom/Sub play of 'forced orgasm', which can be related to ravishment, but more often is, er, tied to bondage play.
In any case, people should identify their own kinks and clubs and dealbreakers and sexuality, and should never put up with those labels being glued on by others.
Kinks and fantasies and in-yer-head dreams can be whatever the hell you want so long as what you actually do "IRL" is legal and consentual. If I want to pretend I'm ass raping a furry version of Rick Santorum with a Lolita lollipop while wearing his collar, so be it. =D Not unlike abortion, if it squicks you out, then please just don't do it.
Devil's advocate: While it's implied otherwise, PORTLAND's son could be the one who came up with the underwear-selling plan (frankly it seems too net savvy to me for parents of a 14 yo, (but maybe they're terribly young parents?)). What then? A teen with a modern take on the lemonade-stand-on-a-hot-day (albeit sweaty and with possibly questionable customers) should be able to exploit himself all he wants so long as it's within law.
The parents should step aside completely. Also, they oughta be firm and realistic to their kids about economics: no more free rides on non-necessary expenses: pay your own way in the Great Recession. Duh. Then, if his lemonade stand, whatever form it might take, nets him some cash, then surely the kid paying his own way for concerts, music, fashion, WoW/monthly gamer subscription, etc can't hurt THEIR financial troubles.
More...
Blackrose, I admire your simple reasoning. It's solid and non-alarmist - kinda refreshing for this place. I pray you don't lose it anytime soon.
* There's also the Dom/Sub play of 'forced orgasm', which can be related to ravishment, but more often is, er, tied to bondage play.
In any case, people should identify their own kinks and clubs and dealbreakers and sexuality, and should never put up with those labels being glued on by others.
Kinks and fantasies and in-yer-head dreams can be whatever the hell you want so long as what you actually do "IRL" is legal and consentual. If I want to pretend I'm ass raping a furry version of Rick Santorum with a Lolita lollipop while wearing his collar, so be it. =D Not unlike abortion, if it squicks you out, then please just don't do it.
Devil's advocate: While it's implied otherwise, PORTLAND's son could be the one who came up with the underwear-selling plan (frankly it seems too net savvy to me for parents of a 14 yo, (but maybe they're terribly young parents?)). What then? A teen with a modern take on the lemonade-stand-on-a-hot-day (albeit sweaty and with possibly questionable customers) should be able to exploit himself all he wants so long as it's within law.
The parents should step aside completely. Also, they oughta be firm and realistic to their kids about economics: no more free rides on non-necessary expenses: pay your own way in the Great Recession. Duh. Then, if his lemonade stand, whatever form it might take, nets him some cash, then surely the kid paying his own way for concerts, music, fashion, WoW/monthly gamer subscription, etc can't hurt THEIR financial troubles.
175
@174: Thanks! That's a great compliment. And I won't lose it anytime soon.
As far as rape vs. ravishment, I actually think of those as two different fantasies, though they're related. Ravishment fantasies are more about wanting to be wanted and taken roughly and thoroughly. Rape fantasies are more about having sex forced upon you when you don't want it. I've also heard rape play described as 'nonconsent play.' Though for some of us the criminal reference makes it hotter!
Good point about the LW's son coming up with the idea; that actually makes a lot of sense.
As far as rape vs. ravishment, I actually think of those as two different fantasies, though they're related. Ravishment fantasies are more about wanting to be wanted and taken roughly and thoroughly. Rape fantasies are more about having sex forced upon you when you don't want it. I've also heard rape play described as 'nonconsent play.' Though for some of us the criminal reference makes it hotter!
Good point about the LW's son coming up with the idea; that actually makes a lot of sense.
177
@171, 172, 167: Got it, thanks, makes sense. Though I don't think you're an "asshole" for making sure something doesn't trigger or traumatize you.
@169: I agree that sensitivity and not being a douche are important, though I don't think that rape victims are necessarily delicate flowers who require months of hesitancy before asking if they're into something. I'd even guess that rape victims are more likely to be into rape play than the average person, though of course many are not.
Though if you're meeting kinky partners online, a lot of this is upfront anyway since people write what they're into on their profile page.
@169: I agree that sensitivity and not being a douche are important, though I don't think that rape victims are necessarily delicate flowers who require months of hesitancy before asking if they're into something. I'd even guess that rape victims are more likely to be into rape play than the average person, though of course many are not.
Though if you're meeting kinky partners online, a lot of this is upfront anyway since people write what they're into on their profile page.
178
So.. as someone who is into age play, and prefers to be the "child" in the game, I can say that my turn-on has nothing to do with pedophilia. For me, it is about power from below, about being taken care of, acting innocent, and about being able to act out in a bratty way. It's fun! Plus, I love the outfits and pigtails that I would never wear as an adult. I am lucky to have a GGG husband, who is willing to indulge me now and again, and who finds his own fun in spanking, and teaching/training, and rewards, even tho the age play squicks him a bit. BDSM is very often more about what the sub wants. ( He gets his, too.. ;) ) I have no attraction to my own father, or to actual children.. or even to other people pretending to be children. It's all about expressing my inner child, who was a randy and frustrated little thing.
179
This has been mentioned before but based on some comments, it bears repeating. It is incorrect to call attraction to young but post-pubescent teenagers pedophilia. The discomfort people may feel with this is more cultural than anything else, and was (and is) certainly absent in many cultures - Shakespeare thought nothing of making Juliet 13 years old, after all.
180
@177 - I was more interested in the order of events (find out about past rapes/abuse, then bring up rape-play/age-play), and not how long it should take to move through those stages.
181
Why is Dan so convinced Marcus Bachmann is 100% hetero? Dan knows damned well that rabid anti-gays are often stuck in the closet. Strident Michele is not particularly hot in my book. I would do Sarah P, though.
182
PORTLAND - I say, fake, Fake, FAKE, fake!
I think it's written by someone with a 'sweaty, acrid' clothes fetish.
The language seems off, and Playboy-letters like.
Note the use of "Dear Wife" and "Would this be seen as me whoring out *the boy*?".
That one slipped the gate.
I think it's written by someone with a 'sweaty, acrid' clothes fetish.
The language seems off, and Playboy-letters like.
Note the use of "Dear Wife" and "Would this be seen as me whoring out *the boy*?".
That one slipped the gate.
183
I call fakey-mcfakerson on Portland.
The language is odd, and reads like a playboy letter. Sounds like someone with an 'acrid-sweat' fetish getting really into his fantasy.
Seriously, "Dear Wife"? And not 'my son', but "Would this be seen as me whoring out *the boy*?"
Fake, fake, slipped the gate.
The language is odd, and reads like a playboy letter. Sounds like someone with an 'acrid-sweat' fetish getting really into his fantasy.
Seriously, "Dear Wife"? And not 'my son', but "Would this be seen as me whoring out *the boy*?"
Fake, fake, slipped the gate.
184
@180: I really don't think that's a good idea. For one thing, as I said, people's fetishes and turn-ons are often online, or discussed upfront, before having that kind of deep personal conversation. You should be upfront with your turn-ons, and you should talk about them early on.
For another, a lot of people would be annoyed or not want to talk about it out of the blue in response to asking if they've been sexually assaulted, especially if you're having the initial conversation about sex and fetishes and so forth.
I just don't think it's something that requires that much sensitivity: you're just asking if your partner is into something, which you should be able to do freely. Can you give me an example of how the kind of conversation you propose would go? It seems like it would be awkward.
For another, a lot of people would be annoyed or not want to talk about it out of the blue in response to asking if they've been sexually assaulted, especially if you're having the initial conversation about sex and fetishes and so forth.
I just don't think it's something that requires that much sensitivity: you're just asking if your partner is into something, which you should be able to do freely. Can you give me an example of how the kind of conversation you propose would go? It seems like it would be awkward.
185
@Hunter
he isn't, he's making a joke
@Blackrose/Erica
I think the sensitivity is required on the occasions where they aren't into it. Mr. J's response was - in my eyes - an example of a somewhat insensitive response. If someone reacts negatively to an age-kink it doesn't mean they're a bad person or even close minded, it might just be upsetting for them.
I don't think that it's really feasible to leave off your "I'm into age play" conversation until after a conversation about sexual abuse. That's not something that's easy to bring up, even in an LTR. So if you wanted to have the other conversation first and test the waters you might have to wait for quite a while into the relationship before you start probing. Doesn't seem logical to me, but everyone's different.
I think the kink scene's all cards on the table up front model is actually really ideal. I consider myself neither vanilla nor kinky since vanilla implies that I won't engage in kink and kinky means I have kinks of my own. Being open is always good.
@cocky
Agreed. This is a HUGE petpeeve of mine too. If someone's into 17-year-olds or even 13-year-olds it doesn't matter how old they are, they are NOT pedophiles. You could say "ephebophile" if the teen is somewhat older and post pubescent, or "hebephile" if they're pubescent. I'm not expecting people to use all technical terms correctly (there's special terms for people attracted to babies/toddlers too, I believe) but at least don't call someone a pedophile for being attracted to a post-pubescent teenager, that's just stupid.
he isn't, he's making a joke
@Blackrose/Erica
I think the sensitivity is required on the occasions where they aren't into it. Mr. J's response was - in my eyes - an example of a somewhat insensitive response. If someone reacts negatively to an age-kink it doesn't mean they're a bad person or even close minded, it might just be upsetting for them.
I don't think that it's really feasible to leave off your "I'm into age play" conversation until after a conversation about sexual abuse. That's not something that's easy to bring up, even in an LTR. So if you wanted to have the other conversation first and test the waters you might have to wait for quite a while into the relationship before you start probing. Doesn't seem logical to me, but everyone's different.
I think the kink scene's all cards on the table up front model is actually really ideal. I consider myself neither vanilla nor kinky since vanilla implies that I won't engage in kink and kinky means I have kinks of my own. Being open is always good.
@cocky
Agreed. This is a HUGE petpeeve of mine too. If someone's into 17-year-olds or even 13-year-olds it doesn't matter how old they are, they are NOT pedophiles. You could say "ephebophile" if the teen is somewhat older and post pubescent, or "hebephile" if they're pubescent. I'm not expecting people to use all technical terms correctly (there's special terms for people attracted to babies/toddlers too, I believe) but at least don't call someone a pedophile for being attracted to a post-pubescent teenager, that's just stupid.
186
As a furry, I'm amazed that this particular column dealing with my ilk managed to come forward with an EVEN MORE MESSSED UP THING concerning selling your 14 year old son's underwear. Eeeek.
187
@185 - yes, you're right, people differ in their reactions to abuse/rape. The assault I experienced at 17 was redefined/erased/forgotten except that for many years I disliked receiving oral sex. But the assault I experienced this year is the first thing I bring up when someone suggests that rape-play might be fun. So, yes, I guess there's not going to be a standard way of dealing with this issue.
188
@187
Absolutely - you brought it up. Which I think is smart, by the way. Also, you brought it up in response to the kink. I think Blackrose was just saying she couldn't imagine how the kink-haver could go about asking 'hey have you been raped?'.
I've never come across anyone who's asked me to do... well... much of anything kinky really. Your standards, but definitely no 'age play'. Again, probably because it's not necessary.
Absolutely - you brought it up. Which I think is smart, by the way. Also, you brought it up in response to the kink. I think Blackrose was just saying she couldn't imagine how the kink-haver could go about asking 'hey have you been raped?'.
I've never come across anyone who's asked me to do... well... much of anything kinky really. Your standards, but definitely no 'age play'. Again, probably because it's not necessary.
189
@Hunter - a) what do you mean by "even if only self proclaimed" ??? If I don't get to say what my orientation is, then who does? Who picked your orientation labels for you? I can say "orientation" is not the same as "behavior" until I'm blue in the face and I don't think you'll ever get it. A behavior may be "microsexual" or "semi-sexual" or full out "sexual" but engaging in it does not change the person's orientation. A straight woman engaging in an act of any-level-sexual does not necessarily make the woman a lesbian. How about sex workers who are lesbians but who take on male clients? Gay men who marry and have sex with women because that's what they think they're supposed to do or to hide their orientation? Since "asexual" isn't a commonly understood or discussed orientation a lot of aces find themselves trying to be straight, and then maybe gay, hoping to find something that feels right... obviously with little success. Meanwhile, I'm a graduate student in human sexuality... what exactly was your area of study? I think it was BlackRose who pointed out a point I was going to make in regard to your comment about asexuals being rape victims: people who are ignorant about the LGBT community often make the same claim about lesbians - "of course they were naturally supposed to be straight but then they got raped and it fucked them up and now they're into women! Poor lesbians!" Can a person's sexuality be effected by a traumatic experience like rape? Of course it can... but I don't hear "oh, you're Gay? OMG, who molested you as a child? Was it your uncle??" Traumatic experiences aren't actually the MOST COMMON influencing factors on sexuality, go figure!
@BlackRose - yes, thank you for making the point that asexuals have sex drives/libidos of varying levels just like people of other orientations.
@BlueJean - I'm sorry about how things have gone with your husband, obviously this is a terrible situation for you. What he has done is not okay and the only way I can even try to understand it is to think of it in the same way that gay men (and lesbians) used to marry because that was what was expected, it wasn't okay to be gay and so they married to show that they weren't... leaving no one happy. I have been able to make my relationships work with my non-ace partners reasonably well because I'm non-monogamous and generally I date others who are also non-monogamous so that everyone can get what they need. There are some excellent books on the subject - I particularly recommend Dossie Easton's the Ethical Slut and Tristan Taormino's Opening Up. I realize that non-monogamy isn't an option for everyone, but if you're already having affairs perhaps it would be a healthy alternative to you feeling like you're cheating and your husband feeling cheated on (surely he has an idea).
More...
@BlackRose - yes, thank you for making the point that asexuals have sex drives/libidos of varying levels just like people of other orientations.
@BlueJean - I'm sorry about how things have gone with your husband, obviously this is a terrible situation for you. What he has done is not okay and the only way I can even try to understand it is to think of it in the same way that gay men (and lesbians) used to marry because that was what was expected, it wasn't okay to be gay and so they married to show that they weren't... leaving no one happy. I have been able to make my relationships work with my non-ace partners reasonably well because I'm non-monogamous and generally I date others who are also non-monogamous so that everyone can get what they need. There are some excellent books on the subject - I particularly recommend Dossie Easton's the Ethical Slut and Tristan Taormino's Opening Up. I realize that non-monogamy isn't an option for everyone, but if you're already having affairs perhaps it would be a healthy alternative to you feeling like you're cheating and your husband feeling cheated on (surely he has an idea).
191
Oh, and @Uncelestial - the idea that a person isn't interested in sex because they haven't had it yet is the gateway thought process to corrective rape. I have read written accounts from aces who said that they were already out and openly ace and eventually had a partner who was sure they were going to "fix" them by having sex with them... Guess how well that worked. Let's play a game where we apply your assumptions about aces to people of other orientations: How about straight men are only straight because they haven't had sex with a man yet... and even the ones who did try out having sex with a man and decided it wasn't their thing... well, they obviously need to keep having sex with men until they realize they are actually bi or gay. Sounds TOTALLY REASONABLE, right?
And back to Hunter: If you want to play the "the plural of anecdote is data" game: I know two people who were sexually assaulted, neither of which is ace and I've met a lot of aces who have stated in one place or another that they were not raped (because you know what's fun, having to disclose if you've been raped or not every time you tell someone your orientation) and while there are a lot of aces who I don't know about their status as an assault survivor I assume their numbers are about the same as the general population... but the only accounts I've read about were people who already identified as ace before they were assaulted (see above).
And back to Hunter: If you want to play the "the plural of anecdote is data" game: I know two people who were sexually assaulted, neither of which is ace and I've met a lot of aces who have stated in one place or another that they were not raped (because you know what's fun, having to disclose if you've been raped or not every time you tell someone your orientation) and while there are a lot of aces who I don't know about their status as an assault survivor I assume their numbers are about the same as the general population... but the only accounts I've read about were people who already identified as ace before they were assaulted (see above).
192
@188: Yeah, it just seems like a weird jump to ask a partner if they've ever experienced sexual assault, and then switch to bringing up the kink.
Even if it's in a later conversation, I don't like the idea that some kinks are "bad" or "extra sensitive" and need to be brought up carefully just to talk about them. There's already too much of that attitude towards kinks. I have had negative reactions to some of mine and don't always bring them all up right away out of fear (that and listing them all would take a long time ;) ).
I don't necessarily think it's wrong to ask someone if they have experienced sexual assault, but that's a personal conversation that should be separate from, and come well after, the initial conversation about what kinks people are into. Unless the assault victim brings it up earlier, which is a good idea if they're comfortable with doing so.
As far as age play, I know it's not the only kind, but I generally think of it as explicitly talking about someone being a specific age (typically much younger than they actually are) during sex, such as saying "fuck your X year old girl." Even if someone is young looking it can still be hot for some people to talk about pretend ages specifically, as a type of role-playing, which is why a lot of underage erotic fiction makes a point of bringing up people's ages often. It's the same way that interracial erotic fiction brings up people's races often, because it's a turn-on for some people.
Even if it's in a later conversation, I don't like the idea that some kinks are "bad" or "extra sensitive" and need to be brought up carefully just to talk about them. There's already too much of that attitude towards kinks. I have had negative reactions to some of mine and don't always bring them all up right away out of fear (that and listing them all would take a long time ;) ).
I don't necessarily think it's wrong to ask someone if they have experienced sexual assault, but that's a personal conversation that should be separate from, and come well after, the initial conversation about what kinks people are into. Unless the assault victim brings it up earlier, which is a good idea if they're comfortable with doing so.
As far as age play, I know it's not the only kind, but I generally think of it as explicitly talking about someone being a specific age (typically much younger than they actually are) during sex, such as saying "fuck your X year old girl." Even if someone is young looking it can still be hot for some people to talk about pretend ages specifically, as a type of role-playing, which is why a lot of underage erotic fiction makes a point of bringing up people's ages often. It's the same way that interracial erotic fiction brings up people's races often, because it's a turn-on for some people.
193
@153: Being dishonest is never acceptable. My condolences. I'm asexual myself (by some definitions, although the details are vastly more complicated) and I decided early on that there was no way I'd get in a relationship that wasn't with another asexual, for exactly that reason.
@115: That's not my experience. But I suppose the plural of "anecdote" is not data. Still, I'm reluctant to talk about asexuality because it always seems to come around to exactly that assumption -- that I was somehow sexually traumatized as a child or something. Whatever. I am how I am, it works for me, and I don't need other people to try to fix me.
@115: That's not my experience. But I suppose the plural of "anecdote" is not data. Still, I'm reluctant to talk about asexuality because it always seems to come around to exactly that assumption -- that I was somehow sexually traumatized as a child or something. Whatever. I am how I am, it works for me, and I don't need other people to try to fix me.
194
@Blackrose
"I don't like the idea that some kinks are "bad" or "extra sensitive" and need to be brought up carefully just to talk about them."
sometimes things are true, even if we don't like them ;)
My point wasn't that people should be extra-sensitive in terms of not bringing them up or even trying to not bring them up to certain people. I'm with you that people should be open, I want to know my partner's kinks especially if they're something that's off-putting to me.
(And I do think I'm allowed to drop a partner for a kink or for whatever other reason I like. I've dropped guys for lots of reasons others consider finicky or trivial. I know what I like.)
My point was that people should be sensitive to the rejection of their kink. Maybe the person has a legitimate reason to be uncomfortable with it. Even extremely so. If someone freaks out over your foot fetish, that's probably just them being unreasonable, but if someone freaks out over being asked to enact a pedophilic fantasy... well, maybe they have a reason. Not because they hate you. Not because they think your kink is "wrong" but because of personal experiences.
I brought it up because I got a very negative response from a poster when I said I would be put off by the suggestion of age-play and I think that was an unfair response.
I think kinks that potentially involve people reliving trauma are by nature, "extra-sensitive" but I'm not conflating that with the kink being any less okay.
"I don't like the idea that some kinks are "bad" or "extra sensitive" and need to be brought up carefully just to talk about them."
sometimes things are true, even if we don't like them ;)
My point wasn't that people should be extra-sensitive in terms of not bringing them up or even trying to not bring them up to certain people. I'm with you that people should be open, I want to know my partner's kinks especially if they're something that's off-putting to me.
(And I do think I'm allowed to drop a partner for a kink or for whatever other reason I like. I've dropped guys for lots of reasons others consider finicky or trivial. I know what I like.)
My point was that people should be sensitive to the rejection of their kink. Maybe the person has a legitimate reason to be uncomfortable with it. Even extremely so. If someone freaks out over your foot fetish, that's probably just them being unreasonable, but if someone freaks out over being asked to enact a pedophilic fantasy... well, maybe they have a reason. Not because they hate you. Not because they think your kink is "wrong" but because of personal experiences.
I brought it up because I got a very negative response from a poster when I said I would be put off by the suggestion of age-play and I think that was an unfair response.
I think kinks that potentially involve people reliving trauma are by nature, "extra-sensitive" but I'm not conflating that with the kink being any less okay.
195
@194: I understand what you mean, and I agree you are allowed to drop a partner for any reason or no reason. And yes, people should understand that some people, for whatever reason, can't handle certain kinks, and that's ok.
I think that the reason you got negative responses from me and from other posters is that your reaction seemed extreme. If you can't handle X, and your partner brings up X, and you say "I can't handle X" and your partner says "that's ok, we can do other things"... well, yes, you are allowed to drop him, it's just that it doesn't seem reasonable to me to do so. Not that you always have to be reasonable or fair, but it's a little unfair to a partner who is being open and understanding about your boundaries.
I'll be sensitive to the rejection of my kinks, and be willing to respect people's boundaries, but I don't think it would be fair or reasonable for someone to dump me for just mentioning a kink. But again, you don't have to be fair or reasonable, and you do have the right to dump someone at any time.
I think that the reason you got negative responses from me and from other posters is that your reaction seemed extreme. If you can't handle X, and your partner brings up X, and you say "I can't handle X" and your partner says "that's ok, we can do other things"... well, yes, you are allowed to drop him, it's just that it doesn't seem reasonable to me to do so. Not that you always have to be reasonable or fair, but it's a little unfair to a partner who is being open and understanding about your boundaries.
I'll be sensitive to the rejection of my kinks, and be willing to respect people's boundaries, but I don't think it would be fair or reasonable for someone to dump me for just mentioning a kink. But again, you don't have to be fair or reasonable, and you do have the right to dump someone at any time.
196
"Dog collars seem like a heavy activity for a lad, Dan"
Tell that to all the Hot Topic mallgoths.
Tell that to all the Hot Topic mallgoths.
197
@195
This might sound like a trivial distinction, but I wouldn't (in theory) dump someone for mentioning it, I would dump them for having it and only because it suggests possibilities I'm not entirely comfortable with.
The idea being that bringing up kinks (even ones I'm not into) is totally cool, and I don't endorse at all the idea that someone should hide or be ashamed of their kinks or that it's ever better for a relationship for that to happen. I'm not in the "bad kinks should be kept to yourself" camp.
I guess in my ideal world people are comfortable enough with themselves to reveal their kinks even IF it might be a dealbreaker for their partner.
@rand
I'll tell them as soon as I can fire up the time machine and visit them in the late 90's when they still existed?
This might sound like a trivial distinction, but I wouldn't (in theory) dump someone for mentioning it, I would dump them for having it and only because it suggests possibilities I'm not entirely comfortable with.
The idea being that bringing up kinks (even ones I'm not into) is totally cool, and I don't endorse at all the idea that someone should hide or be ashamed of their kinks or that it's ever better for a relationship for that to happen. I'm not in the "bad kinks should be kept to yourself" camp.
I guess in my ideal world people are comfortable enough with themselves to reveal their kinks even IF it might be a dealbreaker for their partner.
@rand
I'll tell them as soon as I can fire up the time machine and visit them in the late 90's when they still existed?
198
@197, I'm not sure what you are getting at. Would you dump a guy for simply being into a Catholic schoolgirl fantasy? If so, goodbye 99% of straight men.
199
@cocky
scroll up?
Someone into catholic schoolgirls (we're talking highschool, right?) is unlikely to be a pedophile because highschool girls are postpubescent. My discomfort is with someone who would want me to simulate sex with a prepubescent girl.
Not 99% of straight men.
I'm not sure what the percentage of pedophiles is but it's pretty low (count in hebephiles and it gets higher, but still, nowhere near 99%)
I can rock the schoolgirl outfit no problem. I love a good kilt.
P.S. I won't fuck 99% of straight men anyway, so... shrug?
scroll up?
Someone into catholic schoolgirls (we're talking highschool, right?) is unlikely to be a pedophile because highschool girls are postpubescent. My discomfort is with someone who would want me to simulate sex with a prepubescent girl.
Not 99% of straight men.
I'm not sure what the percentage of pedophiles is but it's pretty low (count in hebephiles and it gets higher, but still, nowhere near 99%)
I can rock the schoolgirl outfit no problem. I love a good kilt.
P.S. I won't fuck 99% of straight men anyway, so... shrug?
200
Oh okay, if someone expressed a real pedophilic (as in prepubescent) fantasy to me I'd dump them very rapidly.
201
@200: Wait, what? Even in the context of roleplaying/age play? You feel the same way about fantasies of raping someone? This doesn't make sense to me... you understand that fantasies are not always things that people would act out for real, right?
If you dump anyone who's ever had a "bad"/illegal/disturbing fantasy, you're not gonna have that many people left.
If you dump anyone who's ever had a "bad"/illegal/disturbing fantasy, you're not gonna have that many people left.
202
@201, I'm gay, and call me crazy, but although I happily to enjoy role play scenarios involving a coach/high school football player, the idea of a lover who even thinks about pretending to fuck little boys would turn me off. Irrevocably. So would (and in fact has) a guy who was into cross-dressing. (Not that I am comparing the two.) My dick would just cease to respond to these guys. Even if I didn't judge, my dick would judge. We don't control our attractions, and I don't think we need to justify them. They are what they are. I would certainly encourage a sense of safety and honesty in declaring fetishes, so that I could dump them sooner rather than later.
Fortunately, in my experience most gay guys are not into either of these things, so I am not losing sleep over being alone due to this.
Fortunately, in my experience most gay guys are not into either of these things, so I am not losing sleep over being alone due to this.
203
@201, I'm gay, and call me crazy, but although I happily to enjoy role play scenarios involving a coach/high school football player, the idea of a lover who even thinks about pretending to fuck little boys would turn me off. Irrevocably. So would (and in fact has) a guy who was into cross-dressing. (Not that I am comparing the two.) My dick would just cease to respond to these guys. Even if I didn't judge, my dick would judge. We don't control our attractions, and I don't think we need to justify them. They are what they are. I would certainly encourage a sense of safety and honesty in declaring fetishes, so that I could dump them sooner rather than later.
Fortunately, in my experience most gay guys are not into either of these things, so I am not losing sleep over being alone due to this.
Fortunately, in my experience most gay guys are not into either of these things, so I am not losing sleep over being alone due to this.
205
@197: But if they didn't mention something that turned them on, and thus you didn't know about it, it wouldn't matter. Someone having a kink that you don't like doesn't affect you in any way.
I don't think people should be open about their kinks if it means they will get dumped or rejected. If I were dating someone who said "If my partner were into kinks X, Y, Z, I would dump him," I wouldn't reveal those kinks if I had them. Why would I? Their existence doesn't do any harm, and people don't have the right to know everything in their partners' heads so they can decide what they don't like.
Cocky said he'd be irrevocably turned off if his partner revealed some kinks... isn't that a bad thing? If you had a good relationship, and you stopped being attracted to the person even when you WANTED to still be attracted, seems like you wouldn't want to know those kinks.
Basically: it's not fair to dump someone just for having a kink. Since you have the right to do that, your partner also has the right to keep his/her kinks private for fear of being dumped. People should only be open about their kinks if they will not suffer any penalty for revealing them.
I don't think people should be open about their kinks if it means they will get dumped or rejected. If I were dating someone who said "If my partner were into kinks X, Y, Z, I would dump him," I wouldn't reveal those kinks if I had them. Why would I? Their existence doesn't do any harm, and people don't have the right to know everything in their partners' heads so they can decide what they don't like.
Cocky said he'd be irrevocably turned off if his partner revealed some kinks... isn't that a bad thing? If you had a good relationship, and you stopped being attracted to the person even when you WANTED to still be attracted, seems like you wouldn't want to know those kinks.
Basically: it's not fair to dump someone just for having a kink. Since you have the right to do that, your partner also has the right to keep his/her kinks private for fear of being dumped. People should only be open about their kinks if they will not suffer any penalty for revealing them.
206
Blackrose, I was with you up to this post.
First of all, I'm not with you on the "what you don't know won't hurt you" premise, but if that's what you believe then there's not really any way I can get you to see eye to eye.
On the rest of it... I wouldn't want to be in a relationship where I hid something from someone for fear of them dumping me and I don't think anyone with healthy self-respect would. Having a kink (or, as we're implying, orientation) such as the one we're discussing is not inherently immoral. But I do believe that hiding something that your partner would dump you for so that they don't dump you is immoral.
And condescending.
I generally won't date or sleep with a guy if his body fat percentage exceeds that of my glass of milk. That's not really fair either, but hey, I may date whomever I please, and so may cocky.
So to answer your question, yes of course I would still want to know about those kinks. Two reasons...
1. I strongly believe in honesty in relationships. No honesty? No relationship. See above.
2. There's no perfect world where secrets can be perfectly kept. "Oh I'm going to cheat on my wife and she'd be devestated if she found out but she WON'T find out so it's okay". As long as there is human error there's no guarantee that you can keep any secret from someone forever.
First of all, I'm not with you on the "what you don't know won't hurt you" premise, but if that's what you believe then there's not really any way I can get you to see eye to eye.
On the rest of it... I wouldn't want to be in a relationship where I hid something from someone for fear of them dumping me and I don't think anyone with healthy self-respect would. Having a kink (or, as we're implying, orientation) such as the one we're discussing is not inherently immoral. But I do believe that hiding something that your partner would dump you for so that they don't dump you is immoral.
And condescending.
I generally won't date or sleep with a guy if his body fat percentage exceeds that of my glass of milk. That's not really fair either, but hey, I may date whomever I please, and so may cocky.
So to answer your question, yes of course I would still want to know about those kinks. Two reasons...
1. I strongly believe in honesty in relationships. No honesty? No relationship. See above.
2. There's no perfect world where secrets can be perfectly kept. "Oh I'm going to cheat on my wife and she'd be devestated if she found out but she WON'T find out so it's okay". As long as there is human error there's no guarantee that you can keep any secret from someone forever.
207
@205 and 206
I think there is a pretty big difference in what the 2 of you are saying.
@BlackRose, I absolutely agree that it seems silly to dump someone over something they're into. But this is assuming that it is an INTEREST, and not a REQUIREMENT. What mydriasis seems to be saying (and please correct me if I'm wrong), is that she wouldn't want to date someone with these kinks because she feels that, whether they state that they are ok going without them, eventually they will want to act on them and she would be uncomfortable with that.
It seems that we're back on the difference between kink and fetish. But I think it goes further than that. Just because something isn't a fetish, doesn't mean its not a requirement.
For example, I'm into somewhat rough sex. Can I get off without it? Absolutely. Would I be happy in a relationship with a person who was only capable of gentle sex? No way in hell. Yes, I can enjoy gentle sex, but if that was my only option, I wouldn't be able to stay. So, I certainly wouldn't consider it a fetish. I'd consider it a kink perhaps. But it is a requirement, at least a bit.
Counterpoint. Once when fooling around with an ex we both (don't ask me how) slipped into an accent. It was kinda hot at the time, but never happened again. Would I be willing to do it again if it came up? Sure. Will I never enjoy sex again if I find out it can't possibly happen again? Nope. Still good.
So I think the idea is more along the lines of, "Will this person feel cheated if I can't accommodate this interest?" If there was something someone was into that I knew I could never do, even being assured that they were ok going without, I might be concerned. What if it's more important to them than they thought? What it, after going without for a long time, they realize just how important it is? Will they need to go outside the relationship for this (which would be a concern in monogamous relationships only, of course)?
So I can understand why mydriasis might feel the need to just end things then and there with someone who is interested in something she's definitely not. It CAN become an issue down the line. Its hard to decide what's worse, giving up someone with a kink you don't like who may have ended up the love of your life, or giving yourself the opportunity to love that person, only to have your heart broken when they realize their kink is more important than you?
Personally, I'll try a lot of things, but everyone draws a line somewhere. That's just where she draws hers. I think it's awesome how open you are to everything BlackRose, but people like you are fairly rare, I think.
More...
I think there is a pretty big difference in what the 2 of you are saying.
@BlackRose, I absolutely agree that it seems silly to dump someone over something they're into. But this is assuming that it is an INTEREST, and not a REQUIREMENT. What mydriasis seems to be saying (and please correct me if I'm wrong), is that she wouldn't want to date someone with these kinks because she feels that, whether they state that they are ok going without them, eventually they will want to act on them and she would be uncomfortable with that.
It seems that we're back on the difference between kink and fetish. But I think it goes further than that. Just because something isn't a fetish, doesn't mean its not a requirement.
For example, I'm into somewhat rough sex. Can I get off without it? Absolutely. Would I be happy in a relationship with a person who was only capable of gentle sex? No way in hell. Yes, I can enjoy gentle sex, but if that was my only option, I wouldn't be able to stay. So, I certainly wouldn't consider it a fetish. I'd consider it a kink perhaps. But it is a requirement, at least a bit.
Counterpoint. Once when fooling around with an ex we both (don't ask me how) slipped into an accent. It was kinda hot at the time, but never happened again. Would I be willing to do it again if it came up? Sure. Will I never enjoy sex again if I find out it can't possibly happen again? Nope. Still good.
So I think the idea is more along the lines of, "Will this person feel cheated if I can't accommodate this interest?" If there was something someone was into that I knew I could never do, even being assured that they were ok going without, I might be concerned. What if it's more important to them than they thought? What it, after going without for a long time, they realize just how important it is? Will they need to go outside the relationship for this (which would be a concern in monogamous relationships only, of course)?
So I can understand why mydriasis might feel the need to just end things then and there with someone who is interested in something she's definitely not. It CAN become an issue down the line. Its hard to decide what's worse, giving up someone with a kink you don't like who may have ended up the love of your life, or giving yourself the opportunity to love that person, only to have your heart broken when they realize their kink is more important than you?
Personally, I'll try a lot of things, but everyone draws a line somewhere. That's just where she draws hers. I think it's awesome how open you are to everything BlackRose, but people like you are fairly rare, I think.
208
@197: "I'll tell them as soon as I can fire up the time machine and visit them in the late 90's when they still existed?"
I can still see glimpses at Westlake and in the Juggalo-spawn.
I can still see glimpses at Westlake and in the Juggalo-spawn.
209
@207: But that just seems like being misinformed. I understand dumping someone if your sexual needs are incompatible. But if you told someone you were dating that accent story, and they dumped you because they didn't like accents and they were worried you might someday need them to get off, wouldn't you think that they were just not understanding the situation correctly and getting the facts wrong? A random thing that turns you on once in a while will not just turn into a full-blown fetish.
@206: You seem to be confusing thoughts and actions. If you cheat on someone and don't tell them, you've done something wrong and dishonest. Then you're hiding something and keeping a secret.
If you have a random thought that your partner would irrationally dump you for, then it's a different story. Not revealing every thought that comes into your head is not "hiding" something or keeping a secret. Do you tell your partner every single thing you think? Even if it's a mean or unpleasant thought and you know it would offend them?
I don't think "what you don't know won't hurt you," I think that an undisclosed random thought in your partner's head that does not affect you in any way won't hurt you. Again, there is no duty to tell someone you're dating every fantasy that pops into your head and every weird or crazy thought you have. This is very different from cheating.
Ideally, I'd want a relationship where we could be totally honest too. But I believe that honesty and full disclosure require a great deal of trust. And part of that trust is the agreement to be reasonable and not end the relationship over something irrelevant. Ending a relationship over cheating is perfectly reasonable; ending it over a private fantasy isn't. You can have honesty, or you can exercise your right to end a relationship over something minor, but you can't have both.
By the way, I think it's perfectly fair and reasonable to have physical standards for your partners. There's absolutely nothing wrong with requiring a certain body fat percentage, or dumping someone because their body changed. Though I'm curious: less than a glass of milk? That's 3% or so, right? Is that even physically possible? And do you insist on regular weigh-ins to make sure they maintain it?
More...
@206: You seem to be confusing thoughts and actions. If you cheat on someone and don't tell them, you've done something wrong and dishonest. Then you're hiding something and keeping a secret.
If you have a random thought that your partner would irrationally dump you for, then it's a different story. Not revealing every thought that comes into your head is not "hiding" something or keeping a secret. Do you tell your partner every single thing you think? Even if it's a mean or unpleasant thought and you know it would offend them?
I don't think "what you don't know won't hurt you," I think that an undisclosed random thought in your partner's head that does not affect you in any way won't hurt you. Again, there is no duty to tell someone you're dating every fantasy that pops into your head and every weird or crazy thought you have. This is very different from cheating.
Ideally, I'd want a relationship where we could be totally honest too. But I believe that honesty and full disclosure require a great deal of trust. And part of that trust is the agreement to be reasonable and not end the relationship over something irrelevant. Ending a relationship over cheating is perfectly reasonable; ending it over a private fantasy isn't. You can have honesty, or you can exercise your right to end a relationship over something minor, but you can't have both.
By the way, I think it's perfectly fair and reasonable to have physical standards for your partners. There's absolutely nothing wrong with requiring a certain body fat percentage, or dumping someone because their body changed. Though I'm curious: less than a glass of milk? That's 3% or so, right? Is that even physically possible? And do you insist on regular weigh-ins to make sure they maintain it?
210
@207: "Its hard to decide what's worse, giving up someone with a kink you don't like who may have ended up the love of your life, or giving yourself the opportunity to love that person, only to have your heart broken when they realize their kink is more important than you?"
Wouldn't you find that out, either way?
Wouldn't you find that out, either way?
211
@Blackrose
Your idea that there is something objectively "reasonable" to expect or not expect isn't fully rational in my mind. People have their expectations, sometimes they work, sometimes they don't. I've certainly lived up to certain requests others might call 'unreasonable' too. That's love, sometimes.
I wouldn't want to be in a relationship where I worried that disclosing a thought (ANY thought) would get me dumped, but that's never been the case. If I thought that something about my inner workings would end the relationship, I wouldn't want to be in that relationship, I would end it. I certainly wouldn't conceal thoughts I had (erotic or otherwise) for fear of losing the relationship. Once I conceal something, the relationship is already robbed of it's intimacy for me, which is pretty much equally as bad as the relationship being over.
If you're talking about the random thought of being sexual with someone prepubescent popping into the person's head, no I wouldn't dump them after that. A lot of us have things pop into our head that we wouldn't do. Every time I'm on a balcony, the urge to jump pops into my head. (Have at it, Hunter) But that's not the same as a fantasy that a person has a desire to simulate whether or not they're willing to give it up.
Re: body fat
I was being somewhat snarky, but I honestly find myself put off by squishiness on a male body.
"Essential" body fat for men is allegedly 3%. So I'd imagine it IS possible, although in practice I'm sure I really go more towards the 5% range.
Your idea that there is something objectively "reasonable" to expect or not expect isn't fully rational in my mind. People have their expectations, sometimes they work, sometimes they don't. I've certainly lived up to certain requests others might call 'unreasonable' too. That's love, sometimes.
I wouldn't want to be in a relationship where I worried that disclosing a thought (ANY thought) would get me dumped, but that's never been the case. If I thought that something about my inner workings would end the relationship, I wouldn't want to be in that relationship, I would end it. I certainly wouldn't conceal thoughts I had (erotic or otherwise) for fear of losing the relationship. Once I conceal something, the relationship is already robbed of it's intimacy for me, which is pretty much equally as bad as the relationship being over.
If you're talking about the random thought of being sexual with someone prepubescent popping into the person's head, no I wouldn't dump them after that. A lot of us have things pop into our head that we wouldn't do. Every time I'm on a balcony, the urge to jump pops into my head. (Have at it, Hunter) But that's not the same as a fantasy that a person has a desire to simulate whether or not they're willing to give it up.
Re: body fat
I was being somewhat snarky, but I honestly find myself put off by squishiness on a male body.
"Essential" body fat for men is allegedly 3%. So I'd imagine it IS possible, although in practice I'm sure I really go more towards the 5% range.
212
Basically if you can't tell the difference between not saying "I fantasize about fucking little children" and not saying "God, I hate that shirt" then I don't think I can help you.
213
Although the underage son's sweaty undies screams bad parenting, it gave me an idea. I'm an of-age redheaded female with a moist va-jj...I wonder how much I could make selling my panties!!! Laws aside, supporting some guy or gal's undie sniffing kink doesn't strike me as amoral.
214
@213: At least a few hundred a week, especially with some R- or X- rated pics included. Try craigslist or backpage.
215
Except for the possible charge of fraud (and what perv is gonna call the BBB?) why not sell panties/gym clothes that YOU wore, or, better yet, your dog wore for a run and you later rubbed an anchovy on???
RSS
Twitter
Comments (215) RSS