Columns Jun 15, 2011 at 4:00 am

Quick & Dirty

Comments

103
Dan, you ARE aware that pot turns lots of people into nervous, paranoid wrecks, right? Pot turns regular me into a twitchy panicky paranoid owl, I can't even IMAGINE what I would be like if I were also nervous to the point of puking.
104
I wouldn't recommend marijuana to someone with anxiety. Back in the day when I smoked, I would be much MORE self-conscious. Preferred it alone. Now, alcohol helps alleviate anxiety! But thank goodness we're not recommending that to a 19 year old. I would recommend she just try to get over it. Or, worst case, see a psychiatrist -- but beware that makes for a preexisting condition if you're diagnosed, and must be reported on some things (for example, a bar application to be an attorney).
105
Have you people who say that pot makes you more anxious experimented with different strains? I used to think pot made me super paranoid and self-conscious... then I tried an indica rather than a sativa, and got a really great body high instead.

@88: Agree totally about the spirit of exploration. How does the (a)/(b) distinction you describe fit in with BDSM: for instance, what about someone who is a passionate submissive? What if submitting and pleasing their partner *is* what you're passionate about? Does that still work?
106
@103
The dangers of today’s pot are well documented. I think Dan refers to homegrown and/or older days when the stuff was milder and actually made people relax and “open up to the possibilities” (yes, pun intended).
107
@104: Many state bars only require disclosure if you currently have a condition that impairs with your ability to practice law. The trend is toward greater privacy in mental health, but every state is a little different.
108
@97,98 (Frederica Bimble),
I'm honestly mystified.
109
I totally get the sneezing fetish! I've masturbated ever since I remember, but before puberty I never connected it to/thought about anything sexual, and sometimes I would think about people sneezing! Its completely like an orgasm, kind of--the build up, the explosive release. In retrospect, I think that's why now I'm really into thinking about the moment of orgasm when I fantasize, and find it sexy to think of climax as an almost involuntary release. I totally get it.
110
Great comments today. Well done, Sloggers!

On the (a)(b) theory of GGG-- well elucidated and very reasonable. It leaves BUNNE in an unfortunate position. EricaP and others identified (correctly, I believe) that BUNNE is afraid for his marriage, perhaps dreading the day when his wife wants someone else. Insecure? Probably. Common? Also probable, at least in cases where a known incompatibility exists. Is a GGG partner who has more (b) than (a) obliged to accept nonmonogamy in order to be GGG? Is his partner (presumably also GGG) obliged to suppress their kink? In a real relationship, these competing interests will be negotiated and hopefully a solution can be reached. If both partners are GGG, does the vanilla one's right to, say, monogamy as a sexual preference at least equal the kinky one's right to his/her kink? Supposing the kink is "optional" (ie not a fetish) and nonmonogamy is a deal-breaker for the vanilla partner, it makes sense that the kinky one should sacrifice his/her kink, but if monogamy is negotiable then the kinky one can be kinky with someone else. If neither monogamy NOR kink is negotiable (e.g. fetish) then the couple should split without delay.

So within each couple, you should try to determine (pretty soon) 1) is there an unshared kink? 2) must it be satisfied? 3) is monogamy required? Unfortunately many people like BUNNE are neck-deep in relationships before they ask these tough questions. What to do when the answers are (yes)(yes)(yes) are the hardest emotionally. Looks like BUNNE is (yes)(no)(yes) which is workable. He does need to relax and talk to his partner about this!

Food for thought: I like monogamy and, psychologically, suspect I need it in order to get aroused. The thought of my husband with another woman is so revolting to me that I could not be sexual in that condition. Do I have a monogamy kink? Or maybe a monogamy fetish since it is truly nonnegotiable. Does it get more respect as a fetish?
111
Actually, i think she might be able to get pregnant from that. My mom got pregnant with me without any penetration. He came on her leg. The Dr had to pop her hymen to deliver me. True story.
112
@110: If the thought "My husband is not having sex with anyone but me" actually turns you on, then it's a kink. If you really need that thought to get turned on, it's a fetish. Nothing wrong with that as long as you realize not everyone feels that way.

But, if it's just that the thought of non-monogamy, or the thought of your husband with someone else, turns you off, then you don't have a kink or a fetish. It's an anti-kink, sometimes called a squick. It's not monogamy turning you on. It's non-monogamy turning you off.
113
@110 wxPDX

Can you please explain more about your feelings concerning your husband and monogamy? Why is the thought of sharing him "revolting?" Were you two virgins when you married? Anything you can add would be helpful.
114
It sounds like Nervous in Candlelight has social anxiety disorder and take it from me, having someone make fun of you when you tell them about it is NOT helpful.
115
I'm trying to imagine what lies behind your words, wxPDX @110.

A) monogamy is important to you for exchanging body fluids?
B) monogamy is a natural consequence to how you were socialized?
C) concerns about emotional commitment and fidelity as primary partner?
D) All of the above?
E) None of the above? The above is just silly.
F) This one will sound odd. An old female friend of mine has expressed the same sentiment. In her case monogamy is about security and keeping her home and family together. She's finally willing to acknowledge that she has no interest in having intimate relations with her husband (2 years) and that she started losing interest back in her 30s after their second child was born. She doesn't know why, the kid is 14 y.o. now, and the change in family dynamic hasn't altered things. I've asked if the idea of non-monogamy is revolting is because she no longer finds sex desirable and wishes for her husband to feel the same, it is a threat that he'll want to change the life she sees for them? Does she fear that we will talk behind her back? Is she afraid he'll fall in love and divorce her? She hasn't answered any of my questions, she changes the subject. I find it all very sad. And, I'll confess that I'm angry for her husband, who is also my friend. The inequality of their relationship is too much, as I see her having made a unilateral decision. I'm not saying or suggesting this situation is in any way like your's. Only that the word "revolting" came up with her, and it is a strong word.
116
@82
Thank you for your post. I my boyfriend smokes a lot and I see it as a coping mechanism. Sometimes it makes me worry but because we're both so young I try not to focus on it until it becomes a problem that affects me directly.

@112
That's kind of a blurry line though isn't it? I'll grant you the theoretical legitimacy that monogamy is a kink (though I think that's a wee bit dubious) but how do you seperate the "squick" of "he/she is sleeping with someone else" from the "kink" of "he/she isn't". Does that make sense? Kind of hard to explain...
117
@116: I don't think it's dubious at all that monogamy could be a kink for some people. Some people are turned on by the thought that their partner isn't sleeping with anyone else: you think no one is?
(I didn't say that it's "kinky," which has a different connotation altogether.)

Here's an example that might help you distinguish. A lot of people, like Dan, are really turned off by scat play. It's pretty clear that this is a squick: in other words, they don't get excited by the idea that there is no scat play going on, they get turned off by the idea that there is.

The reason I think 110 has a squick is that she expressed revulsion at the thought of NOT having monogamy. If she had a kink, she would have said "I get really turned on when I think about us being monogamous. It's so hot that he doesn't have sex with someone else." That's pretty clearly not the sentiment she expressed.

In short: feel revolted by something? It's a squick. Feel turned on by something? It's a kink.
118
BUNNE is interesting! My reactions
1) You can be as GGG as you want and still be incompatable
2) Some 'self-doubt' apprehensiveness is implicit in that he is seeking help -not a terminal flaw
3) Growing-up well adjusted full of the fruits of the spirit rather than riven with flaws and conflicts ought to be good even if that doesn't get you into BDSM! Some people would die to have a partner that is erotically selflessly flexible compared to one that is rigid stuck in a groove.
4) The bottom line is really they both need to randomly explore loads of erotica and grow out of what they do have in common to what they can have in common.
5) Beyond finding a solution to improve things don't fixate on it or the whole marraige will become defined by the <1% of what doesn't work at the total expense of everything else.
119
@Redheadwglasses, comment nos. 39, 40: Thank you for your kind and informative response in regard to GGG.
120
@117

Okay I think I can put it clearer now. I find that most monogamous people have both, but usually not either by itself? I don't know... maybe they all just have the squick factor.
121
The anxiety-inducing effects of pot smoking are well known and documented in the scientific literature. You can look up as much research on this as you care to read on PubMed. Chronic pot use can also initiate long-term paranoia. This was just flat out bad advice, Dan. In contrast to a totally unregulated street drug that has a good chance of exacerbating the problem, there are a number of carefully regulated, FDA approved, anti-anxiety pharmaceuticals that have changed the lives of people like me, with moderate to severe anxiety. I know you intended to be funny, but next time, please be a little less casual when advising on serious medical condition, okay?
122
@24 "skepticism is all well and good, but the story as originally written is quite plausible. Stranger things have happened....."

Like what???
123
@111 and my MIL got engaged 2 days before she discovered she was pregnant. Honest, complete coincidence (if you believe my in laws)
124
mydriasis, BlackRose

I think the whole kink/squick analysis misses the point when it comes to monogamy. From what I've observed monogamy has nothing to do with sexual desire or sexual revulsion. It's solely a matter of emotional security (or insecurity if you like).

I am poly. I don't care in the least if my wife wants other men and I am so secure in my commitment to her and her's to me that other people have no bearing on our marriage. She on the other hand is mono and views my sexuality as her personal property, even if she were to never have sex with me. It's unthinkable to her that I would have sex with someone else. She would absolutely divorce me if she thought I had done so.
125
I should add that Dan is quite correct to question whether society should view this belief that monogamy is more important than marriage as normal.
126
@kim in portland, I know a couple who is almost exactly in the same situation -- except that the wife has finally come round to allowing her husband to have sex with other women, provided she can pretend nothing is happening. So he has it very infrequently: only when he goes to a far-away conference, and even then not always so that she doesn't associate his absence with "that".

In other words, she sorta kinda said to him that it would be OK (she never said the words out loud, it was more about looks and sighs and OKs and "if you must"s and implicit meaning). As a result the husband is walking on eggs to make sure nothing is visible to the wife, and to their two children (boy age 14, girl age 19).

I did ask her once about it, and she avoided the topic. The husband tells me she does when he tries to bring it up to.

It is indeed very, very unfair to the husband, who has always been a model of love and devotion to her, and who could bring himself to have sex with other women only very gradually and with a lot of difficulty (his own dad had abandoned the family to go live with a lover he had been having for a while, thus hurting him, his mother, and his brothers and sisters; he had sworn he would never do such a thing).

But I can also see the viewpiont of the wife. She lost sexual interest in him about 10-15 years ago. She is 6-7 years older than him, and (at least to my taste) less attractive than he is. He was always been bombarded with attention from females (at the university where he teaches, first-year female students flocked to him when he was the undergraduate advisor), and (I imagine) she has been afraid for quite a while that he might want to leave her for a younger model. I can imagine her looking at herself in the mirror and feeling afraid of the little foxy 20-year-old who would eventually steal her husband.

And when we're afraid, we sometimes run away. We avoid the source of fear, because fear is uncomfortable, fear hurts, fear makes you cry. Maybe it started for her as denial -- if I pretend there's nothing then maybe this will disappear... Then it became a habit. And on it goes, as a means to avoid pain.

Avoiding pain is often the way to more pain.
127
Mr. J @ 124, and ankylosaur @ 126, I think you have both helped to move the discussion of monogamy, unilateral decision-making, and (relatively) sexless marriages into a thoughtful direction.
The whole "is it a kink or is it a squick" thing doesn't seem to pertain to such a complex issue as long-term marriage, loss of sexual desire, jealousy, insecurity, fear, and love present in the situation Kim in Portland described @ 115, and which many people have experienced variations of.

Kinks and squicks seem reserved for particular acts or role-playing games. I have a shoe kink; I get squicked by the idea of adult babies.
128
Black Rose, & others:

Maybe we should call the (a) and (b) different words; (a) and (b) just sounds a bit too uninformative. Let's say (a) is passion, and (b) is love. Passion is an appetite, a kind of hunger, a need to have something. Love is a connection to someone/something, a link, that makes one's happiness depend on the happiness of this other person/thing.

If you take this vision, then a 'passionate submissive' is a person whose passion (= hunger, need) is to submit. S/he hungers for the sensation of submitting to another person's will, of being used as an instrument of the satisfaction of another person's passion.

In fact, the submissive's kink is for the passion of the dominant: the more the dominant expresses his/her passion in what they're doing, the more the submissive connects sexually with him/her and feels fulfilled. It's not that the submissive simply enjoys pain: if s/he, say, burned or cut him/herself while cooking, this wouldn't be erotic. But if his/her dominant drops candle wax on him/her... and smiles and enjoys the, and laughs (all external signs of passion inside), then the submissive is in heaven.

If, on the other hand, the dominant is all care and concern for the submissive -- 'am I spanking you enough, darling? or do you want more? should I go get the pad?' -- then s/he can see there is no passion in the dominant, and since the submissive craves this passion in the dominant (expressed specifically in the form of spaking, humiliation, etc.), its absence is a powerful turn-off. Everything stops, the sub stops asking for more sex, and feels frustrated.

Just like, in a vanilla relationship, the person who is having vanilla sex with a partner who closes his/her eyes and 'thinks of England'. It is possible to go on -- if one enters one's fantasy world and forgets the person one is with. But this is hardly what we'd call 'good sex'.

If you're GGG with love but without passion, then it feels like you're sort of sorry for your partner. 'Oh, poor darling, he needs his kink. Why don't I do what he likes, as a good lover should?' (One of my worst relationships was with a girl who reacted like that to some of my kinks. It was... sad, to put it mildly.)

Now, I'm not saying that things can't change. You can start thinking like that -- 'poor darling' -- and then gradually change into something else. All kinds of things can happen. But it's usually better if you can be GGG not only because of the 'poor darling' factor, but also out of personal curiosity: what's in there for me? Maybe there is something in there for me. Let's give it a try...

And if you can't -- if whatever kinks your partner has are squicks for you -- then indeed there's incompatibility. Then you probably should think about keeping your relationship non-sexual.
129
I suppose the worst thing in dealing with the 'poor darling' kind of GGG is that it's difficult to express what it is one doesn't like. How on earth can you say to someone who is willing to do what you want, someone who obviously cares about you, who is trying to bring you sexual fulfillment... that there still is something missing? 'Oh darling, is it my fault? Am I doing something wrong?' It's very difficult to answer this question sincerely in a way that doesn't sound unfair or whimsical. One fears one is wrong, or hurting the other person, if one gives a sincere answer.

And so one finds oneself in the situation of BUNNE's wife above. What can she say that won't hurt him -- when he is in fact doing nothing wrong, he just isn't as passionate about spanking as she is?
130
For NIC, what about an anti-emetic? It sounds like a vicious circle-type thing - getting anxious triggers nausea, which makes the anxiety much worse - and very much like the problem I had for the better part of a decade.
In my case, the doctor prescribed tablets to deal with the nausea and, over a few months, the anxiety decreased and the nausea went away almost completely. It didn't matter if I started feeling ill because I had something to stop it, so the idea of being in a nerve-wracking situation wasn't as terrifying.

As for psychiatric help, I'd suggest that if the initial anxiety is particularly bad, but otherwise an anti-emetic might be enough.
131
Mr Ankylosaur - (I'm not sure why you felt the need for the unnecessary heteronormative bit, but I'll pass over that without comment) As someone who has found that b) often feeds a), I'd perhaps phrase it as being willing to discover how far one can go with authenticity in most new directions. After all, there will come a time when one will have gone to the new restaurant enough to be familiar with the menu. You seem on to something in general, and I like Ms Cute's invocation of the woman who became more vanilla as her relationship deepened. I'm slightly apprehensive about Mr J, although I can appreciate where he's coming from given his circumstances. To spend one's entire sexual life going from hotel to hotel in search of increasing thrills and never having a home doesn't seem all that much better than never leaving the house, but again, one understands that his particular patch of grass is rather more brown.

One concern, though, is not to set up the paradigm in such a way that what comes across is that the Vanilla Partner has to (or should) Get With the Program. Great if it can happen - being open to exploration for its own sake is fine, but I don't want to see it set up in such a way that implies that Vanilla is Less Than, or that the inability to go beyond one's point of maximum authenticity in a partner's kink is a failure (whether however far one can go is enough or not and what to do about it is a separate matter).

The previous SLLOTD which comes to mind is the one from "Peggy", whose BF (whom she had gotten into dressing up and being pegged) had gained weight and didn't want to put on his red dress for a while. She didn't want to agree to the vanilla period he'd requested, and wrote to Mr Savage appearing to expect his okay for her impulse to tell him to shape up or be dumped. If memory serves, there was a sentence at the end very similar to, "I didn't sign on for vanilla," or something to that effect.

It's funny, because even though I did occasionally practise unilateral accommodation, I worry about whether it carries a bit of danger about with it. I woke up in the night thinking of "The Gift of the Magi" and the wife who cuts and sells her hair to buy her husband a fob or chain for his heirloom watch that's his one prized possession. Only, instead of finding that he'd sold the watch to buy ornamental combs for her long hair, suppose he'd just appreciated her gift only to discover that he needed a new waistcoat because his old one just looked too tatty, and then that he needed a new suit to go with the new waistcoat, and before long, who knows what she'd be selling?
132
Oh - when I started #131, the last post up was #124.
133
Mr Ankylosaur @128/129 - But then what happens when one knows how far one can go, and it's not as far as the partner? (I'll grant your point about the difficulties with the infantilizing brand of GGG.) Take, say, Mr Ramsay, who can in the great realm of Thought, demonstrate command as far as Q, even if he never succeeds in attaining R. (Will people find Mrs Woolf less objectionable than Miss Austen?) Let's say that Mr Ramsay can reach Q in the kink where Mrs Ramsay gets all the way to Z - then what? Does Mrs Ramsay joyfully accept Q and produce the eight Ramsays of the next generation, try to drag Mr Ramsay kicking and screaming to R, leave him for a man who can reach V, hold Z in her mind as a lovely dream probably unattainable...?
134
Poor Darling GGG: I love it.
Also the fact that GGG might just be the new "being a good wife" i.e. lie back and think of England.

Vennominon's insight that (in Savage Loveland, anyway) the vanilla partner is always being told to "get with the program" (but I don't think this is the attitude with the culture at large; it'a probably the reverse) is a good one, too.

What with GGG chits, pseudofucking, bonus babies and passion vs. love, this has been a good comment thread.

I agree that Poor Darling is the death knell of good sex, and it's ironic, as it seems to stem from the correct place and attitude. Back to my theory of selfish sex.

135
Mr. J, it looks as if you're living a cuckold lifestyle -- wife gets to have sex with others, but you don't. Is that how it works? And are both parties happy with the result, without friction, residual tension, etc.? (If so, I'm happy for you.)
136
Oh Mr. Vennominon, you and your literary allusions. Thank you for them!
Austen, Woolf, and I think there was once someone else, too. But how many Savage Love readers are going to get the "To the Lighthouse" references? Mrs. Ramsey is never going to get to Z--she's never going to try. Her gifts are her beauty and her nurturing love. She would probably practice the Poor Darling variety of GGG, don't you think?
Stick with Austen: Emma Woodhouse and Anne Eliot would never do a Poor Darling. But don't venture into Bronte territory: you can bet your habit-clad ass that Jane Eyre Poor Darlings it all the time!
137
ankylosaur @135,
I have been reading Mr. J as saying that while he would not mind at all if his wife had extra-marital sex, she isn't interested in having much sex of any kind with anyone. He's unhappy and loves his wife, and has been courageous enough to share his thoughts and feelings with us, a group of strangers. I hope you weren't belittling him.
138
Mr Vennominon (I suppose by "unnecessary heteronormative bit" you refer to my use of titles like "Mr" -- it is indeed just a quaint little feature of mine without any good or bad implications, it only harkens back to the good old days when I was still learning to speak English),

I indeed agree that there is a connection between (a) and (b), or between "passion" and "love" as I have now framed it. And the connection is indeed an old one: it is reminiscent of unrequited love, this oldest of all traps in the human heart. If A lusts for B, but B does not lust, but does care, for A , what is B to do? Or, in BUNNE's situation, if his wife has a passion for spanking that BUNNE does not share but is willing to satisfy because he does love her, what can the wife do?

I agree that there are connections between passion and love, and that one can lead to the other -- I am reminded of Dan's last podcast, in which a young woman called to say that some women do want to date and have sex with their male best friends. Indeed one can lead to the other. If they were hermetically isolated, there would be no reason to try to be GGG -- it would never work.

My point was simply that it sometimes does not, because passion and love, though connected, are not the same. There is some space for sadness and suffering in this fact, as all of us come to know in the fullness of time.

I also (despite not being vanilla) am concerned with the possibility that the Vanilla Partner might be seen as Less Than. Since GGG -- in the wake of Dan's success as the source of a new sexual ethics -- has become a desired feature, the danger that its shadow side (the fear of not being GGG enough) may make some people think they are Less Than. Which would ironically be the very opposite of Dan's intention when he first came up with the topic.

Maybe the solution is to realize how the whole topic is really about something as old as humanity: the capacity to share certain things, but not others.

I am, for instance, deeply, totally, head-over-hills in love with foreign languages. They are an enormous source of life energy for me, without which I cannot imagine myself. Yet most people I know -- including my beloved wife -- do not view foreign languages in this way.

If she tried -- if she someday said "let's learn Sanskrit / Armenian / Lithuanian together!" just to please me, just to 'be GGG' -- I know it wouldn't work. The passion isn't there; she would soon be bored by conjugation tables and syntactic patterns and other arcana. All the fun of sharing something I love with someone else would disappear -- because this fun is only there if the person also loves the thing I share with him/her.

Of course, she might learn to love Sanskrit / Armenian / Lithuanian as much as I would (if we started learning these languages together). It is worth a try, or two, or three. But if in the end it turns out as I expect, then sooner or later we have to admit foreign languages belong to my world, not hers. We can share many other beautiful things, but not this one.

And maybe this is what spanking is to BUNNE and his wife. Something they cannot share, through no fault of either of them: neither BUNNE nor his wife are 'guilty' of this fact. They may share a number of other beautiful erotic things, but not this one. And if this is important to his wife, then she should go on to explore it with other people -- just as I go on to learn languages by myself, or in language courses, without my wife.
139
@135 ankylosaur

No, we are monogamous. I was talking about my feelings, not actions. It wouldn't bother me if she was with any number of other folks. To me, that has nothing to do with our commitment. At heart she is monogamous so it's a moot point. She wouldn't want anyone else even though she is free to do so.
140
@nocutename, no I wasn't belittling Mr J (and if I gave him this impression, then I haste to present my apologies). It was my impression/hope that he was simply describing his life arrangement with his wife, one that I can relate to since it is also one of my kinks.

The ironic thing you mention with "Poor Darling GGG" -- that it seems to come from the right place and attitude -- highlights the fact that what we want, what we need, when we want sex (and especially some specific form of kinky sex) is not simply the mechanical act itself, but a feeling of harmony that emerges when this act is carried out with someone who appreciates the symphony for its own value in the same way we do.

Or, as someone else put it, sex is not about bodies as much as it is about minds; it's not about fucking as much as mindfucking. And the beauteous mindscapes that it creates as bridges between human beings.
141
@Mr J, thanks for the answer. (My wife feels the same way, which is why my own cuckold kink is the stuff of dirty talking between us, but no reality.)
143
I'm just wondering if "chits" is a term that has been around for a long time or if Dan got that term from Waterworld like I did. Well anywho, I'm gonna go grab a sip of hydro.
144
I'm just curious if the term "chits" has been around for a long time or if Dan just referenced Waterworld while giving sex advice? Anywho, I'm going to grab a sip of hydro. Nice column this week!
145
how do you seperate the "squick" of "he/she is sleeping with someone else" from the "kink" of "he/she isn't".

I think the distinction is that you can't have a kink for someone not doing something (or a squick for someone not doing something). Kinks and squicks are active.

Monogamy, especially, is kind of a theoretical concept; a monogamous couple having sex and a poly couple having sex are both just...two people having sex. The two sex acts are physically indistinguishable from each other. What makes the couplings different is the future: the poly folks might go off and sleep with other people the next day, but the monogamous folks will not. In that exact moment, though, it's all just two people fucking.

So having a monogamy kink would be akin to saying, "I get turned on knowing that my partner won't be flogging me in the future." It kind of doesn't work.
146
ankylosaur, between the kink of yours you've mentioned, your love of language-study, your knowledge of medieval troubadour themes, your ability to cogently parse a complex concept or two, I'm developing a serious crush.

(Now Frederica Bimble will blow his/her stack)
147
@146 nocutename
I don't know about Frederica, but now I'm jealous of ankylosaur. Love stinks, yeah, yeah...
148
@26: Agreed. I'm not anti-pot, and it works for a lot of people, but in people with anxiety problems pot can actually make the anxiety worse.
149
I was struck by Dan's comment that "no one has ever contracted a fetish—like a cold?—just because someone uttered the name of it aloud." Because that was exactly my reaction fretted in his podcast that seeing a centaur in an ad might cause his kid to develop a centaur fetish.
150
Err, 'my reaction when he fretted in his podcast...' rather.
151
Hi,

I'm BUNNE (it was originally BUNNEH, which may give you a bit more idea about the dynamics of our relationship) and I'd like to clarify a few things. I tried to keep the initial letter brief, so I left out some details. So, now I'd like to fill in the blanks.

Dan's answer just left me with two further questions:
* If I can't make her happy, what's the point in being GGG?
* What do I do next?
The comment thread has been really helpful for me in finding answers to those. I considered phoning in to the Lovecast so I could have a real conversation, but I have a fairly distinctive voice and I don't want any coworkers who happen to be listening to know the intimate details of my marriage.

My primary goal in my sex life is to keep my wife happy and fulfilled. I'm not doing it for "GGG chits", I'm doing it for her. We've discussed that due to her much wider range of interests, we may hit a point where I'm unable to do that on my own. When we're there, I'm open to her looking outside for either play or sex, as long as she talks to me first rather than just running out and finding a partner. This we have all discussed - and my thinking is that since she hasn't told me she needs to look outside, she doesn't feel that way yet. Because of this, I'm not scared that our marriage is in imminent danger of falling apart - we have several layers of safety nets.

At present we are monogamous. My wife feels a strong connection between the physical and emotional sides of sex, and that's not something she wants to share with anyone but me. I wouldn't object to her looking elsewhere, but it's not something I really want for myself - I just don't think I could give two partners the love that they deserve. One of my wife's closest friends is poly and kinky, and she and her boyfriend have invited my wife to 3-ways. My wife has declined, partly because we are monogamous and partly because there's already some emotional baggage there.

I did talk to my wife (magic!) after sending the letter and we identified a number of issues aside from the energy thing.
* For a lot of our intimate time we are kind of... silly. Which she likes in itself, but kind of kills any mood for kink.
* I've been on various antidepressant meds. The ones I'm on now are working, but for a long time my sex drive was even lower and she didn't want to put any pressure on me.
* Some of the details we'd worked out for our previous sessions weren't working for her. I didn't know, now I do.

We've been together for 6 years and married for 3, not 8 and 4 - so less young and more soon. Her kinkiness long predates our relationship.

To answer specific questions from the comments:
4 + many others) The willing vs passionate discussion makes a lot of sense - but I don't know what I can do about it. I can't MAKE myself be turned on by subbing.
5) It's been something we've talked about, but emotional intimacy in sex partners is very important to both of us, so finding a third who would meet that bar is going to be really difficult. Not saying it could never happen, but meeting the right person will be really tough.
7) I care if she's spanking me (tying me up, gags and blindfolds, etc) because I want her to be happy and fulfilled, and she's incredibly reluctant to go outside for it. She has been initiating vanilla sex more frequently recently.
13) Yes, the age question was anticipation, since Dan has often railed against getting married too young. And yes, I overthink.
17) I have asked. She would like to. Never actually happens.
18) Oddly specific, but good suggestion. :) I have suggested some similar things which she's been open to in principle, but I guess without my enthusiasm it's going to be less of a turn-on for her.
23) Thanks for the thoughts.
53&54) I'm very much her type (as far as men go). I know this because I have seen the other men that she likes. If she wants to be whipping someone else, then I want her to be able to whip someone else, which she isn't doing at the moment.
56) You're right. I'm a bastard for wanting to make my wife happy, and for seeking advice on how to do that.
59&63) She's told me what her desires are. I am doing my best to meet them here. Yes, I'm insecure about my ability to do so, which is why I asked for advice.
66&68) Some of the things I omitted for conciseness seem to be bothering you. Hopefully they're mostly answered by the items above. The thing I like most about my wife being bi is sharing similar tastes in women. You know, it's nice to have things in common. And yes, I was kind of weirded out by the "GGG isn't enough" response.
74) Absolutely - it's not about me, it's about her. But I can't start getting that conditioning unless it, you know, happens.
75) I am well aware of how in-demand she is, thank you. :) And I am TRYING to enjoy it. Just not very successfully.
78) Thank you.
95) You understand the situation perfectly, and thank you for the advice.
101) I'm totally willing to go there. I'm asking how to train myself, and I'm getting some answers.
105) This is kind of my question too. I care more about pleasing her than I do about any specific physical activity.
110) I think the answers to your questions are a little less straightforward. In our case monogamy is highly desirable but not required. Similarly, she can live without kink but we'd both rather she didn't have to.
118) Thank you for the advice. We tend to recommend various videos to each other and sometimes even watch together, but they've tended to be vanilla rather than BDSM. And yes, putting it all into perspective is helpful.

So anyway, thank you all for your thoughts. And sorry for the wall of text.
152
@ 147 Mr. J,
Ha! Is the "J" for "J Giles Band?"
Don't worry, I'm still in love with you (and Mr. Vennominon, too, if he swung that way!). If any of you lived in California, in the Bay Area, I'd say let's meet for a drink.

Frederica accused me (back @ 97 & 98) of "TROLLING," by which I assume s/he referred to my expressing admiration for some of the contributors to this thread, since I can't otherwise explain that designation. In the usual context of this thread, a troll is someone spewing hate or trying to bait sloggers or Dan, none of which I think I was doing (at least I wasn't trying to do any of that).
153
BUNNEH @151,
Thanks for checking in. It seems that there is always so much more background and nuance to these stories, and for whatever reason (probably wanting to keep things concise) the stripped-down versions of issues that make it into the column lend themselves to misunderstandings of the full issue or the subtleties of it, which leads to at best incomplete or inept advice.

On the bright side, you and your wife sound much better off than your original letter suggests, and the fact that you've now talked with her about this issue is encouraging.
Try thinking of submitting as an adventure with something in it for you--maybe take it as a challenge: how much can you stand? How far can you push your limits? This is ankylosaur's point of view, and it might help you get to your own desire. Also keep in mind that if you are submitting to something you don't really find arousing, you're submitting to HER DESIRE in terms of how the sex will play out. Since it isn't your real preference, it really is submission. If you turn it into a mental fuck, it will be so much better, because the real payoff for dom/sub stuff is almost wholly mental.
And then wait for the Pavlovian/Skinnerian effect to kick in . . .

If you can find an antidepressant without the collateral libido-lowering--have you tried wellbutrin (which only works on depression, not anxiety, so which may not be right for you, but has no libido-dampening effects)--I predict you two will be fine in no time.
154
anklysaur,

Thank you.

"And when we're afraid, we sometimes run away. We avoid the source of fear, because fear is uncomfortable, fear hurts, fear makes you cry. Maybe it started for her as denial -- if I pretend there's nothing then maybe this will disappear... Then it became a habit. And on it goes, as a means to avoid pain."

I've often seen this play out in life. But, it doesn't prevent pain in the long haul. Avoiding it can smoother love though. Life hurts sometimes and we're all walking wounded, but that simpily doesn't justify using our fear to hurt others. It just doesn't.

Take care.
155
Mr Ankylosaur - No, I was almost driven out of the conversation by part of #88:

"To observe a passionate person -- especially, but not only, of the other sex -- is one of the greatest experiences;"

Had you personalized that, it would not have bothered me, but I read it as an intended generalization of an unnecessarily heteronormative nature. Rather than derail the thread, I just took a break for the rest of the evening.

I'm glad we can agree about the Less Than concern. Perhaps it's just because he's the one who wrote in and he does seem a tad oblivious, but we could just as well wonder, if Mrs BUNNE has tied and spanked him a number of times and, "It was fine," underwhelms her, how much responsibility does she bear for that?

So many people think it's his job to educate himself or that she should be willing to accept that he's trying to improve (if he is, which could be debated). But, if this were my novel, it might be interesting to arrange that while he's busy worrying that there's some secret to being spanked he's supposed to figure out without asking her, she's busy toning down her spanking interest because it's not his forte.
156
Thanks for the suggestions, nocutename. My current cocktail includes wellbutrin. :)
157
All I have to say is its a good thing Dan is here to answer cause these people are not so smart.
I have no words for the questions this week. It sounds like the first week of summer for all the kids bored.
158
Mr BUNNEH - Ditto the thanks for checking in. It is always nice to get the extra feedback from an original LW, especially when there is much about which one must speculate, and it's brave of most LWs to be willing to check in and respond.
159
@152 nocutename

If you reread 98 you'll see it's a correction that redirects the troll label to an actual troll, not you.

In another life I'd meet for that drink even with the plane ride. And I'd drag the lovely Mr. V with me if necessary, hopefully joining the mile high club on the way.
160
Oh, now I reread it and the numbering seems backwards. Huh. Maybe the correction is in error.
161
BSIC, According to "What to Expect Before You're Expecting", saliva is a pretty inhospitable environment for sperm. So, while I'm sure anything is possible, it's fairly improbable that your husband could transfer lots of healthy swimmers to you.
162
"How can any normal person associate sneezing with sex?" - WM
Every time I fantasize for more than a couple of seconds I sneeze, not by choice, just happens. I still feel like I'm a fairly normal person.

(I actually use this to my advantage dislodging sneezes that get "stuck")
164
@145: Being turned on by theoretical concepts can definitely be a kink. The idea of cuckolding is one good example... some people are turned on by the idea that they are in a cuckold relationship.

Another example is the idea of servitude or slavery: it's common to be turned on by the thought that someone is your sex slave, there for you to use at some future time when you want.

Or, what about denial? Some people are turned on by the idea that they will be denied sex in the future.

So, it's definitely possible to have a kink for a type of relationship, or for something theoretical, or for something that will or won't happen in the future. Monogamy is no different: there are people who are specifically turned on by the idea of being in a monogamous relationship.

@127, 120: To be clear, I wasn't saying that monogamy is *just* a kink. It is of course very complex. And I wasn't saying that all monogamous people get turned on by it: I would guess most don't get specifically turned on by the idea. But a kink -- that is, being turned on by something -- isn't just for an act or a game. It can be important in figuring out how to have a satisfying relationship.
165
@128: I don't agree that (b) is love: rather, I would say that love includes both passion and the desire to please (among other things).

As much as I love Heinlein, I can't agree that love is that condition where another's happiness is essential to one's own: that sounds more like a sick codependency to me. If someone you love is unhappy, love means caring about them and trying to help them, not becoming unhappy as well.

As far as the passionate submissive you describe so well, that's one type of passion. What I was thinking was a little different. Instead of hungering for the dominant's passion, I was thinking of a submissive who hungers to please the dominant. The converse of this would be a dominant who wants a particular act, but is fine with someone submitting out of the desire to please, rather than needing a person to really want it as well. (nocutename said it well in #153.)

Basically, I sympathize with BUNNE. While I think it's fair to want a particular act, it's hardly a fair request to ask your partner to want it, crave it, or be passionate about it, as well as do it. It's very frustrating to be told "It's not enough that you do what I want, you have to want to do it as well," because that's not really something you can control.

My thoughts on this are biased by my own kinks -- I want someone to please me even if they're not into it -- but it seems to me that *doing* a particular thing is all you can fairly ask a GGG partner to do, and you should be satisfied with that.
166
Mr. J,
Do you and Mr. Vennominon live in the same area?
167
I don't know. I live in MA.
168
I have only been to North Adams and Boston. And had sex in some little graveyard at the Vermont/Ma border.
Loved Boston and would like to return--when I didn't freeze to death!
169
@152/nocutename:

I don't think Frederica meant to accuse you of trolling; if you look at #98, she apologized for accidentally typing your comment number (#60) explained that she meant to complain about #61, written by Professor, who happens to be the trolliest troll who ever did troll.

Long story short: you're cool; Professor isn't.
170
Thanks, echizen_kurage (@ 169)
But Frederica actually corrected directing her trolling comment to the Professor and redirected it to me.
171
@kim in portland,

You're welcome! It's a pleasure to read your opinions--they are usually so well balanced, well thought-out, caring and compassionate.

"I've often seen this play out in life. But, it doesn't prevent pain in the long haul. Avoiding it can smoother love though. Life hurts sometimes and we're all walking wounded, but that simpily doesn't justify using our fear to hurt others. It just doesn't."

That is my biggest fear for this couple. The wife seems to be developing a certain anger against what her husband 'could be doing' (and now is doing), a resentment that she cannot express because she's still trying to pretend nothing is happening and that only accumulates. And the husband feels very guilty of his escapades, and compensates by being extra attentive to her and her needs... while knowing inside that this situation is unfair to him. Which means he is also repressing bad/angry feelings.

So maybe love will be smothered there, if they don't find a way of escaping this dynamics. A great pity, kim. They are wonderful people, warm and welcoming. Alas, this is apparently not enough to prevent people from falling into self-made traps. :-(
172
@nocutename, Mr J, thanks for your comments! :-) It's nice to be appreciated! :-)

I don't know as much about English literature as you and Mr Vennominon; but I did study Provençal and am moderately acquainted with medieval Provençal poetry (up to modern times, with Mistral and the Félibrige).

173
@151 (Mr. BUNNEH), thanks for the extra information on your situation! Looks like the communication between the two of you is good, and I'm glad to see you have nothing against your wife spanking others if the fancy strikes her.

You asked one question that I've been giving some thought to: if being willing isn't (always) enough, what's the point of being GGG?

That's a fair question. I wonder what you think of the answer I sketched in a previous post, namely: there are things you can and can't share. Languages are something I love with a passion I can't really describe in less than a thousand words. My wife doesn't love them at all. As a consequence, all language-related activities in my life are strictly my own, in my free time, and she's never included. I go out to language courses (I'm learning Estonian now), I buy books and read them, I check out Internet sites in Estonian, listen to Estonian music, listen to Estonian news in Estonian... all by myself, without her being there at all.

I wished I could share this with her. It's something deeply pleasurable to me, and the few times I was with someone who felt at least a little passion for languages the way I do... I can't even begin to describe how wonderful that was. But my wife, alas, is not one of them, and never will be.

She also wishes she could share my passion. She wants me to be happy, and she wants to be a part of that happiness. She tried learning Sanskrit with me (a language she likes for other reasons: she loves Eastern philosphy). It didn't work. So we stopped.

Perhaps, Mr BUNNEH, spanking and subbing is a little bit like this for you and her. And that's all: no big catastrophe, no "I can't make her happy"... just this specific activity is not for both of you.

You don't have to satisfy every single sexual need your wife has; as long as you're OK with her getting these needs satisfied somewhere else.

You share a sex life with her -- the kind you described as being somewhat "silly" (ah! sex at its best is always funny and a little silly...). The two of you have that -- and you can cherish it and enjoy it and let it grow and go wherever it will. You don't have to force yourself to include everything -- again, as long as it's OK for her to get her other needs met elsewhere. Which apparently is OK with you.

Of course there's the insecurity: but if I'm not the alpha and omega of sexuality for her... then maybe she'll find someone who includes more, who can have the silly sex and also the spanking with her? And then leave me?

My experience in life is that every time we try to do something out of fear that someone will leave us if we don't, we end up creating negative feelings in ourselves and in the person in question. And, since life is dangerous, in the end even doing what we think will allay our fears is also no guarantee. She might leave you even if you did it for her.

Life is dangerous. There is no guarantee that she won't leave you someday. Or that you won't leave her someday. Hell, there's no guarantee either of you will be alive a month from today.

So I prefer to concentrate on being a good person for myself, not for others. My wife loves me for who I am; I try to be myself, which includes caring about her and her needs, not because I'm afraid of what might happen if I don't, but because I'm interested in them. (That's why I chose her as a life partner after all, right? I was interested in her, in her needs; they attracted me.) I'm attracted to her. I'm attracted to her needs. They turn me on. ;-)

And I hope that that's enough.

Does that make any sense to you, and your situation?

All the best!
174
@25

Savage Love shows up as the last result in a google search for Sneezing Fetish.

I think daughter and mother might have an awkward convo coming...

(I hope it ends up on the slog)
175
@165 (Ms BlackRose): perhaps choosing "love" as a label for (b) was not the best move. I needed a word to oppose to 'passion' and which still contained positive aspects and feelings; it wasn't "lust" but it was "caring for"; a motivation for doing things one may personally not enjoy 'for someone else's sake'. "Love" felt like a comfortable label for that; but the word has so much meanings and significations... I'm open to a different suggestion of a label for (b) if you have one.

I think the happiness of loved ones is important to us -- 'essential' may be a bit much; but if I love someone, then whether or not this person is happy must matter to me, and matter a lot; more than a friend's would. If this is not the case, then I think what I feel for that person is not love. (In fact, in your view, how is a loved one different from a friend? After all, you certainly would also care about whether or not a friend was unhappy, and try to help them, wouldn't you? Is it only a matter of instensity?)

Indeed the submissive hungers for the pleasure of the dominant, in all cases. But I don't think that's all (you may disagree, and I'd love to hear your take on it). It seems to me that if the submissive feels the dominant does not want his submission, that s/he does not actively want to be pleased, if s/he (his/h/er sexual self) is not feeding on that submission, then it is not really something sexual. If the dominant is merely pleased as she would be by a good waiter in a restaurant -- i.e. a certain service has been performed well, to the dominant's satisfaction --, then it would seem there is nothing sexual happening: just a service, a chore. In this case, the submissive actually becomes just an unpaid servant, not really a sex partner. That would strike me as unfair.

The submissive submits out of the desire to please -- no denying about that. But there must be a spark coming from the dominant to the submissive: there must be a desire in the dominant for the submissive's submission, an appreciation, an enjoyment (in their coded language) of the submissive's submission, beyond the mere service that the submissive is rendering. If this spark, this 'evil smile', this 'feeding' is not there ... then I think something vital is missing: lust, sex, that which makes the dominant-submissive relationship something very different from the relationship a lord has with his butler (even if the submissive fantasizes that s/he is the dominant's butler).

I know this sounds a bit self-contradictory, and I'm not sure I'm expressing it well. Do you see the point, or should I try to reformulate?

Last, but not least -- I also sympathize with BUNNE. He is doing nothing wrong; in fact he is doing everything right. Still, it may be the case that the absence of passion in his submission -- the 'lack of energy' he alluded to in his comment here -- makes it less enjoyable for his wife. Now, of course this is not something he can control, and of course it would be unfair to demand it -- just as it would be unfair for me to demand that my wife enjoy foreign languages as much as I do. But this doesn't change the fact (if indeed it is so) that this passion may be necessary, or at least important, for her enjoyment. It's not a question of fairness or justice; it's an empirical question about what is or isn't necessary or important for her enjoyment. Just like some women need a lot of clitoral stimulation in order to have an orgasm, maybe some people need to feel their partner's passion for them ('he really lusts after me!') to enjoy certain sex acts.

176
#164: @145: Being turned on by theoretical concepts can definitely be a kink. The idea of cuckolding is one good example... some people are turned on by the idea that they are in a cuckold relationship.

No, I get that. But not only is monogamy a theoretical concept, it's a negative/passive concept: not sleeping with other people.

A person turned on by the idea of their partner fucking other people (or wearing high heels, or shitting in a diaper, or whatever) is aroused by the idea that their partner is doing something; a person with a monogamy kink would be aroused by their partner not doing something, and I don't think that's how brains work.

Going back to the example from my previous post, which concept makes more sense to you: that a person is turned on by their partner not flogging them and having no plans to flog them in the future, or that they just don't like being flogged?

For that matter, if not-sleeping-with-other-people was a turn-on, monogamy fetishists would be mildly aroused all the time. Any time you interacted with another person and that person wasn't actively fucking someone other than you or talking about fucking someone other than you, you'd get a bit of a thrill.
177
@176: I would assume the turn-on is the positive or active concept of having an exclusive relationship. The idea of having an exclusive relationship is more like having a cuckold, poly, or slave relationship -- all of which are also concepts that turn people on -- than it is like "not being flogged." A monogamy fetishist would probably not be turned on by just having a conversation without an actual established monogamous relationship there.

I agree that it doesn't really make sense to be turned on by not being flogged: that's more likely to be a squick. However, you can certainly be turned on by a negative: that's pretty much the whole point of orgasm denial fetishists, and cuckold fetishists may also get turned on by the idea that their wife is denying them.
178
To BUNNEH
1) Try taking up adrenaline sports with your wife. Rock climbing, parachuting, speedway racing,etc. Maybe with the external danger the bedroom scene will centre back on the need for intimate loving affirmation aka vanilla sex
179
"To yield readily - easily - to the persuasion of a friend is no merit with you."

"To yield without conviction is no compliment to the understanding of either."

The conversation just induced that little exchange to pop into my head.

I suppose that, given the wide range of preferences or even requirements in a kink for the participation level, reactions or status of an indulgent partner, it's almost tempting to place a successful kinky-vanilla relationship on a par with Mr Darcy's Accomplished Woman.
180
NIC needs to find someone with a vomit fetish. Problem solved!
181
"Sneezing fetish" definitely could be a prank on Mom, as others have noted. Or, if a serious search, not necessarily indicative of actually sharing that fetish. She could find it funny, interesting, or awful.

Other possibilities: Are there other people whose search histories would show up on their computer? Someone repeatedly sternuphilia-rolling the daughter (BEANS), hiding a link that is an Internet search query like google.com/search?q=%22sneezing+fetish%2…; ? (Incidentally - cans of Sterno are not snuff; I had to find out the hard way.)

Anyway, without bringing this particular search up, Mom might talk to her daughter about sex, the Internet, sex and the Internet, and Internet privacy sometime. Seems that she may not have, when she should have a long time ago.
182
Re Buttsex: I was a confirmed top for all the same reasons until at 58 I met my perfect man - also a confirmed top. With patience and experimenting with products (Anal Blu is the best) and cautious use of poppers, I am now a confirmed bottom. LOVE IT! Be patient and slow but the best is having an understanding partner.
183
If being near someone makes you feel like puking, there may be some toxic products on that person. We are putting toxic crap right on our skin a lot more than you think. Just search "toxic products" and see what comes up. And don't put lavender on a boy.
184
@183: You don't need to worry about lavender oil... there were only three cases reported of boys who grew breasts, and they happened to use very common products containing a small amount of oil. There's never been an actual study done on lavender demonstrating a causal link.

"As the report states, breast growth in pre-pubertal boys is extremely uncommon, yet three cases are reported within a short period of time, and all in the same clinic. Considering that some 200 tonnes per annum are produced of both lavender and tea tree oil, that most of this goes into personal care products, and that very little of the evidence presented for these 3 cases is convincing, the press reports of caution are premature.

"No connection was established between the in vitro work and the three cases, and the case for tea tree oil having an effect on prepubertal gynecomastia is especially weak. Phytoestrogens generally have a very weak hormonal activity, and it is implausible that the amounts of essential oil that enter the body from product use would have a significant effect. Further research will hopefully clarify these issues."

http://www.safbaby.com/can-lavender-oil-…

(Yes, it's an aromatherapy site, which is complete nonsense, but the critique of that report is still valid.)
185
@175: Oh, I totally agree that if you love someone, their happiness matters to you. My point was just that it shouldn't be essential to *your happiness.* In other words, it shouldn't make you unhappy if they're not. That doesn't mean it can't be extremely important to you.

This is somewhat of a pet peeve of mine because people frequently confuse unhappiness over someone with caring, or loving, or someone being important.

As far as what submissives enjoy, I'm not one, so it's hard for me to fully understand. But I'm sure that there are many different ways of being submissive, ranging from simply wanting to please someone you care about or love, to feeding on the dominant energy and sparks and enjoyment of submission the way you describe, and anywhere in between.

I think the difference has a lot to do with an established relationship: if you do something for someone you don't know well, it doesn't mean the same as if you do it out of love, submission, or servitude for someone you have an established relationship with. The former is just doing something while the latter is part of an ongoing effort to please someone, and I think it's the latter that communicates the spark and passion you describe. Does that make sense?

I don't think I phrased my original point very well, so let me try to clarify: if a submissive is submitting only as type (b), doing a specific act because they want to please their partner, but the submission is part of a greater type (a) passion to please their partner, this could still please a dominant who craves the type (a) passion. In other words, I think that the passion can come from a relationship oriented towards wanting to serve and please, even if the submissive isn't passionate about the specific act.

I also think that this dynamic, the passion being about the relationship rather than the specific act, doesn't need to be limited to explicitly D/s relationships. For instance, if BUNNE's wife really wanted sex, or spanking, and BUNNE agreed, BUNNE's wife may be able to get the passion or spark she needs just from the fact that BUNNE is really passionate about pleasing her, being GGG in general, and so forth, rather than that passion needing to be expressed in that particular spanking.

Or, it might not be enough for her. You're right that what people need isn't always fair, and it isn't always something a reasonable GGG person can provide, and in cases like this there may just be a fundamental incompatibility, as sad and frustrating as that is.
186
BUNNEH @ 151

Thanks for the response and clarification. I compliment your efforts. Asking for help is half the battle. I'm rooting for you and your wife!
187
Brilliant discussion. Thank you to everyone who engaged with my question on whether or how monogamy (or polyamory or other kinds of relationships) could be considered a "kink". It has prompted me to think about how exactly monogamy makes me feel. Some days it does stem from lack of security, and then the resulting feeling is negative (I used the word "repulsed" before and some days it is like that). More frequently (most frequently... like, ALL DAY TODAY!) I get exceptionally turned on thinking specifically about my monogamous relationship. I get so hot knowing my guy and I are exclusively intimate with each other; thinking of him right now thinking of me and wanting to come home just to me has me getting too excited to type fancy thoughts. It has nothing to do with frequency, either, as we happily have sex once-twice/day (maybe more on weekends), initiate with similar frequency, and rarely turn each other down. So kink or squick?

Suppose you have another kind of kink. Could the thought of not having it (or the reality of losing it) freak you out enough so that it would be temporarily redefined as a squick? Monogamy, with all its abstractions, is a more complex situation of course, but for the sake of argument consider just any kink.
188
@187:

I get exceptionally turned on thinking specifically about my monogamous relationship. I get so hot knowing my guy and I are exclusively intimate with each other; thinking of him right now thinking of me and wanting to come home just to me has me getting too excited to type fancy thoughts.

Yeah, this sounds like a kink to me. It's obviously something that turns you on specifically.

You can have a kink along with the corresponding squick, like in your case, monogamy is your kink and the thought of your partner having sex with someone else is the squick. And there are people who feel the exact opposite: for some people, their partner having sex with someone else is a turn-on, and the idea of monogamy is a turn-off.
189
This bullshit gets way too much attention. Have an opinion? Kill yourself.
190
Gape in awe at Santorum Tartare: you'll froth at the mouth for it!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/2011…
191
NIC Oh honey. I know EXACTLY how you feel. Had that happen over and over and over and it started at about your age. It was unbelievably embarrasing. After YEARS and trying several different anti-depressants without helping, a nurse practicioner put me on a beta blocker. It's a cheap (2 months supply for $8) little drug that a lot of professional musicians take to help them overcome stage fright. A very low dose of the beta blocker stopped the panic attacks and throwing up on my dates and stopped it the first time and it's never happened since. It is prescription medicine, so you must ask your doctor or a nurse practicioner about it. Go TODAY and ask if a beta blocker might work for you.
192
Black Rose @105,

I've tried indica strains (organic, no less). I found it to be not as harsh as the usual commercially available sativa stuff, but it still did not make me feel good. You know how some people just really hate onions? They may find the onion less bad if it's a milder type, or there's less of it, but they still don't like it. I'm like that with weed. Basically, a couple of modest tokes of an indica strain merely makes me feel paranoid and nervous and like I should go lie down for a while, as opposed to giving me a bad case of the spins and making me throw up, as I've had happen with the sativa dominant weed most people get. Because I so rarely smoke weed, I have wondered if this has more to do with my low tolerance than with me being somehow "different." I don't really care to attempt to build up a tolerance in order to find out, though.
193
@176 "which concept makes more sense to you: that a person is turned on by their partner not flogging them and having no plans to flog them in the future, or that they just don't like being flogged?"

The latter makes more sense but, knowing what I know about human nature, I do not disallow for the former. I am sitting here imagining a person whose partner buys a flogger and ties their partner down and walks around with the flogger, talking about using it but not using it. Suddenly, it makes more sense to me as a fetish than something like blowing up balloons.

See, not only is it possible to me that not be flogged could be a kink, I think you could DO 'not being flogged'.

"a person with a monogamy kink would be aroused by their partner not doing something, and I don't think that's how brains work."

I disagree but, if it were true, it would be a problem easily solved. Think about your mate masturbating when he or she is horny and you are unavailable. You have a positive that actively implies a negative.
194
Totally agree with the answer to WM, but I think it was incomplete. May I add, there must be some stuff WM could do to lead her daughter's kink to develop healthily and regretless, isn't it?
195
Anal sex can be super painful but the thing to keep in mind is that if you are nervous or stressed your ass will be tighter =more pain. Stage fright could add to the pain factor. It might help to try using a dildo, a small one at first and work your way up to one that is bigger. Take it slow, use lots of lube and try to get some enjoyment out of the pain, because a certain amount of pain is inevitable. Also it can be a lot better on an empty stomach. Especially if you want to go deep. Best of luck, enjoy your fucks.
197
BlackRose, who wrote: I also think that this dynamic, the passion being about the relationship rather than the specific act, doesn't need to be limited to explicitly D/s relationships. For instance, if BUNNE's wife really wanted sex, or spanking, and BUNNE agreed, BUNNE's wife may be able to get the passion or spark she needs just from the fact that BUNNE is really passionate about pleasing her, being GGG in general, and so forth, rather than that passion needing to be expressed in that particular spanking.


That is indeed an interesting question. I suppose there's a whole typology of needs and desires (going way beyond mere submissive-dominant relations) and how they may seem to be alike ('I need a spanking') but may actually be different at a deeper level ('I need a spaking from someone who is passionate about sexual spanking' vs. 'I need a spanking from someone who is willing to do it out of love for me even though it does nothing for him/her'.

My gut reaction -- as far as I know there's no theory on the topic -- is that people will differ with respect to that much as they differ with respect to their kinks. Some people are specific ('I need this act'), others are generic ('I need the feeling any act of this kind -- e.g., submission -- gives me'); some people are intense ('I need a lot of it'), others are less intense ('I need a little bit of it'), etc. etc. etc.

This suggests to me that there are many, many ways in which people can differ, and if so, many, many ways in which they might not be fully compatible. This highlights again another one of Dan's axioms, namely, that nobody gets 100% satisfaction, because whatever sexual elements inhabit one's sex self, the odds are against all of these elements (or their necessary counterparts) being also found in the person you're considering as a sex partner. In the end, it may even be that 'sexual signatures' -- the details of what turns you on, and how exactly it turns you on -- may be as personal as fingerprints.

Who knows? :-)

Interesting discussion.
198
Bunneh: Have you tried any natural meds for depression? I was on lithium for 6 months for Bi-polar disorder and it completely killed my sex drive, and my personality. St. John's wort is often used to treat depression, though it is not good for people who suffer from mania (like me). Also Kava kava can be good for treating anxiety and stress if you have any issues with that. You seem like a nice guy but maybe a bit tense. I grind up a teaspoon of kava kava root in a coffee grinder and simmer it in a cup of water for 5 minutes. It does wonders for my moods, makes me more chill. Also for helping your sex drive: cinnamon! Don't underestimate the stuff. Chew on a cinnamon stick or use cinnamon in your food, you'll thank me later. On the opposite end of the spectrum, licorice root is good for mellowing you out, but bad for sex drive.. unless you want to last longer and come slower. This is just stuff have learned from my own experiences, but well worth trying. Good luck with your lady, and try not to put too much pressure on yourself or on her. Sometimes being too analytical can put a damper on the natural flow of things, peace
199
@Hunter

that's the most creative (and honest!) 'older man' pitch I've ever heard. And I've heard a LOT.

still sums up why I don't go for older men, but I have to hand it to you, still.
200
Long-time reader, first-time commenter. Great discussion this week!

@60/61/97/98 misunderstanding: 60 & 61 were posted at the same time, and for me, 60 is nocute's, while 61 is Professor's. It seems like this is a computer glitch, and that they are changing places because the timestamps are the same.

BUNNEH, I applaud you for responding in the comments, a rare thing to see! You seem to be making good efforts to include your wife's kink in your sex life, and communicating with her about it is definitely the most important part.

I am a... I guess you could call it a semi-kinkster. I have engaged in, and thoroughly enjoyed, BDSM, both topping and bottoming, and yet can have a fulfilling sex life without it. There have been some great suggestions already given, and I've thought of a few more that you might find helpful:

1. Read some of the BDSM how-to books out there. The lover that I shared my first scenes with gave me Janet W. Hardy & Dossie Easton's The New Bottoming Book and The New Topping Book. I thought they were great, though I haven't read any others.
2. Have you gotten a comprehensive list from your wife of all of the activities that really get her hot? Maybe there is something in that list that REALLY WILL do something for you, too :) As others have suggested, explore, explore, explore. There are many different activities that fall under the BDSM umbrella, there may be one (or several!) that is/are just right for both of you.
3. It does take a lot of energy to do a scene, especially if the top is one for pre-planning (like I am). But, BDSM DOESN'T HAVE TO BE CONFINED TO SCENES. There are many degrees & forms of BDSM, and some can be spontaneously included in any sexual encounter. And, counter-intuitive as it may seem, the sub can even initiate! If you are already having sex, and she is on top, you could put your hands over your head, wrists together, and sweetly ask if she would pin your wrists to the bed. You could walk up to her when nothing sexual is happening, eyes downcast, shameful look on your face, and say "Mistress, I've been naughty; I deserve a spanking." If you indicate a desire to submit, her desire to dominate just might be activated.
4. I have realized that I unintentionally lied when I said I could have a fulfilling sex life without BDSM... there is one thing that falls under that umbrella that I could not do without, nipple-tweaking. I mean hard tweaking. And, I have had a lover who wasn't really into BDSM in general, and didn't like being spanked, but who got really hot when I tweaked his nipples hard. Others haven't. But, if your nipples are erogenous zones for you to begin with, you could ask your wife to try tweaking them. As with many pain-inducing acts, it is best to start softer, and increase the intensity as you go. If you find you like it, it could be a nice little outlet for her inner-masochist.

I wish you the best of luck; you seem to be on the right track!
201
Dear NIC, I really feel for you though my situation is a little different - I too am not able to have sex at the moment - any moves in that direction and I freeze in panic and it is totally out of the question. At some point I started to regain memories of having been raped as a toddler, and it's clear that my panic is a kind of PTSD from that event. It was a great relief to get a reason and a diagnosis! I am currently working with a great therapist and things are improving slowly. I think Dan's suggestion to see a therapist is right on - I'd suggest someone who specializes in working with trauma, just in case you have some kind of sexual abuse trauma that you don't yet know about. I wish you all the very best - hang in there, you are not alone.
202
oops, getting tired, should've been "inner-sadist."
203
Oh yeah Bunneh, I should have added in my post at 198 that St. John's wort is a powerful plant and that before (and if) you decide to take it you might want to talk to your doctor. It has interactions with many anti depressants and also has negative effects with methadone and cocaine. I have heard that taking cocaine while taking st. John's wort can kill you.. I don't know for sure. But I can tell you for sure that it interacts very badly with methadone. Just a heads up, never underestimate the power of plants. Also about the marijuana suggestion in regards to NIC: I was pretty hooked on weed for 7 years and my excuse being that it helped my insomnia and social anxiety. Once I quit I realized that I was better off without it. I used to smoke daily and it was a preoccupation of mine. It's good to have something to help you chill out, but chamomile and valerian can do just as much for a person as smoking weed can for others. Just my opinion.
204
St. John's Wort: I personally loved it. But it interacts with the pill so I had to stop taking it. It's really nice though.
206
Oh yeah BUNNEH one last thing: don't ever take kava kava and alcohol at the same time. It is really bad for your liver.

    Please wait...

    Comments are closed.

    Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.


    Add a comment
    Preview

    By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.