I love your column but I was really disappointed in your one-word answer to “His Secret Love”, the young guy carrying on with the much older married guy. You know, maybe it could work? I think I’ve been successfully pulling off something similar for nearly seven years. I’ve been giving head to my butch thirty-something neighbor who’s married and has two kids. He comes by at least once a week, sometimes three times a week. I’m no kid, though, I’m in my mid-forties. I honestly think that my sucking him off on a regular basis has literally saved his marriage since his wife doesn’t want to have sex at all, whereas I’d suck him off 24/7 if he'd let me, and he knows it. Since he lives nearby, we can pull things off on a moment's notice. By the way, I don’t think he’s gay, and he watches straight porn on his phone when I go down on him, I just think he needs a little affection. Why shouldn’t I give it to him? By the way, I live happily with my longtime partner who, like his wife, knows nothing about this.

My Secret Lust

My response—and a couple of other response letters—after the jump...

······················

Firstly, I'm hoping your longtime partner—to say nothing of this guy's wife—doesn't have the "Savage Love" iPhone ap, MSL. Secondly...

I stand by my advice to HSL. You and your neighbor have reached an accommodation, one that makes it possible for him to remain married. It has the added benefit of giving you great pleasure. So everybody wins! Except your partner and your neighbor's wife, of course. Now I've urged men and women in your neighbor's position—trapped in sexless marriages with kids—to do what they need to do to stay married and stay sane. And he's doing it. Or you're doing it. And you could argue—I would certainly argue—that a it's not just a butch thirty-something that's being serviced here. The greater good—in the form of a stable home for a couple of kids—is also being serviced. But you and Mr. Butch, unlike HSL, are older and settled. HSL, in my opinion, is far too young to settle for a married man. He's too young to be the piece on the side. He deserves better, or at least a shot at something better. If HSL really wants to blow married guys, well, there'll be plenty of time for that when he's old and married himself.

And now a couple of bonus response letters to round out the week...

······················

I read Stainless in San Francisco's response to your column, and the menstrual cup is a great device. However, there is one thing to consider: the menstrual cup can cause IUD expulsion, and women with an IUD should speak to their gynecologist before trying it.

Another Med Student With An IUD

PS: I highly recommend IUDs in general. They are an incredibly effective form of birth control and last for up to 10 years (depending on type used).

······················

While I usually agree with everything you say, to the extent that my partner sometimes thinks I can't form a political opinion without seeing what you have to say about it first, I do have to disagree with your definition of sexual orientation in your response to SUB today.

FWIW, I consider my *primary* sexual identity to be sadism. I have a long list of adjectives to go with that: I'm a polyamorous, bisexual, dominant sadist. But all the adjectives are there *because* of the noun. I'm bisexual because I don't particularly care about the twiddly bits of the person I'm hurting sexually. I'm polyamorous because I like playing with more than one partner and for me, sadism and sex are inseparable. I'm dominant because it seems to go with sadism and it turns me on, but not as much as sadism does. Sounds to me like SUB is in a similar position.

Sadism and dominance are integral to my overall identity. Once I figured out that I was a sadist (when I was about 27 or 28), so much of my likes and dislikes made sense. Art and music I love made more sense: my visceral reaction to Rodin's Eternal Idol suddenly made sense, for example. My fantasies, my relationships, the way I interact with people, whether sexually or not, it all made so much more sense once I figured out the dominant sadist thing. And I'm fortunate in that I'm out to some of my colleagues and it's such a relief that they know and I can be fully myself with them.

So, yes, IMO and in the opinion of a few BDSM theorists out there, sadism, masochism, dominance, and submission can all be *primary* sexual identifications, above and beyond the necessary gender of your partner. Ivo Dominguez Jr.'s Beyond the Skins has a fascinating theory of "polysexuality": "monosexuality" is the theory that the only sexuality that "counts" is the homosexual/bisexual/heterosexual continuum. Dominguez argues instead that there are multiple axes of sexuality that can shift and change with time, activities, and partners. But some people have very strong axes that override others: SUB's submission would be his primary sexual identification, admittedly along with heterosexuality, since he mentions that he always fantasizes about submitting to women. My sadism is gender-non-specific.

The way I try to explain it is, if something is *necessary* not only to the enjoyment of sex, but to having sex in the first place, then it's a sexual identity. For most people, that comes down to the gender of their partner, although people can certainly fake it. Gay people who want to conform for whatever reason can fake straight sex. I can fake vanilla sex very easily, especially as a woman. And I can come, but it takes forever. But if I want to come without a 20 minute, single-minded orgasm quest, I need my (consensual) partner's pain. If I'm hurting someone, I can come almost without thinking about it. If I'm not hurting someone, then...it's not that sex isn't as good. It's sometimes that there's no point to the sex at all.

And certainly there are people who engage in the activities who view sadism, masochism, domination, and submission AS activities, not as identities. But increasingly among my kinky friends, I'm finding that they identify primarily as whatever flavor of kink they are, rather than as gay/bi/straight.

Which is certainly not to negate your other points. I agree with most of the rest of your response to him. SUB does not have to "come out" about his submissiveness to anyone other than his sexual partners. So in that respect, it does NOT compare to the need to "come out" as homosexual in order to have a fulfilling relationship. But SUB *must* come out to himself and to his partners in order to have a fulfilling relationship, and if that isn't a sexual identity, I don't know what is. And I was extraordinarily lucky in that I did move from vanilla to kinky with my primary partner, so I did exactly what you suggested SUB do. However, know that I know for sure, I personally would never date outside the BDSM world. Sadism is *necessary* to my sexual fulfillment, more than anything else. There's no point to me dating vanilla. SUB might be more successful dating vanilla with your "conversion" techniques, but if his submission is as necessary to him as he says, I wouldn't suggest it, personally.

Sign me...

Sadism And Dominance Important Sexuality Terms