@98 - So there are lesbians who are sexually stimulated by pegging someone? Do you have awesome strap-ons that stimulate your clit while you're fucking? I like pegging my husband, but that's because I enjoy his pleasure and I enjoy the role switch. The activity itself is not sexually stimulating to me. Tips, anyone?

@101 Yes, the act of penetrating someone is sexually stimulating for me (and other lesbians), but for some added excitement I usually use a strap on with a pouch for a bullet vibrator or a double dildo. I'm no expert on the various types of sex toys out there though so maybe there are others with some ideas as well? Hope that helps!

EricaP: try using the Fun Factory Share double dildo: http://www.pinkcherry.com/searchprods.as…

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

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

And this is probably stupid-obvious but have you tried adjusting the position of your current strap-on? Maybe I'm just super-sensitive but I get a pretty good buzz from pegging with a strap-on as long as the base of the dong is nestled against my clit.

Oh, dear. It's weird vibe time, again. This time it's from IBS. I'm almost tempted to call it a fake.

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

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

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

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

But I'm still skeptical, 'cuz she mentioned their attractiveness (which shouldn't make any difference if all penises freak her out). And she's hoping to get a story out of it. Unless she's going to write some M/M porn!fic (which many lesbians do, because it's hot but not revealing personal sexuality), who's she going to tell this story to?

@104 - to us, I hope :-)

@101 I use a Share, but the Feeldoe works too. They're strapless strapons--double dildos that press against the G-spot and clit, curving outward at the right angle for fucking. There's even a realistic version now called the Realdoe that looks like a dick instead of a brightly colored dildo.

The first time I penetrated my partner with the Share I came approximately ten seconds later. If you can get it to work right (still using a harness to it won't fall out helps) it is most definitely sexually stimulating.

Thanks to all for the dildo advice. I think the underlying problem for me is that I want a certain kind of intense stimulation, and it's hard to see any of these set-ups working. But I freely admit that I'm unusually difficult to stimulate. Glad to hear you ladies get off as the active partners in fucking - that's a beautiful thing to know.

@105
::giggles::

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

So ... ::asks plaintively:: is there anybody out there who matches my description and wants to tell all here?

As a new mother, I would have loved it if my husband had been into breastmilk. Most of the time I wasn't feeling sexy in my new role as a mother, and if my husband had been able to make something about the whole crazy baby-mama experience seem sexy, I would have been all over it.

IBS, take it from me, fucking people you work with is a really bad idea. It doesn't matter what the genders or orientations are. Find someone else to peg.

As for CSE, whoo-hoo, Dan! It's not poo eating, but close enough!!

CSE Support (aka #24) I know what it's like to be ashamed of a kink. My heart goes out to you. Best of luck.

Y'know, I've never been pregnant but I hope to be someday and I think I would be happy at the idea of my future husband being turned on by my breast milk. I am already so terrified by all the horror stories of men being turned off by their wives post-labor , I dunno, that particular kink would make me very very very happy.

Tazzo:

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

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

Great column this week.
Hit's high scores on every answer.

To MILK: You may have your wish whether or not she approves if you have relations with your wife before or after the child arrives. My experience was that my wife's ample breasts leaked a significant amount when we made love... and was a visible sign of her arousal. I loved it. She wasn't so cool about it, but when she saw that I loved it, she was ok with it. I still miss it. It was visible proof that she was turned on, and that I was the cause. Enjoy!

I miscarried at 24 weeks and began to lactate immediately afterwards. In my case it was all hormonal, I guess. It sure sucked, no pun intended. Because it only served to remind me of my loss.
I would have loved to spray my milk around willing recipients!

ty shw3nn.

@103 - Yay for Fun Factory! They are absolutely my favorite toymakers... :)

@110 - From what I gather consent is not the only measure of morality. There is a line of unavoidable safety that also can not be crossed. At least that is what I gleaned from his various posts (As an example, breath play in this week's podcast). I don't have any sort of medical background so I would be fairly easily persuaded away from this position, but it seems to me that feces is filthy in a 'you can get a variety of diseases really easily' sort of way. While that can be said of sex, there is not, at least as far as I know, safe shit.

@110, I think you are missing the point. From a practical standpoint, there are some fetishes that you just aren't going to find a partner to indulge you in unless you specifically look for someone who is into it. Some people even have sexual fantasies that are biologically impossible. "Reasonableness" doesn't just have to do with morality. It also has to do with - is it reasonable to expect a person who is ordinarily GGG to go along with this? If it's physically impossible, then no that's an example of something unreasonable. For many people, dealing with shit is not physically possible because they'd vomit. But even when it is physically possible, it's not something that even most GGG people want to deal with. The numbers are just not there.

agreed, diagoras. that's how i read "unreasonable." he didn't say "disgusting" "foul" "loathsome" etc. like so many many people would say to a shit fetish. he just said, in essence, a shit fetishist cannot expect to be indulged by more than a fraction of a percent of humans, therefore it is not a reasonable expectation to have of the average partner. probably the fetishist himself knew this and was just throwing it out there on the very off chance he might get lucky.

I'm truly surprised by the number of commenters who are suggesting to MILK different ways to make her come around. She isn't game. She just isn't. Who knows her reasoning--maybe she thinks it's "gross" because she isn't comfortable blurring the lines between husband and child in that way. Maybe she just wants her breast milk to be something she can share with her child, something that only the two of them share, one thing she can have with the baby that is hers and hers alone. Maybe she knows she wouldn't enjoy it because she doesn't appreciate being made to feel fetishized. Maybe she thinks the teeny aliens in her tits will disapprove and tattle to the Pope! No matter what, the point is she does. not. want. to. do it. And he needs to accept her boundaries.

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

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

Body politics are rough and deeply complicated, so I don't blame people who don't think about it a whole lot. But for some reason this guy just really rubbed me the wrong way (I mean, obviously). I found myself thinking, "Not everything is about sex and not everything is about you." Maybe that's not really fair to MILK, I don't know. I certainly love the fact that people are breaking sexual barriers and are making their desires known to their partners, but it's a fine line between sharing something with someone you love and imposing it on them. This woman clearly isn't interested. Just give her a fucking break.

@92 My thoughts on privacy and boundaries are the same - I alluded to getting caught off guard by my GF's changes in my last comment: the pull back is both nice and disconcerting. Nice, because it indicates I'm heard and disconcerting because it does represent a bit of distancing.

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

In response to your pegging question: I highly recommend the Nexus.

This has nothing to do with the letters and everything to do with strap-on harnesses. In fact, it's pretty much a product testimonial.

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

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

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

AND--the awesomeness of this last aspect can not be overstated--IT IS MACHINE WASHABLE!!!!!

and a partner's reasonable fetishes, kinks, and quirks should be accommodated.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A kink is a kink is a kink. A person is a person is a person. Period.

I love the idea of double-sided dildos like the Nexus, but I find them really uncomfortable (as the penetrator), so, reluctantly, I started shopping around for harnesses.

My former partner and I used the Nexus with a harness - an Aslan Leather Jock. The Nexus, unlike (IIRC) the Feeldoe, had a raised ridge positing for excellent clitoral stimulation.

MILK:

This is something I'd really like to explore, but I don't know how to reapproach the subject.

@125:

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

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

@127 The SpareParts Joque is AWESOME. Definitely my favorite harness ever. I use it with my Share and it takes away any and all worries about it getting pulled out. I love my Share so much I haven't tried it with any other dildos, but I can definitely see how it would work well for holding a vibrator. It's a wonderfully versatile harness.

@130 The Feeldoe has little bumps for clitoral stimulation, but either I'm shaped oddly or it is because they don't hit me in the right spot.

128, i see your point, but, let's face it, i'd rather eat out a woman (and i'm a female kinsey 1 or 0--NO interest), then engage in shit play. this is going to be true of the vast majority of otherwise ggg folks. that means that, of the people with relatively tolerant and open minds, this is a fetish too far. so, you take this minority of the population, then take from that the tiny fraction of them who will indulge shit play, and you've got yourself an unreasonable expectation of anyone but another fetishist/professional bringing you to heaven. compare that to how much trouble it is for a gay man to find another gay man in the course of his daily life. even in conservative backwaters they can expect to eventually find each other without the internet. can you really say that about the poo-aphiles?

justchecking @115 –Better to find someone you click with sexually and with whom you can negotiate your disagreements civilly. If you see your husband as primarily a "dad," that's almost guaranteeing the end of your sex-life right there.

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

cvilletop @126, thanks for answering my intrusive questions – and best wishes to the both of you!

110/121/122/123/133 Re asking people to participate in the less common fetishes.

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

And, no, shit doesn't have to be dangerous. Eating your own shit is not that dangerous, I gather. And playing with shit is no more dangerous than having anal sex, which lots of people do. Just wash your hands & toys afterward.

to Cold: try craiglist, there's almost always some ad about a guy with a glory hole set up in his home. Usually this guy is looking to suck guys through his glory hole - NSA. But hey you might find a guy you'll let you do the sucking. it's worth a shot. Or try a sex club that has glory holes.

I have never been in a relationship with a nursing woman. However, my partner has told me that when she was a young mother her boobs were absolutely off-limits to all but her precious offspring. Apparently she was quite fierce about this.

Who knows how something this primal will play out in any relationship.
_____________
One word in your post tells us you have some jealousy issues concerning your partner's children. Figure it out.

It would be unreasonable to expect someone who is not into homosexuality to actually engage in homosexuality. Same for shit eating. I don't think Dan has any problem with people who act on their aversion to gay sex by not having gay sex. It becomes a problem when they say that other people who are into gay sex can't have gay sex. Recall the rant about Huckabee--Dan is disgusted by the images of Mike Huckabee having sex with his wife, but Huckabee is free to do whatever he wants in bed, as long as his wife is OK with it.

wow number nine, that sounds great... Why anyone would want that experience I will never know. No kids, no pregnancy and dear god no cranky, selfish, entitled new mothers. I'm sure your husband had a fantastic time as well. Go team.
_____________
Wow... bitter much? So, her husband is getting his jollies as she does ALL the work looking after THEIR child yet the only thing you get from her post is how the "poor, childish, self-entitled new father" is being mis-treated.
I'd like to thank you for the world for NOT ever having children or inflicting your self-entitled, immature attitude onto a woman.
Psst! If you're in a relationship and you're too lazy to contribute something - anything - then, yep, folks get annoyed.
Grow up.

@128 Being gay still falls fully in the unreasonable category if you are straight. And vice versa. If a lesbian asks her partner to fuck a man, the partner gets to say "No" and still be GGG.

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

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

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

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

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

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

It really comes down to 3 things:

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

Dan is in a special position to evaluate number 3 because people write to him about this very subject. So, if he tells us that scat is one of the most common things that people find themselves unable to accommodate who aren't into in themselves, we should take him at his word.

Once, while nursing my oldest son, I was approached by a friend of a friend with an odd proposal (her words, not mine). Her husband had a milk kink/fetish and they had no plans to have babies soo, and she wondered if I could express some milk for her to give him. I asked for a shot glass, went into the rest room, and he had an ounce or so to taste. His reaction was disappointment. Just warm milk, nothing hot or sexy at all. Now, that was the taste, not the spray, so not the same fetish. But sometimes, the fantasy is better than the reality. Possibly MILK's wife will spray on him (and it very well could be accidentally) and maybe he won't like it as much as he thinks he will, and the whole thing might resolve itself.

I have a technical question....I have never once heard of an instance of a genuine *female* scat fetishist? Are they out there? I have only ever heard of guys who are into it, and the women they pay (if they are straight)....

Perhaps I am just naive, since as GGG as I am, this is definitely something I am afraid I would have to turn down! So I have never really done much research on it, lol, besides what Dan prints. Glad my men aren't into it; I think I could probably manage a tinkle, but I am even shy about going #2 in public restrooms, lol!

I ask my question above, just because....think about how difficult it would be to have this fetish as a straight man....are there and women who actually *exist* who share it? They are probably extremely rare, if they indeed exists. Or only those who will (probably) reluctantly tolerate it?

That is really sad for them! At least with the foot fetishist, a lot of ladies really like getting foot rubs!

When I was still lactating, I started dating a guy who was overly obsessed with my breasts... I figured, having been pretty much flat-chested most of my life, that that was just how guys get when faced with big, bouyant titties... and for the most part, I think I was right. Except this guy... he was more than a little into them, he couldn't stop mauling the poor things. Not paying the right amount of attention during a good bout of fucking one night, I realized that he was spending a little too much time sucking on my nipple and asked flat out, "dude, are you trying to NURSE???"

I'm sorry, but I was completely and utterly grossed out. Had he maybe mentioned that he would like to try some breast milk some time, I might have been a little more accommodating, but really, to just get in there and breastfeed? Yuck.

When I was still lactating, I started dating a guy who was overly obsessed with my breasts... I figured, having been pretty much flat-chested most of my life, that that was just how guys get when faced with big, bouyant titties... and for the most part, I think I was right. Except this guy... he was more than a little into them, he couldn't stop mauling the poor things. Not paying the right amount of attention during a good bout of fucking one night, I realized that he was spending a little too much time sucking on my nipple and asked flat out, "dude, are you trying to NURSE???"

I'm sorry, but I was completely and utterly grossed out. Had he maybe mentioned that he would like to try some breast milk some time, I might have been a little more accommodating, but really, to just get in there and breastfeed? Yuck.

@143 I just did a search on Fetlife for people with a scat fetish. The majority are male, but about 1 in 5 identify themselves as female. They're not terribly rare in comparison to the guys. You just need to look for them instead of hoping a random vanilla person will share the fetish.

badgirl@142, I did a quick scan just now in the scat/poo lovers group on FetLife. About 5% of the members were women, of whom about half looked to be submissive and about half were dominant.

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

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

hmmmm. You learn something new everyday. Great odds for those gals!!! Thanks for the info, I don't think my work filter would take too kindly to that site, but for some reason, has no problem with Savage love, lol!

@146 - Ha, funny. I'll cede to your stats; mine were very slapdash.

EricaP@147 5%? I must have been hitting unusually female heavy pages when I was scanning through. But they are definitely out there.

@146/150 Yep :-)

@135: And, no, shit doesn't have to be dangerous. Eating your own shit is not that dangerous, I gather. And playing with shit is no more dangerous than having anal sex, which lots of people do.

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

Something like, say, horse manure would have even less pathogens that are dangerous to humans, but I don't know if it would be a satisfactory substitute :)

IBS: doggy style in jock straps.
If they're into D/s as well, play it to the hilt and let them know in no uncertain terms that if you see a real penis, you're zapping it with a taser (or whatever you have in your toybox that won't be pleasant for them).
That assumes you're going to go through the minefield of having an office fling.
They issued the invite. You've got all the leverage. Set your terms or don't do it (and if it works out and you can loosen up a little on a repeat, great--if it doesn't, remember you still have to work with them).

@125 yes yes yes.

Naw Dan, I call bullshit. If COLD had admitted to sleeping with some dudes, you'd call him a closet case.

COLD is either gay or bi - he's just trying to deal with it...it takes time.

128/ankylosaur, I completely agree with you. Evaluations like "reasonable" and "unreasonable" aren't appropriate here. People are turned on or off by different things, and there is no particular set of "reasonable" stuff one is expected to accommodate, or vice versa.

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

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

Once MILK's wife is comfortable with nursing and taking care of newborn, I think it's fine for him to express his milk-related desires, as long as he makes it clear that she is in control of what happens. If she needs to keep nursing separate from sex, that should be her choice entirely, and nobody should be worried about how to talk her into it. Before I had kids, I was a little squeamish about nursing too. And at first it was very difficult, and postpartum sex was difficult and painful. But over time those problems abated, and after a second child everything was much easier and more relaxed.

Oh, one more thing about MILK: I've never leaked milk during sex, and when I have leaked it, there was nothing remotely like "spraying" going on. I doubt I could have even accomplished that during sex if I had wanted to. So it might be helpful not to have unrealistic expectations about this in the first place. Might work with some women, and not with others; might be desirable to some women, and not to others.

I was the opposite of Dan's friend. I would have thought "okay... maybe" before I had children but now men into that really gross me out and piss me off. Is there nothing about my body that can be for mother and child and not for his fucking dirty ass fantasies? It's like there was nothing sacred. EVERYTHING I did could be made sexy and it pissed me off like my whole existence was about his pleasure.

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

Don't worry MILK, but your wife on top and you'll get some milk in the face. I PROMISE!

here's a thought: maybe you should try real hard to do whatever your spouse is brave enough to tell you that they really want.

Because otherwise by the time you're willing to play, they may have passed the point where they're willing to try with you. Especially if they meet someone else who is not just grudgingly agreeing to try, but enthusiastically begging to.

Here's a thought: maybe you should just do whatever reasonable thing your spouse is brave enough to tell you that they want.

Because otherwise, by the time you grudgingly agree to try, your spouse may be be over it. And by over it, I mean why should they agree to go with your tortured tolerance, when some one else might be enthusiastically begging to do what they want?

@134 One final comment on this, mostly to clarify my feelings about "boundaries" "privacy" and "manners": what this really boils down to for me - the essence of these three things - is an awareness of others. They are all founded in the "golden rule" - and they are mostly just a sensitivity to the thoughts and feelings of others.

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

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

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

I'm a bit sensitive to the last issue, and it's baggage - I was intimately involved with someone who's relative had no sense of boundaries, coupled with a need to control the people and environment around her. I've also dealt with the corrosive effects of insecurity and lack of trust and frankly, after years and years of being the object of unfounded distrust, I have no patience or desire for living with that ever again.

@165 Because otherwise by the time you're willing to play, they may have passed the point where they're willing to try with you. Especially if they meet someone else who is not just grudgingly agreeing to try, but enthusiastically begging to.

Wow...spot on!

@166 - agreed. I approve wholeheartedly of being sensitive to people's boundaries (even if I'm not always talented in that realm myself). And you are completely right about the corrosive effects of hyper-insecurity in one partner.

@165 I agree with this too. But I think wendykh was making an interesting point, which I'd like to come back to.

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

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

@EricaP

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

And the whole situation pretty much dropsmy brain in acid. Now that the hubby knows I'm thinking about cheating, or maybe even leaving, he's like "lets try again with the kinky stuff! I'll try!" but at this point.... I don't believe him.

@170, your comment came right after hers and seemed to speak directly to her point... but apologies for misapplying your rant.

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

In your case, his efforts may be too little too late, but in general if people make the Seriousness of their Needs more obvious before it gets to a crisis point, they may get (some of) the changes they want met within the marriage.

I refuse to google up seitan. I REFUSE DO YOU HEAR ME??

BEG Before you get squicked out, remember: People pay a lot of money for this at the health food store, and it's supposed to be good for you. However, you would be forgiven for thinking that it ties in rather neatly with Dan's shit-play comments.... (it's food. well. sort of...)

http://bp1.blogger.com/_pIt65Ib-y6w/SGkU…

I was like, "Holy shit, 170-some comments? What'd Dan say now? Toss a terrorist's salad for Christ?" Then I see it's all just a big kerfuffle about lacto-sex. Oh, and by the way #173, I did google-bing "seitan." (I have no standards anymore.) It's really quite shocking.

Okay, badgirl and others, y'all say all the time you want Dan to post more letters about shit-eaters. So show Dan some love by producing another hundred posts about CSE's situation. Why shouldn't she give the idea a try? Her boyfriend is not actually asking her to eat shit... I think she's halfway there, myself, with all her talk about how maybe she'll lose her GGG accreditation if she doesn't give it a try. I think she wants permission to try scat, and Dan should encourage her, not tell her it's sick and her boyfriend is only allowed to look for partners on scat sites. (How did the word scat come to mean both shit and jazz singing with wordless vocables?)

To add to the MILK edition of this week's column... with my first child who wouldn't latch on, and my milk was fading fast, i did ask my husband if he would like a try before it was all gone. His reaction was "eeeewwww, gross, no thanks". I felt horrible. I never asked him again. I thought it would be one more way to be intimate with him. What i didn't know THEN was that he was on the downward slope of a fast-declining libido, and in the next few years, there would be little to no sex between us. That answer, plus a few other hints, were, in retrospect, very telling as to where we would be today. Conclusion: the least a partner can do when asked if s/he would like to partake in a new sexual activity is say "yes, i'll try it and see how i feel about it" and go from there. Saying no without trying it is indicative of a repressed attitude.

@ 171 - i have to totally agree with you about wondering where your husband's libido is when you ask him to pleasure you in the way you desire, and he totally shuts down. It is only later, only when he KNOWS you are about to leave, he capitulates. As you noted, this just does not work, psychologically speaking. It is a situation where, when one feels they are forcing the partner to partake, the joy and desire goes straight out of it all. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that when the partner deflects the first advances, there is no hope of trying to "convince" them later, and even when they do beg to be taken back and beg to participate in an active sex life, for most, it is already ruined. Their true self is revealed in the first answer, not the second or third.

Sorry, in my previous post, i incorrectly identified the poster as #171, when it is #170 i was referring to.

@128 I think it is unreasonable to expect the typical person to indulge a scat fetish. It's something that I could easily see making my physically ill - definitely for certain levels of scat play. And there's a sound biological reason for that.

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

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

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

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

But it doesn't sound like that's the type of thing that CSE said to her scat fetish gentleman. You shouldn't make them feel ashamed about the fetish - and you shouldn't necessarily indulge, so to speak, your initial feelings of disgust. Maybe you should make an effort to think about it as something sexy... But with scat and having sex with your non-preferred gender or strangers, etc. are not things that I think you have to actually try before you refuse to do them.

I just googled seitan. Gross Dan!

It's like I always say, if you can't get the milk for free, then you might as well buy a cow.

And EricaP, you have left twenty comments! Twenty!
I haven't read them, but that is too many!

It's like I always say, If you make too many comments on an internet site, then you might as well buy a cow. And fuck the cow.

@ 133 (ellarosa),

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

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

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

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

It's all about respect, I think.

shw3nn (@140), I'm not saying you don't have the right to refuse scat play (or anything at all -- even oral sex) and not be GGG.

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

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

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

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

-----

* One might think of exceptions to the 'all kinks deserve respect' rule: say, serial killers who get off on killing people are definitely out. Pedophiles often are, too, but remember what Dan once wrote about 'good pedophiles', i.e. the ones who don't act on their desires because they don't want to cause suffering. In fact, here's a generalization: even when a person has a very dangerous fetish (pedophilia, or the desire to kill people), the point is not the desire itself, but whether or not the person acts on it.

@135 (EricaP), @157 (Suzy), thanks for your support.

In case people were wondering, yes, I do have a little of a scat fetish. It's not the main thing for me, but I do find it... intriguing. Never acted on it, though (in fact this message is the first time I even admit it in public...).

@181 (ForkyMcSpoon), I think there are different issues here, and we (and even perhaps Dan himself) have been confusing them.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ankylosaur,

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

Also what you said about the act itself rather than the desire to act is definitely something I can agree with. I have desires which I know I'll never act on for various reasons. But there are ways to do things in a way that isn't too damaging if you think logically about your desires before you act on them. Like having a desire to kill people but instead settling on mutual exchange of pain where nobody gets hurt beyond what's expected (i.e. nobody dies). I'm talking nonsense now. I just meant to tell you that I liked your comments. :o)

"There are no unreasonable fetishes"

I concur, anklysaur. No fetish should be considered reasonable or unreasonable. That's just silly. And most people, like you said, are not GGG at all.

@184 "I haven't read them, but that is too many!"

And here's one more, just for you. Kiss kiss.

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

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

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

Some fetishes require 'extra care' (breath play? electricity play?), i.e. double-extra strong feeling of duty and responsibility for those who want to indulge in them. But they don't imply that said people are morally bad (they may be irresponsible, like everybody else also may be, but not necessarily and not because of their fetish).

I'm getting to old for this. "bi-curious/pan-curious/post-gender-curious". What the fuck does that mean? Seriously.

I don't understand why openness to anal sex is considered a standard part of being "GGG", even if one ultimately decides it's not desirable. However, anything involving poop is "unreasonable"? Look, if you're putting body parts in there next to the poop, what is so unreasonable about poop? Is it somehow worse than pee? It's not something I particularly care to try, given my alter-ego as Ms. Lysol USA, but at least it seems as reasonable as anything else people do with their bodies and the bodily products.

I could not disagree more with the advice above (I think maybe from Bluejean Baby?) that once you ask a spouse to do something, they refuse, you threaten to cheat, and then they try to accommodate you, that the sexual benefit is ruined and the "true self" was only found in the initial refusal. Why so essentialist about people, their desires, and what they're capable of? People change, learn, grow, and their desires are to some degree mutable. If anything ruins the subsequent attempt to do what the partner wants sexually, it's the threat of being abandoned unless you comply!

sylvia browning, you asked: "why should they agree to go with your tortured tolerance, when some one else might be enthusiastically begging to do what they want?" The answer is very simple: because you married them, and your promises are supposed to mean more than shit. If you had made demands of your husband and he categorically refused, and after lengthy soul-searching you decided that sexual satisfaction in this area was more important than anything else in marriage or your commitment to your vows, then yeah, I guess you have to tell him you're going to cheat or leave. However, if at that point he tries to comply, why should you scorn his efforts? He obviously values being with you more than you value being with him, because he's willing to do what it takes to save your relationship, and you're content to remain skeptical. I don't know if your marriage is salvageable or worth the effort, as it's obviously more complex than this, but you definitely owe him the chance to learn what you want and try, without being dismissive of his reaction. Just like you'd expect him to be accepting and tolerant of your different desires, you should also give him the same consideration, which means time to get on a learning curve about satisfying your desires.

Ankylosaur, I commend you for your bravery in making your scat intrigue public, as even among Savage Love readers you might run into a lot of knee jerk reactions. (Although not too much yet, it seems...) I agree with your re-definition of GGG with one caveat --- that people not allow their internal conception of what things they could potentially accommodate balloon in such a way as to wrap what is really just an "ick" feeling into some more noble-sounding sense of predestination. For example, thinking to oneself that one feels averse to performing oral sex because one is in fact immutably UNABLE to accommodate that action due to the imagined risk of damage to the psyche (in cases where there is no trauma precedent.) I think that is why it is important to be willing to try something at least once and/or at the very least, in a committed monogamous relationship, willing to discuss in detail one's sensible, intact reasoning for not being willing to do so, without stonewalling the issue. I also want to go on record as saying even though I personally don't find scat a turn on and wouldn't be willing to play with or eat it, I'd have no issue with defecating on someone who I was comfortable enough to have anal sex with. It takes some time to get to that point of biological comfort with a partner, but it can be done. Every individual makes a choice as to how much he/she is uncomfortable with bodily functions, and that choice is not destiny. It can change over time and in the right context.

Dan: "stay the hell away from heterophobic post-gender/post-modern/pan-sexual cultural-studies majors whose immaturity, self-loathing, and anger all manifest in a refusal to accept that a good guy can also be a straight guy."

Amen. But why can't we just shoot them?

EricaP, zell_zyte (@196, @198), indeed. It's interesting that it's our common disgust for poop itself that transfers to our judgment of poop fetishists (we do feel angry when we realize the dog pooped where he shouldn't have, and we do feel disgusted by having to pick it up and throw it away, don't we?). I note that Dan, when he talks about anal sex, makes sure to note how he tries NOT to think about what the anus is for, to forget that it's an exit and think of it as an entrance, etc. (Similarly, remember how many homophobes are grossed out by anal sex because they think, as that person -- who was it again? -- put it, that they're 'wiggling their penises in excrements'?)

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

Dan mentioned once -- and I agree with him -- that he thought sex itself in all its forms is 'icky' if you think about it, and if it weren't so much fun nobody would understand why people would actually do it. (As a friend of mine put it, why is saliva so disgusting when someone spits it on our face, but so delightful when we're kissing? Isn't it the 'same' saliva?)

Men not only have nipples, they have fully functional mammary glands. Look it up. Have MILK work on it for a while and do it himself.

Men not only have nipples, they have fully functional mammary glands. Have MILK work on it for a while and do it himself.

@186 anlyosaur I don't think your definition of GGG contradicts what I think Dan's is. I don't think that what you describe is GGG, I think it's just being a kind person and a loving partner.

But, I think you're missing my point.

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

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

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

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

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

I mean, maybe they are GGG and maybe they aren't but they are definitely callous and self-absorbed and inconsiderate and DTMFA and all that.

@205: If a spanking fetishist asked off-the-bat for a scene at a public party, with you wielding a hairbrush on his naked ass - that would put most people off. So the spanking fetishist starts small.

If a scat fetishist starts small, only asking you to leave the door open a crack when you sit on the toilet, or to read a couple of stories about sexualizing poo... is that different?