@ 195 - Suzy - i guess if you read 178 before you read 179, you would get the gist of it. I write on a personal level, i really was referring only to myself regarding asking and getting turned down the first time. I learned that there really is no use in begging. Begging is pathetic (unless you're into begging, of course - i'm not). As things went, sex totally disappeared because he just couldn't be bothered more than once per every 3 months or so, which is not my idea of a sex life. So when you have to beg for the very basics, and you also have the milk question declined to boot, then there really is no use in asking again, is there?

Also, talk about marriage vows: he is just as complicit in dissing the vows when he does not come across with his part of the physical relationship, no? Worry not, Suzy, he and i have had "the talk" many times, to no avail.

Erica, I think a spanking scene at a public party is asking for more than just spanking. At the very least, you're also asking for exhibitionism. At most, it sounds like you're asking your partner to get all into the BDSM scene with you.

I am talking about honest, simple requests. Saying, "I am into X. Are you open to exploring that," where X is the variable.

LOL at COLD's advice xD

@208, How about if a scat fetishist says, a couple of months into a new, fairly vanilla relationship: "I should tell you, I have an unusual fetish. I like to think about scat when I masturbate. Would you be into that, or is there anything specific I could do for you, so you would consider talking about scat with me, and maybe participating in some way, once you were comfortable with the idea?"

Would that be an honest, simple request?

And if so, could someone say they were GGG if they wouldn't even consider talking about the idea of scat with their partner?

Erica, are you trying to turn this into some sort of Zeno's paradox of kink?

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

You can try to get there by increments the width of hydrogen atoms, but you're likely going to hit your partner's limit very quickly...much more quickly than if you're trying to edge your partner towards a more commonly acceptable fetish.

@202 (GuyShyly), I hear your voice. I have some of the same concerns as you about Dan's treatment of certain kinds of kinks; as if there were, you know, 'first class' kinksters and 'second class' kinksters, and the latter should go as deep into the closet as possible so that the latter wouldn't have to put up with them.

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

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

Who knows, GuyShyly? As Dan says, it does eventually get better. I hope it will get better for you, too. :-)

ankylosaur @192

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

@205 (swh3nn), you made an interesting point here, and one that made me realize what exactly I think is wrong with your viewpoint. Let's see if I can express it here in a way that is not confusing (we probably both agree that this topic is fraught with the possibility of confusion...).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Do I make myself clear? Do you see what it is that I'm trying to get at? GGG cannot depend on statistics (frequency: more or less than 50%, or some other threshhold level) for its definition because it already doesn't: if GGG depended on statistics, anything beyond oral sex (and actually maybe even oral sex itself) could be refused without losing one's GGG-ness, since 'most people are still not comfortable with it'.

shw3nn, let me make another parallel that may make my point about statistics not being a good thing to take into account when moral judgments are involved (and I do think GGG or no-GGG is a moral judgment, like 'bigotted' vs. 'not bigotted').

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

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

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

Do you see the parallel with saying that the fact some kinks are statistically more acceptable than others? To me, it does sound like saying that flamboyant homosexuals and "straight looking" homosexuals are two different species and that being prejudiced only against the former isn't enough for you to be considered bigotted or homophobic.

@214 (mommyducky), we are indeed in perfect agreement. And I say this as someone who would have a problem accommodating your blood fetish (as you perhaps would with a scat fetish, even as gentle/weak a scat fetish as mine. :-) Did you see @202 (GuyShyly)'s message, by the way? He makes some of the same points.

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

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

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

GGG isn't statistics. 'Reasonableness' isn't statistics. GGG is about people trying to see that their partners are human, that their fetishes are not "horrible", and making honest efforts, as far as they can (but not further), to accommodate them. The 'right to be annoyed' is, I think, irrelevant. It either should be there for all fetishes, or then for none.

215 When you talk about statistics here, you obviously don't mean statistics in general,because I think we can agree that most Americans would still have a problem with a spanking fetish

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

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

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

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

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

@ 218
Or it could mean that Dan's pro-BDSM anti-scat stance has attracted readers of similar mindset?

(come to think of it) maybe their mindset was shaped to an extent by Dan - maybe those who used to be disgusted by bondage and spanking started thinking of it as non-threatening fun thanks to Dan, but Dan has certainly done nothing to help those disgusted by poop to get over their hangups. Self-fulfilling prophecy of sorts.

ankylosaur, if I may?

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

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

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

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

Or to put it in kind of unromantic terms. If I have a spanking "fetish" and my SO won't indulge. I could break up with them and would be likely to find someone else who would. This isn't so for scat fetish. (Again, with the exception of seeking someone out specifically in fet circles).

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

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

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

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

In summary: scat fetishists are rare, and so are those who can at least accommodate their fetish, even within the set I called GGG-1. (Whetheer this should remain so, or whether we should fight for people to realize that accommodating a scat fetish shouldn't be as hard as it is, is a different story). That's true, it's OK, nobody is protesting against that. But the 'being annoyed' thing to me implies more than mere frequency; it implies a moral judgement ('scat is too disgusting/demeaning'). And that, I think, is not good.

@221 (mydriasis), you're welcome! I love discussions, as you may have noticed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

sh3nn, in case you're still reading, let's see if we can agree on this.

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

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

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

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

In other words, I doubt that, for most people here, the meaning of 'unreasonable' when applied to scat fetishists is as purely statistical and non-judgmental as your claim would have us believe. I may be wrong, but I don't think I am. (Comments, anyone?)

I see what you mean. Sexuality is indeed a sliding scale.

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

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

For the record, personally, if my boyfriend wanted to do something in the poop realm I wouldn't do it ever but it wouldn't make me disgusted with him. I feel like that's somewhat shallow.

@212 / 225 - why do you assume that you know what the "outcome" is, and that it's something awful?

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

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

If you love your partner, and they fetishize poop, just talk to them about it. Don't shut them out, anymore than you shut out your baby who needs his poopy diaper changed. Shit happens.

It's fine if you aren't able to accommodate a scat fetish or a blood fetish or any fetish. I don't think anybody has a right to be annoyed with their partner for being unable to accommodate their fetish. Even if it's "just a spank fetish." Really, there are probably some fetishes that most would consider pretty tame that I myself wouldn't be able to accommodate and I'm someone who likes blood. So does that mean they can be annoyed with me if I can't do what they're into (let's pretend it's spanking) but I have no right to be annoyed at them for not going along with my blood thing? How about this? I'm open and willing to at least try to accommodate whatever fetish my partner has as long as they are equally open to trying mine. So if someone wants to play with my poop, even though that's not my thing, I'd at least try it one time (assuming this person is someone important to me and who I care about enough to do something that might make me uncomfortable in order to make them happy). But in return I expect them to try some blood play with me just once. And sometimes, you may come to find that something you thought you couldn't do before becomes something you can tolerate if you just give it a try. And if not, then at least you can say you tried and that's very GGG, in my opinion. You don't have to continue doing it if it isn't for you but at least you made an effort and didn't just immediately dismiss it because it's "gross." My motto has always been, "I'll try anything twice." :o)

@226 Erica, you're brilliant!

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

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

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

People shouldn't just dismiss something because they think it's gross if they have absolutely no experience with it. How do you know it's gross? Because society tells you it's gross? That's ridiculous. Don't listen to anyone else, not even to so-called experts. Try it yourself and form your own opinion. Whatever the fetish. I was totally and completely 100% grossed out by the idea of anal sex. My husband was really into it and I'll admit, it took some time before I warmed up to the idea but I eventually did and I tried it. And it was incredibly uncomfortable and unpleasant for me. But I tried it again. And again. And even though it's not my favorite thing and I could go without it, I now know that it's not something so vile and off-limits. I actually CAN accommodate it. So yeah, start small and work your way up. But most importantly, have fun along the way. :o)

I dunno, I think if something makes you horribly uncomfortable, you should not try it. I would not want my partner to try some of my sick as fuck fantasies that *really* made him horrified. (I will *never* tell *anyone* the worst of the worst! I am disturbed by them, and probably best they remain fantasies!!! Eeek!). And if I had a partner who had a thing for dead bodies...sorry, nope, just could never, ever in a million years do that, it would just make me too uncomfortable. Thank goodness, this is NOT an issue, lol! But really, I would not want a partner to be so GGG they felt ikky, and wretched the whole time. But I guess I have no true fetishes, wherein I NEED something specific to get off; I have no idea what that is like for those people. I just like naughty games, and for 98% of my fantasies, they run pretty much the mild submissive-garden variety, so no biggie. I can hear the yawns now, lol!!

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

Here are a couple of things MILK should think about, should his wife become amenable to the idea of satisfying his lactation kink:

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

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

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

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

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

@229 oh, badgirl, sweetie,... why give "the worst of your worst fantasies" that much power over you? It won't make them real, to tell us or your lover or your husband... It will just mean that you get some help understanding why they are interesting to you, and maybe start exploring safe ways to still get that thrill.

@231 If you love someone who fantasizes about shit, you can walk away, or you can try to become the kind of person who can deal with it. Why am I not surprised to learn that Hunter78 is the kind of person who would walk away?

Hunter78. What experience do I need? None of my experience will change the fact that all human men have functional mammary glands and can lactate all by themselves for sexual pleasure if they so choose.

By the way. Human male lactation does not have to be only for sexual pleasure. It can be done for the same reason human females do it: to feed a baby.

ALL human males are capable of lactation. ALL. That's 100% (save for a few who have something *wrong* with them, or have had their mammary glands removed- so maybe it's 99%). So actually it's extremely common. All it takes is some effort. Your comments about my "experience" and the amounts of female breasts i've suckled are ad hominem.

(What's the use of writing comment #237? Just the testimony.)

In regards to the scat fetish Dan so overtly rejects I say: Get over it. Dan oposes scat fetish as well as pedophilia and bestialism for clear reasons. You can go back in history and read his previous answers, but they can be compressed in simple form like this: scat is way too unhealthy (hey, we're talking feces here!); pedophilia and bestialism do hurt other inocent beings who are unable to defend themselves and/or give consent. To me, those are pretty reasonable reasons why a sex columnist should reject them. Dan's open minded as few people in this world, but that doesn't mean he has to have no restraints or limitations. After all, it's not like there are no parameters in life. The "It's all relative" way of thinking is very posmodern but useless: in the end, we all learn that the ARE some limits and there are things we should not admit. Dan has drawn a clear line and some people will get ofended. That's just part of life. Deal with it. Even more: he is the only one here who uses his name, so he has to be aware of the legal consequences of what he does and says.

I love Joe Newton's art, but I don't get this week's illustration. How does it relate? Could someone explain it me in my cold-medicine-fogged haze?

MILK - it is a super-emotional time for her, and she may need you to be strong and "manly", not another baby for her to have to suckle and nurture. If you come at this issue as a sexy, fun exploration of deeper intimacy, that could work. I could spray a distance of three feet, in multiple directions, and eventually she might, too, but if you can start by taking it slowly, and just flicking the tip of your tongue gently across her nipples without suction, that's where I'd start. Let her know you like the taste without downright suckling her like she's your Mommy, too.

PEGGY - 1. Condoms (and probably lots of lube) on the toys. 2. For such a height difference, I recommend the peggee on top in cowgirl position. Depending on the bed height and flexibility of the pals, other positions can be tricky. 3. The fellers can wear thong underwear while their junk is near your face. 4. I know you know this, but you can't feel your "cock", so be careful and slow, at least at first. Anal is different from vaginal. 5. I can come from being the pegger. I have a traditional strap-on with harness, and a Feeldoe. Love 'em both.

Lol EricaP. Nah, my naughtiest fantasies don't have any "power" over me. I just realize they are of the catagory "best to remain a fantasy", and one in my own head at that. I have many others that are shared but not acted upon, and others that are shared and played out.

Doesn't everyone? I actually thought that was a pretty healthy attitute. Not *everything* needs to be shared, we are allowed to have some privacy, even within our sexuality, provided we share most of our turn ons. I seriously doubt my most disturbed fantasies would turn me on if realized anyway...again, far better in fantasy then in reality, and fleeting thoughts at that. I roleplay more milder themes with my lover on a regular basis.

@240 - oh, I'm just dying of curiosity, and was hoping to push your buttons enough to get you to spill. Can't blame me for trying -- you're one of the hottest things going on around here :-)

Not *everything* needs to be shared, we are allowed to have some privacy, even within our sexuality, provided we share most of our turn ons.

Amen sister.

@238 - I think it's just a cute representation of "not my cup of tea." (which applies to all the letters, except maybe the last?)

Lol EricaP! And now the flattery route! *grin* Nice try, but this goes to the grave with me...I chose my nick accordingly. I am *naughty naughty*, and twisted beyond all belief! Lol!!! ;) I am sure you have encountered similar indivuduals on Fetlife, but my poor lover would pass out, and oh my! My hubby would DIE from shock!! *giggle*

I wonder if we as Americans were to reveal the true extents of our deepest perversions, where the chips would truly fall? It would be interesting, to say the least!

As a long time reader this is one of the first times I thought you were a little unfair someone. Everyone has kinks. Or rather, everyone has something they are into that at least one other person in the world is not into. What makes one "kink" unreasonable and another not? I guarantee you that there are people out there that would find "feet or crossdressing or bondage" to be unreasonable, end of story. Certainly there are fewer people that would find defecation reasonable but why should those who are into it slither off to their own kind and leave the rest of us "reasonable" people alone? Kudos to the girlfriend for at least being open minded. Shame on you for not being so.

I think you were a little bi-phobic with response to COLD's question. I read the question and the writer sounded very similar to my 38 year old husband. We are both bi and in a 10 year long open relationship. He has explored and knows what he likes at this point in his experience. He likes men and women, but his desire for men is based more around actual sex and desire for dick rather than dating or emotional connection. He likes men that are most like himself: confident and more on the masculine side.
My advice to COLD is to explore all you want, it is the college experience after all and make up your own mind rather than seeking other people's advice or approval.

I think you were a little bi-phobic with response to COLD's question. I read the question and the writer sounded very similar to my 38 year old husband. We are both bi and in a 10 year long open relationship. He has explored and knows what he likes at this point in his experience. He likes men and women, but his desire for men is based more around actual sex and desire for dick rather than dating or emotional connection. He likes men that are most like himself: confident and more on the masculine side.
My advice to COLD is to explore all you want, it is the college experience after all and make up your own mind rather than seeking other people's advice or approval.

@242/244 - Certainly, incest and pedophile fantasies are difficult to reveal to anyone. But I hope people will consider opening up more to their partners. It took many years for my husband to tell me about his fantasy of having sex with a trans-woman. But now that he has told me, we talk about it in bed, and he may get to fulfill it. Plus, I just feel that I understand him more and more...

Almost 250 comment???!!!
This must be some kind of record! Dan, would you care to comment on what you think the success of this particular column has been?

I'm one of those genetically wired GGG girls. I love sex, I love kink and I love to play with the weirdest ideas, much to my husband's delight. However when I was pregnant with my son, and looking at these very large boobs and large tummy that was in the way of everything ... sex went into the background. Once he was born the sex want came back but the milk thing was freaky in my mind. I had issues with the milk, never produced enough, bad latch, my son and I just didn't get it. My husband was totally interested in lactation play but honestly we only got to it once. He thought it was awesome, I thought it was painful and not at all sexy ... much like most of my lactation experience. So given that the woman is probably going through a lot, hormone wise, sleep deprivation etc. you may want to give her a break and just understand even if she is usually GGG this may be one thing that is just not so much in the cards.

@249 - FYI, last week's Savage Love hit 377.

I'm one of those genetically wired GGG girls. I love sex, I love kink and I love to play with the weirdest ideas, much to my husband's delight. However when I was pregnant with my son, and looking at these very large boobs and large tummy that was in the way of everything ... sex went into the background. Once he was born the sex want came back but the milk thing was freaky in my mind. I had issues with the milk, never produced enough, bad latch, my son and I just didn't get it. My husband was totally interested in lactation play but honestly we only got to it once. He thought it was awesome, I thought it was painful and not at all sexy ... much like most of my lactation experience. So given that the woman is probably going through a lot, hormone wise etc. you may want to give her a break and just understand even if she is usually GGG this may be one thing that is just not so much in the cards.

@250/252 we can get there without double-posting! Have faith!

@131, Canuck--

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

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

@134, EricaP--

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

And for the record, you can still be sex positive and acknowledge that everything may not come down to sex with this one person. In this forum especially I get the feeling that people forget that sex isn't the end-all-be-all for everyone. It isn't anti-woman or anti-sex to point out the danger of placing one person's sexual needs over the emotional/physical comfort of another.

blissme @254, sorry, I still don't think it's useful to distinguish between "good", sincere compliments and "bad" manipulative compliments.

Also, it isn't anti-woman to point out that sexual needs are a part of "emotional/physical comfort." The guy's "sexual needs" shouldn't be in conflict with his partner's "emotional/physical comfort," but if they are, that needs to be discussed and dealt with, not swept under the rug for years.

I can't help wondering if IBS is a closet hetero. She admits that she finds at least some men attractive, but is "freaked out" by their equipment. Perhaps, with a loving gentle gentleman, she can become accustomed to male equipment and overcome her freak out.

Sooooooooo . . . any signs of that "full report"?