I'm with those who think this guy is no good for her.

What this guy definitely sounds like is the kind of guy who believes that there should be no concepts of marital rape or domestic violence. That is, he thinks that she is his to do with as he pleases, and when she said "I do", she consented to it. The key stated facts that lead me to this conclusion are: 1. He doesn't want a safeword, which every responsible dom I've ever come across believes is absolutely essential, and 2. he knows that the sex they're having is seriously hurting her, and yet he takes no steps to change what he's doing. Neither of those are the behavior of someone who has her interests in mind or wants her to be happy.

And I think she's decided to stay with him for much the same reasons that anyone else stays with abusers: Social embarrassment for having a failed relationship (and especially the reasons for it), fear of what the abuser will do if she leaves, the hope that things will get better if she says the right things or does the right things, financial costs that are too high, the belief that the abuse is partially her fault, the abuser's charming manner when not being abusive, etc.

At the very least, these are clearly sexually incompatible people (he has a need to hurt people in order to get off, she hates getting hurt), and that in and of itself could end it.

@101: Brilliant, a lack of empathy for one who lacks empathy. Is that like how homophobes always claim that persons are intolerant of their intolerance?

Look, the guy is not interested in the well-being of his partner. He has hurt others and doesn't seem to have learned very much, and he is not interested in learning more about himself and how to avoid hurting others. There are plenty of resources to help him, and he has shut them all out.

@102--And countering your conclusions are the fact that, 1) when she says she is not interested in the kind of sex he wants, the subject is dropped. "We did not do anything and we did not talk about it anymore." He does not pester, nag, or relentlessly pursue, as some kinksters are wont to do (apparently). Above all, he doesn't go ahead and do it anyway, which would be rape and/or assault. So apparently he does respect limits, although when given them he finds a way to hurt her even during piv vanilla sex, which makes him a sneaky, sadistic douche. Not saying the guy's likeable. I'm saying there's better than even odds he's not a serial killer. 2) The line everyone is ignoring about him not liking sex because "he was exercising so much control in order to ensure he did not cross any lines or hurt me" (which I'm having a hard time reconciling with the cervix-pounding statement). Guy is exercising control of some sort. Seems to realize his needs are not acceptable.

He's a grade-A asshole on some levels. But as 101 pointed out, you can either assume he is a psychopath in development, or be all boring and assume that he has kinks he didn't ask for and has a hard time coming to terms with, and is simply confused, uninforrmed, misguided, selfish, ashamed, needy, and with a woman who is unable to meet his needs. The letter supports both interpretations.

Me, I'm going with psychopath, because I like the idea of a serial killer who feels "emotionally crappy" after hurting someone. It's a nice change from the garden variety remorseless type. Plus it's more entertaining to have someone write in asking for sex advice and finding out her husband's the next Ted Bundy. Sort of like going to the doctor's to get a cut looked at, and being told you have terminal cancer.

"1. his not having to exercise that much control and 2. pushing the other person past whatever limits or boundaries they have"

This? This right here? This is sketchy as fuck. DTMFA.

@101: Lack of empathy, my ass. I'm empathizing with his victims, moron. You know, like the wife who asked him for a safeword, and he said no, keeping her safe would spoil it for him? Who is trying to steer poor, benign, clueless him in the right direction, only he's having none of it? Who, when she put the brakes on the BDSM because he clearly wasn't safe, he switched to really shitty sex that give her no pleasure and causes her pain?

He is doing things to people that don't want those things done to them. Sexual things. Deliberately. He _wants_ to do these things specifically knowing that his partners don't want to be subjected to them. That is a textbook-perfect definition of sexual assault (if not necessarily a strict definition of rape; only in so far as, for example, giving someone's nipple a cigarette burn does not involve genital penetration and therefore is not rape; nonetheless utterly indefensible under any doctrine save "she said it would be acceptable" which is NOT the case here.)

And he does not want to learn how to keep his partners safe. He has made that crystal clear. He has specifically said that that would spoil it for him.

It is not I who lacks empathy, it is you who lacks basic reasoning skills. Are you by any chance LW's husband?

@107: The way you casually jump over the fact that no actual victimization is described in the letter in the rush to make the writer in to a victim... again, it's terrifying to me. I am just so creeped out imagining the kind of mind that derives this:

"He is doing things to people that don't want those things done to them. Sexual things. Deliberately."

From this:

"So we didn't do anything and we didn't talk about it anymore.... Meanwhile, when we did have sex, he wasn't having satisfying sex because he was exercising so much control in order to ensure he didn't cross any lines or hurt me."

You don't have to like it (I certainly wouldn't), but consensual non-consent IS a thing. She said no and they didn't do it. I'm not saying the guy is smart or emotionally evolved -- I'm saying a conclusions of rapist/sexual assaulter/serial killer/whatever is not actually supported by the text of this letter.

The only thing that really even nods at this is the "ow" after "cervix pounding" -- that part of the letter is at least vague enough to suggest other interpretations, unlike the clear and unambiguous statements about how he's never tried to push her limits without obtaining pre-consent, and that their entire sex life is him being very controlled and putting effort into not hurting her. To me the "ow" doesn't sound like it's saying "ow, I have just been sexually assaulted", it sounds like "ow, that wasn't so comfortable for me, but I'd do it for you occasionally -- if we didn't have to do it every time." I go with the latter interpretation, based off the fact that she in fact did it several times, and expresses only discomfort and no violation in response to it.

Have you never done anything sexually that you personally disliked or found uncomfortable or even slightly painful, but the other person really loved it so you didn't mind doing it for them now and again? I certainly have -- and I also would have lost interest in ever doing it if it became the only thing on the menu. (And obviously no one should be doing anything that they TRULY hate or that will leave them feeling horrible, violated, etc. But there are degrees to these things. "Ow" doesn't prove sexual assault)

It's just chilling to me that anyone can look at what she has written and not only imagine this extreme rapist/sexual assault conclusion out of it, but think their hysterical over-reaction is the OBVIOUS one. These are the types of minds the rest of us have to pray never end up serving on any juries.

(And, just for the record, though I would think it would be obvious, I do think his idea is bad and her response is correct, and he is certainly wrong in the way he is handling this situation. None of that equates with being a rapist-in-waiting)

If it's "chilling" to you, you should probably not deny someone a safe word and push their boundaries past what they have allowed you (repeatedly.)

@108: Read the letter again. Slower this time.

I'm not sure if Ayn Rand and Avast are trolls, or really just that uncomprehending? Or (serious question) are you guys just kids who don't have too much real-life experience with sex yet? Even by silly internet standards, it gives me a chuckle to be lectured on reading comprehension by people whose entire argument amounts to insisting the letter says something that not only does it NOT say, but something it explicitly disavows.

But, you know, best wishes. I'm thinking you'll both grow up someday and realize how foolishly rigid & clueless you came off as in exchanges like this. It happens to all of us! (Well, most of us)

@111: Haven't you got a Kruger that needs Dunning, or something?

About that reading comprehension....

"my husband told me he is a sexual sadist."

In other words, he likes hurting people for sexual gratification.

"his tendencies had led him to cross some lines in past relationships."

In other words, he has done things to previous girlfriends that they didn't want done to them. That's what "crossing a line" means.

"I offered the possibility of exploring his predilections as long as we could start of [sic] slowly and use a safe word. "

In other words, she is trying to steer him towards exploration in a way that would allow her to feel (and be) safe.

"He didn't think this would work well, "

In other words, he is having none of it.

"as part of what he gets off on is 1. his not having to exercise that much control and 2. pushing the other person past whatever limits or boundaries they have. "

In other words, not only does he want to not have to bother about keeping his partner safe, he specifically gets off by working in the arena where his partner does not want what he is doing to them. That's what "pushing past whatever limits or boundaries they have" means.

"So we didn't do anything and we didn't talk about it anymore."

In other words, rather than try it her way, he said forget it, and spent the next four years pouting.

"Our sex life devolved over the next four years to the point where I resented him because the majority of the sex we did have was a blowjob followed by cervix pounding (ow). "

In other words, since she told him he doesn't get to hurt her the way he wants to, he is not going to do anything for her pleasure, and continues to hurt her as much as he can get away with in the context of vanilla sex.

"Meanwhile, when we did have sex, he wasn't having satisfying sex because he was exercising so much control in order to ensure he didn't cross any lines or hurt me."

Except he WAS hurting her, stupid.

@112: Exactly. JyLckhart seems very set on the idea of a magical being who is capable of caring for their partner while at the same time rejecting immediately and fully any protections the partner asks for, because it would get in the way of an immersive cruelty.

There is certainly a difference between play and honestly not giving a shit about your partner. As per D-K, Jay seems to ~think~ he's smart enough to tell the difference without any ability for the partner to indicate when they want and need you to back the fuck off. It doesn't reflect well on him, either.

What EricaP describes may be capable in a couple, but not this particular couple, not this sadist. And Jay is certainly not bright enough to handle it either, from what it sounds like.

Even in "limitless" play, there are bound to be limits. To say otherwise- that shit belongs in the fantasy smut novels, not a living, breathing relationship.

"Meanwhile, when we did have sex, he wasn't having satisfying sex because he was exercising so much control in order to ensure he didn't cross any lines or hurt me."

I take that to mean that she had always accepted some cervix pounding, because that's how PIV works with their bodies, in order for him to come. But in the early days they had some other sex that was fun for her -- maybe oral on her, or doggie style, or something.

When she refused to go along with his extreme kink, he stopped doing the stuff for her. Leaving her high & dry. If so, then he's more at fault ("oral comes standard"), but probably they're just not compatible anymore.

I think they should separate for a year, and explore with other people. Then see how much they miss each other and whether he has learned enough to be a safe and generous partner for her.

@112--You were doing well up until "and spent the next four years pouting". That's hyperbole, and pure interpretation on your part. The LW does not mention pouting, nor does she seem to have a problem with her husband in general. She has a problem with their shitty sex life.

"In other words, rather than try it her way, he said forget it." It's not "her way", she's not interested in S&M at all. It's her trying to meet his kinks halfway, and all he did was shoot himself in the foot and torpedo their relationship by refusing to compromise on what he wants. The follow-up is that they spent the next four years not exploring what gets him off. Or discussing it. At all. It was vanilla sex, with him sneaking in cervix banging as often as he could. Which makes him shitty on so many levels, but that's as far as it went. There was no rape, no assault, no killing stray animals (as far as we know), and apparently enough other good things that the relationship is worth working on. If you want to extrapolate bad things based on his kinks, his poor communication, and his poor grasp of what it means to be someone's partner, the facts certainly support that. But that's your interpretation, and brace yourself, it is not necessarily the only one. I think you could also say that the LW seems fairly switched on, knows when to draw and hold limits, does the heavy lifting in the relationship, at least emotionally, and still thinks there's something worth working on. Neither of them wants divorce, remember? So why should you dismiss her and speak on her behalf instead of accepting that maybe she has more insight into the relationship than you do after reading five paragraphs?

Okay, sure, maybe she's blind to the abusive relationship that she's in. Or maybe not. I don't recall reading anything about him isolating her, monitoring her phone calls, turning friends and family against her, etc. Maybe he is, it just wasn't mentioned. There's simply no way to know, there aren't enough facts. But the LW seems optimistic and constructive. Again, why dismiss her?

But let's say your interpretation is correct. So if things are as desperate as you say, what should she do? Walk? And then what happens? He doesn't just disappear from the face of the earth once his wife divorces him. I really don't see the satisfaction or benefit (entertainment and schadenfreude aside) in waving your hands and saying, "This guy's a rapist and a psycho-in-training and a hopeless case, kick him to the curb yesterday."

@117 okay fair enough. If the guy's a total loss it's not her fucking problem. But she doesn't feel he's a total loss. I'm not sure why, but I'm saying we should respect that, not second-guess her.

The immense self-control he allegedly exerts during sex so as not to (more severely) hurt her would be more impressive if he had not apparently been capable of a much higher level of self-control in the past. She turned him down for sexual sadism play with no safeword or limits, and all of a sudden his ability to not be an asshole in bed took a nosedive.

He's either no longer trying very hard, or he's getting increasingly unable to overcome his desire to hurt her. Unwilling or unable, neither says "keeper."

How many closeted kinksters, disclosing their interest at long last to a trusted spouse who responded "...okay. I could try to explore that with you, with limits..." would respond "No! NO LIMITS! Any limit at all makes it no fun! I can just tell, even though I kinda supposedly don't know anything about my kink."

Limits and care for a tentative spouse would be reasonable for something like "let's try anal" or "I want to cross-dress." For something where "You just broke my arm!" is a concept that might need to be conveyed, it's ridiculous.

@118: We understand the desire to figure things out on her end without divorcing. His lack of respect for her and selfish shrugs when she offers to integrate herself into his wants demands no respect from us. We don't know anything else about the relationship, only what she calls out here. Maybe there's something she conveniently left out, but what she's stated is more than enough for us to comfortably DTMFA if he's unable to respect his partner(s).

EricaP: It's all well and good that you enjoy kink sessions with no limits. However, you're not telling us anything new: your doms push your limits because you want to have your limits pushed. So that lack of a limit is still your decision, yes? Sure, your dom might surprise you when they tell you that a particular session will not have a safe word, but hopefully this occurs after it is made known to them that you actively like that type of play and that they have your permission to do this now and then. And that is what is important here.

If you did not like to have your limits pushed, then a dom who does this would not be indulging you. He would be sexually assaulting you.

Tossing away the safe word is not something for doms to unilaterally impose on subs without the sub's prior consent based on the off-chance that this given sub may get off on it (that philosophy towards kink will lead to disaster way more often than not). Nor is it something that one should be guilted or pestered into participating in, and it's not something that should just be imposed on unsuspecting partners when a dom decides to "cross some lines."

The fact that he would approach it this way is not excused by his alleged ignorance of his own kink. It betrays more than rustiness or ignorance; namely, a complete lack of concern for the very concept of consent, which is extremely important even in "limitless" sessions.

In the context of this letter, there are just too many issues for me to cut this guy any slack. His alleged line-crossing, his refusal to compromise or take things slow even in the exploratory stage (fucking really?), his pouting, even his apparent insistence that finding him a girlfriend is her responsibility: when all these things combine, they don't paint a picture of someone with a daring desire for hot, mutually pleasurable boundary-pushing. They paint a picture of someone whose approach towards kink is unhealthy and dangerous. He has only shown enough concern to stay out of trouble. His cavalier attitude towards consent and his absolute lack of concern for his partners' needs are huge red flags, and this doesn't change when it's dressed up as a kink for limit-pushing.

@121--I'm not saying respect him. Guy sounds like a douche, and that's being kind, but IPJ just covered all that. I'm saying why not respect her. She doesn't want to DTMFA, she has specifically ruled that out, for reasons not supplied in the letter. Why not assume they're compelling ones? If she were in danger I'd say get out anyway, but she gives no indication that after four years of denying him his unreasonable kinks, that she fears for her safety. Which kind of takes the mickey out of all the psychopath/abuser/rapist comments upthread. But unless you feel you have greater insight into her relationship than she does, and wish to volunteer drastic advice she never asked for, the only relevant advice seems to be precisely what Dan said way back at the beginning.

First off, I need to reiterate that this isn't my kind of scene anymore. And I said @115 that this couple isn't compatible, not now, maybe not ever.

But I'm trying to convey that there are (at least) two different approaches to BDSM. Most people take the "clean, well-lighted" approach, going slowly and emphasizing consent, safety, and fun for both people.

But there is a whole "dark & scary" approach as well. And there are both doms AND subs who only want the "dark & scary" approach. This approach is NOT safe. It's dangerous like extreme sports are dangerous. It's dangerous for the sub, who may get hurt or killed, and it's dangerous for the dom, who may lose a loved one and go to prison. Nevertheless, some people seek out that kind of approach. Scolding them and saying it isn't safe is not going to keep them from seeking it out.

124: Nobody is merely scolding him for seeking out "extreme" BDSM. Again, we're scolding him for being wildly unscrupulous and irresponsible in his attempts to get others to seek it out with him. That's a very important distinction to gloss over.

@124: "But there is a whole "dark & scary" approach as well. And there are both doms AND subs who only want the "dark & scary" approach. This approach is NOT safe. It's dangerous like extreme sports are dangerous. It's dangerous for the sub, who may get hurt or killed, and it's dangerous for the dom, who may lose a loved one and go to prison. Nevertheless, some people seek out that kind of approach. Scolding them and saying it isn't safe is not going to keep them from seeking it out."

Is the SLLOTD an advice column or "do whatever harmful codependent shit you want and be miserable and taken physically and emotionally advantage of" column? I must have missed that.

@123: "I'm saying why not respect her. She doesn't want to DTMFA, she has specifically ruled that out, for reasons not supplied in the letter. Why not assume they're compelling ones?"

Because she hasn't mentioned them. Just that she doesn't want to divorce him... yet. Which is natural, no matter how shitty the partner. Respecting her isn't respecting the idea that this guy will change, when he has shut himself off.

@LateBloomer and JyLckhart

You're hyperbolizing the other points of view on this thread to discredit them, which is intellectually dishonest at best.

Do you know why so many people have reacted with alarm to the contents of this SLLOTD? Because they've been abused, or know people who have been abused, and the LW spells out behavior that is easily recognizable as red flags for potential abuse, for those who know what to look for. Not only that, but the LW acknowledges that these are repeated patterns of behavior on her husband's part. Her husband might as well be wearing a sign that says, "High probability of hurting women."

Now, yes, there is a pile-on on the husband in this thread. But what that should signify to you is not how irrational SLOG commenters are, but that a lot of people here have knowledge (probably intimate knowledge) about abusive behavior. Which I think not only makes them qualified to comment, but hopefully helps the LW in realizing that her marriage could become an untenable threat to her safety.

Maybe the LW really wants to work it out with her husband, fine. But that doesn't mean that well-intentioned, informed people shouldn't warn her when they see legitimate cause to do so. And if the commentariat doesn't care about the husband's welfare in this situation, they're free to dismiss him because at the very least, he didn't write this letter.

And you guys are free to defend him. But if the best you can do that is by mischaracterizing the advice of everyone else on this thread as something other than looking out for the welfare of the LW, then your arguments are pretty weak sauce.

Maybe you should ask yourselves why so many here are so quick to see signs for potential domestic violence and/or sexual assault. Maybe it's not paranoia. Maybe it has to do with the prevalence of DV in our society and/or the relative paucity of protective resources available to victims and potential victims.

@128--No. If you go back over my posts, you'll see I'm not defending the LW's husband, and I'm not saying it's impossible that he's abusive, controlling and dangerous. I'm saying that's something you have to read into what she says. It's an interpretation. It may even be the most likely interpretation, provided you discount the LW's point of view, which frankly is a bit arrogant, but if it makes her realize the situation she's in that's all to the good. But it is "intellectually dishonest" to say that no other reading of the letter is possible.

Speaking of hyperbole: you do realize that at least two people have concluded the LW's husband is a serial killer?

Your claims that we're discounting the LW's POV are ridiculous. Her not wanting to get divorced is not being ignored. Abusive? Most certainly. It's his interest and drive as described.

Controlling? I don't know who stated that. But, to an extent, he does want to pull all the strings. Dangerous? Certainly, as discussed earlier.

He may not be some sort of SPREE MURDERER as you're obsessed with bringing up, but why stick with someone who you are an admitted terrible match for? Not wanting to get divorced is not always a valid reason to not get divorced. You may consider that patronizing, but people often don't understand how bad they have it until they're out.

I'm trying to imagine a conversation around the whole blow job/cervix-pounding rut:

Wife: "Honey, I feel like our love-making is lacking of late. You don't seem concerned with my pleasure; our sex seems focused on you."

Husband: "I miss pleasuring you, my love, really I do. But, you should be grateful. If I focus on giving you an orgasm I will be unable to focus on restraining myself from hurting you against your will, which is what really turns me on and, let's not forget, what you have denied us when you suggested that we use a safeword. Your failure to attend to my sexual needs has made our neglect of your sexual needs that much more urgent; it's for your own good."

Granted, no two human beings have ever talked like that... ever... but this letter rings to me like textbook emotional abuse in that the abused has internalized the abuser's rationalizations and ceaseless turns of tables.

And that leads me to a genuine question. If we're going to argue that his "interests" are as a dominant/top/sadist in a yet-to-be-explored BDSM community, aren't we implying that all dominants/tops/sadists are merely rapists on leashes? I'm a bottom, and I can tell you that that is not at all how I understand play, whether safeword or "consensual-non-consent." I thought that part of the thrill was a knowing sense that the person being topped is getting off too, i.e. that the pain is a route to pleasure, not an end in itself.

Parallel: I do various kinds of ballroom dancing and, every so often, I'll come across a guy who takes this absolute position on "I Lead/you follow" where any mistakes that happen are the follower's fault and the follower is expected to be a prop for this male lead to show off his own skills. These kinds of guys (and, thankfully, they are rare) don't get that the best follower in the world will dance shittily if she doesn't enjoy being led by you.

I would hope that BDSM practitioners have come to a similar kind of understanding that that kind of subtlety and negotiation are always at play in any scene. Remember, this is "play," yes? Cops and robbers with your pants off? If Dan's characterization is correct, and I have always thought it was, doesn't it, implicitly, involve camp? In addition to role playing in pursuit of mutual pleasure?

I don't get any of that from this letter. Instead, I get "I want to push women to do things against their will because I get off on hurting them." And aren't those the kinds of people BDSM communities seek to purge?

"Remember, this is "play," yes? "

No, this is totally different! It's Non-abusive abuse!

maddy811 @131, most doms are perfectly nice people, just playing a game to please their partner, not "rapists on leashes." You're right that the public face of BDSM, the part with non-profits and fundraising efforts, does try to purge the other people, the ones who gravitate to the dark side of BDSM.

But that doesn't actually make those people vanish. They just go underground and have to work harder to find each other.

It's still about pleasure, for most of the dark-side folks too. Generally they seek people who have compatible dark needs, because it's inconvenient to keep having to find new partners, especially from prison. Much better to find someone who loves receiving what you love to give. But what these dark-side folks find pleasurable is not going to sound pleasurable to you. Because it's not pleasurable in the moment (for the one receiving the sadist's attention); the pleasure comes later.

Most of us would be horrified to learn that our partner felt a need to diaper us, and treat us as a baby. But an adult baby would love to find such a person, someone who wasn't merely tolerating the adult baby's fetish but actually loved it.

Similarly, the LW, who doesn't even has a minor interest in BDSM, is a bad fit for her husband. But if her husband ever figures himself out, he'll find many people will value what he has to offer -- there are many more people who want to be terribly hurt than there are sadists eager to hurt them. As with any other kink, it's depressing to know that your partner is only hurting you to get you off, when you dearly want to believe that they're hurting you because they themselves need to do that.

@133: "Because it's not pleasurable in the moment (for the one receiving the sadist's attention); the pleasure comes later."

Yes, it's called a post-hoc rationalization.

"Most of us would be horrified to learn that our partner felt a need to diaper us, and treat us as a baby."

Give us a fucking break, humiliation play has absolutely nothing to do with the "dark side no limits sadism".

133: You keep trying to explain to us how a sub might derive pleasure from the type of no-holds-barred play that the LWs husband likes. But that's not what we're arguing about here; we already understand that some people find it pleasurable. Good for them.

The problem here is how he responds to those who do NOT find it pleasurable, including his wife. This isn't just a bunch of sloggers being squicked out at how extreme the LW's husband likes his BDSM. We're alarmed about at how he goes about pursuing it.

If he had a more conscientious approach to getting people to engage in extreme BDSM sessions with him, but simply couldn't convince her to go as far as he wanted to, THEN it would be a simple case of incompatibility. But since his tactics for introducing people to this kink include browbeating, withholding pleasure, insisting on an all-or-nothing deal, and possibly even just going for it without their permission, this isn't just a bunch of sloggers being prudish scolds about a fetish that's just too "dark" for our little minds to fathom (and note: while browbeating, withholding, and taking what you want can all be great kink activities, that's not what's going on in this case).

My opinion would be the same if he were a boring vanilla guy using these same tactics to try and get someone to have plain ol' missionary position sex with him through a hole in the sheet while Jesus nods approvingly from heaven. If she's willing but has some reasonable caveats (eg, wants a condom), and he uses guilt and sexual sabotage to try and get his way, that would be a red flag. And if he had a history of "slipping up" with previous women, that makes him dangerous, even though it's only boring old Slogger-approved vaginal intercourse. On a bed of roses. After a nice candlelit dinner.

You're implying that our viewpoints are based on simple shock, but (at least in my case) it's the opposite: I'm not so dazzled by the exoticism of his kink as to let it blind me to the same standard of consent I have for all sex acts, from handjobs to breath play. That's the entire reason the acts you mention are described as "consensual non-consent." That first word there makes all the difference, and the coercion he's trying to use here is clearly distinct from the fun "coercion" that doms use.

This, and not a failure to "get" why some people might like this level of kink, is why we're judging him so harshly: We are actually distinguishing between "shocking" sex and abuse, not lumping them together as you imply.

Dunning–Kruger is really the best analogy so far on the topic. Whether it's academically possible for someone to do this in any sort of relationship or not, someone who takes this with shrugs and casual brushoffs is most certainly not smart enough to understand the forces and risks that they're messing with.

Meta comment: From this day forward I will meditate on this thread any time I suspect I may be unwittingly projecting my own issues and over-interpreting a letter.

@126:

Is the SLLOTD an advice column or "do whatever harmful codependent shit you want and be miserable and taken physically and emotionally advantage of" column?

Is this the shitty ad feminam dig of yore that I think it is?

It was in response to "Scolding them and saying it isn't safe is not going to keep them from seeking it out."

Of course some persons are going to seek out self-harm. But why endorse it? I mean, should people not try to convince others to use condoms during sex because others won't? It's a really bizarre thing to say.

Bonefish @135, I haven't been addressing your posts because generally they seem reasonable to me. I'm speaking to the posters who are denying that the dark version of BDSM is acceptable for anyone to practice, even with a willing partner. Look at posts 14, 52, 126, 134 & 138, for some examples.

You say @135 that he has been browbeating her -- I don't see that in the letter. He doesn't enjoy their sex life, and isn't motivated to make sex good for her any longer. That means he's not GGG. It doesn't make him an abuser.

Many posters are taking the cervix-pounding as evidence of his sadism getting out of control, but that's not clear in the letter. She doesn't say that they have another position they could use, that doesn't bump her cervix. She doesn't treat it as sadistic; she treats it as unpleasant, and says that it makes her not want sex. But since he doesn't enjoy their sex life anyway... they're in a downward spiral. Which will, presumably, lead to divorce, as it should. [See also my thoughts on this at @88 and 115].

@138 why do you think something that gives unendurable pain in the moment but pleasure in the long run is reprehensible? Is it wrong to choose to have an unmedicated, painful childbirth? Is it wrong to put nipple clamps on and leave them for a while, knowing that you will be unable to escape the terrible pain associated with removing these clamps?

@116: I based "pouting" on LW's statement that their sex life "devolved" to nothing better than blowjobs for him and painful cervix poking for her. It's difficult to suss out whether cervix-pounding was part of their sex life before the big discussion, but apparently he was at least capable of pleasing her. Then, after she tried to accommodate him, albeit with a perfectly sane and reasonable set of safeguards, which he rejected, they stopped talking and the sex went downhill -- rather more egregiously on his part than hers, in that she at least IS still making him come, and ISN'T hurting him, neither of which are true on his part.

@139 Erica: Wait, what? I never said it is wrong under any circumstances to work without a safeword, most especially not "with a willing partner." Quite the contrary, a willing partner is the only thing that makes it acceptable. I thought I had addressed that in #73, when I mentioned that it was all well and good for you, because you have stated you like that sort of thing, but it doesn't apply to LW.

I did say that no safeword during the session means that he doesn't get a safeword out in real life, should he get so carried away during the session that you become angry enough to want revenge afterwards. If he can't agree to take on as much risk as he is dishing out, then he's a fucking pansy hypocrite, not a big, dark, scary Dom.

I'm sorry, EricaP, but I think you're projecting your edge and experience onto this situation in a way that misrepresents and unduly flatters the husband. This guy isn't a varsity-level uber-Dom in the rough, as evidenced most readily by his refusal to even begin basic training in BDSM. Just as children don't start playing basketball by heading straight for slam dunks, an experienced dom wouldn't demand that a novice and markedly-less interested partner forego a safeword (and, by the sounds of it, any pleasure) and then childishly punish that partner for years afterward for making the suggestion of taking it slow and safe in the first place. That's not a pro-dom in the making; that's a selfish and abusive asshat.

I think your replies here reek of smugness. Ok, ok, ok, the folks who practice "consensual non-consent" may in fact be the penultimate of the kinkiest of the baddyiest to forever shame the lame wannabe readers of Fifty Shades of Grey. So be it, but I still don't think that's the best context for this letter. The best context for this letter is a bad marriage.

avast, @14 you said “You might want to question whether you do in fact want to be married to a domestic violence abuser, which he unquestionably wants to be,”

@52 you said "He wants to be able to operate in the area beyond which she would revoke consent. That in itself is what turns him on. That in itself is also the very definition of rape."

I'm trying to explain that as long as the global consent is in place, people can be happy going through scenes where they revoke consent in the moment. I don't see how he "unquestionably" wants to be an abuser or a rapist. In my reading, he wants an appreciative submissive, not a resentful one.

It seems to me that he finds himself stuck with this unpleasant kink, and an incompatible spouse. If you leave out the cervix-pounding, which she doesn't consider sadistic, I don't see what he has done to her that anyone could call abusive. He has simply withdrawn from the marriage, as has she, with her disinterest in sex and disinclination to pressure him to return to the sex she used to enjoy (or even to mention that sex to Dan).

maddy @142, I agree with you that this is a bad marriage. I think they should separate and date other people.

But I disagree with your interpretation of my posts. I'm not saying that dark folks are superior in any way. That's why I compared them to people who like to diaper adult-babies. (Also, I'm not one of them, so I'm not trying to claim to be kinkier than thou.)

I think the LW's husband is depressed to have such an unappealing kink, and has not gone out to educate himself enough to learn that he will probably be able to find someone who will like his kink. His pool of partners is, however, going to be limited to people who have the compatible kink. Dan says to present your kink as a special bonus, but that won't work with diaper-fetishes, or with dark BDSM. Anyone vanilla is not going to be intrigued, they're going to be horrified, and even most kinksters will find you unappealing. It's a step up from pedophilia, bestiality and vorarephilia, but that's about it.

@142, also, of course he's not an experienced dom. He's as novice to all this as she is. And he's stuck with the kink, probably hates himself, and is terrified of hurting someone, so it's not surprising that he's not actively educating himself. He just wishes his desires would go away. But they don't. And normal BDSM doesn't scratch his itch in any way. So since she would only be doing the normal BDSM for him, and it wouldn't do anything for him, can't you see why he wouldn't bother going down that path? Normal BDSM doesn't lead to dark BDSM, just as buying someone lingerie isn't the first step along a path that leads to buying them diapers.

Better to break up and find someone compatible.

@143: Those statements were made in the context of LW, who hasn't given global consent. Also in the context of the previous girlfriends, who I am assuming did not give global consent. They don't equate to "never, ever, ever, under any circumstances."

Besides, global consent is still consent. If you had a partner who told you that you had no safeword, and you went along with it, you basically consented. But if you objected, told him you hadn't agreed to that, that you weren't kidding, and he did it anyway, that was rape. (And no amount of you extolling how cool it was after the fact will change that. So, you liked it. We get it. It still fit the legal definition of rape. Some other person who didn't like it could prosecute for it.)

I do worry a bit that, in line with the way he formulates his desire, the more extreme the consent given, the more extreme he is going to feel driven to behave in order to push past her boundaries. Sounds dangerous. I also wonder a bit if his real kink is about feeling horrible about himself afterwards, which also sounds dangerous: is he going to escalate in order to enhance the charge he gets out of self-loathing?

You know, the really dumb part is that taking his objections at face value, he's basically missing the point. Allowing her a safeword gives him more freedom, not less. As described in the letter, he thinks he has to be all worried and careful about not crossing a line, when the reality is that giving her a safeword offloads responsibility for her boundaries on to her. He doesn't have to guess where her boundaries are; she will TELL him when she's had enough.

It also enhances the verisimilitude, in that she can scream, groan, beg, plead, vilify him, whatever, and as long as she doesn't say "ethernet" or whatever the hell obvious non-sequitur they chose, he by definition hasn't violated her consent. She is consenting by not yanking the emergency brake.

He can play as hard as he wants up to that point. (Okay, that's not strictly true; they really should have a discussion in advance where she lays out anything strictly off limits.) All he has to do is respect when she says "ethernet," meaning "Okay, I'm done. Lights on, ropes off. NOW." But if he still doesn't want to do that, then we are back to square one, where I consider him a rapist, an abuser, and a psychopath.

I don't know enough about this kink to say this guy's a "rapist in the making," but it sure sounds like the letter writer is getting a raw deal (and not just her poor cervix). She offered to give it a go, with some reasonable precautions, not good enough for him... so what's he doing for HER needs? Every fuck is a blowjob and a cervical pounding? I'd love to know if he ever goes down on her. He might not be Ted Bundy, but he sure sounds like one selfish motherfucker. God I hope they don't have kids.

@146, it's true that the LW hadn't given global consent, but it's also true that the LW's husband never exercised his sadistic kink on her. He just asked if he could. [Again, I refuse to see cervix-pounding PIV as intentional sadism, since she doesn't.]

People who explain their intense awful kinks but don't do anything abusive deserve better than to be called domestic violence abusers and rapists.

>> the more extreme the consent given, the more extreme he is going to feel driven to behave in order to push past her boundaries >>
--That's not an issue, as far as I've heard. If sadists find a partner who likes to have these awful horrible scenes and is happy and grateful afterward, they tend to appreciate such people and not work to make their partner unhappy and resentful in day-to-day life.

(Now, of course, dysfunctional relationships and domestic violence exist at every stage along the vanilla-kink spectrum, and I'm not saying dark sadists are immune to those issues. But I don't think it's a normal progression.

Also, I need to point out that you are COMPLETELY wrong about safewords.

Having a safeword in place does NOT mean that the dom can ignore all other forms of verbal and non-verbal communication. It's just a technique for letting people say "no, no, no" if they like to scream that. But if the sub goes quiet all of a sudden, the dom damn well better check that they're okay, and not assume "no safeword = okay." In fact, the dom had better have a good sense of how the sub is doing at all times -- never, ever rely on the absence of safeword as an indication that the sub is fine.

Additionally: a "no-safeword" scene does not mean "no communication." So the sub can yell safeword, the sub can yell "STOP or I'll call the police when I get out of this!", the sub can yell "ow I think you broke my arm!"

The "no-safeword" part doesn't mean the dom CAN'T stop, it just means that the dom hasn't promised to stop when they hear safeword. It's up to the dom. But a sane dom will of course evaluate whether they can continue safely or not, depending on the verbal & non-verbal communication they get from the sub.

and more....

"Allowing her a safeword gives him more freedom, not less"

No. Safeword just substitutes for the words "no" and "stop" (and their synonyms). It doesn't do anything else, legally, morally, practically, or in any other way.

Whether she expresses her limits by saying "stop" or "safeword" makes no difference. If he isn't turned on by scenes that stay within her limits, then he isn't turned on by that -- and there's no point in those scenes for either of these people.

The guy needs training and education in how to play safely with his dangerous kink. He should learn how to deliver intense amounts of pain in ways that don't damage the body, and whatever else dark doms need to know. But he won't learn any of that playing with his wife.

He won't learn any of that because not even limits, but a sense of responsibility or even knowledge about what he's doing would apparently destroy his idea of "fun". So she (or whomever gets him afterwards) is left with a man-child, pouting and stomping his feet.

We're going in circles. You're more interested in the LW's safety, and I get that. I support the consensus that this marriage should end.

But I'm not writing for the LW, or for her husband (who may never even know about this thread). I'm writing for the people who share his kink and are reading this thread. (Hi, out there!) They may be as uninformed as he is, and depressed as hell about their kink.

I just want to give them hope that if they take classes or find a mentor to learn how to avoid permanent damage, they have a good shot at finding love with a compatible partner who also craves that dark kind of BDSM.

There are 2 parts of the "dark kind of BDSM" that concern me:

1. You need to be ensuring that either partner can, at any time, revoke consent and end whatever it is that's happening. That's legally true for perfectly vanilla sex too: If you're going at it with somebody, and they say "stop", you're supposed to stop, right then and there, even if they previously consented to the activity 15 minutes earlier. That's why measures like safewords exist.

2. There are some kinks that cannot be justifiably satisfied, ever. There's no morally and legally justifiable way for a pedophile to completely satisfy their lust for prepubescent children. There's no morally and legally justifiable way for someone who gets off on killing innocent people to satisfy their kink (although that's an extremely rare phenomenon, it does happen, as a few high profile serial killers have demonstrated). And that sucks for whoever can't enjoy the sex they want, but it helps everyone else function.

@153, I agree with you that it is not legal to take someone past the point where they revoke consent in the scene.

But it is not immoral, assuming they are sane and really want to be taken past that point. It's not hard to stay safe while hurting people enough to make them beg for it to stop. If you're confident that they will be happy with the results, it's not immoral to give them what they ask for ahead of time and thank you for afterward.