Pedophilia as a disorder is not attraction to underage people, it is attraction to prepubescent children. There is a difference morally if not legally. I'm not saying PORTLAND is a great guy, or that he ought to do what he's proposed (which he shouldn't) but let's condemn people for legitimate reasons and not gut check reactions.
The guy probably does not want to have sexual contact with his son, and probably never has. Maybe he and his wife are hideous (can't sell themselves), and have hepatitis (can't sell blood), and own nothing nonessential, and are truly desperate. Maybe they have been turned down for state aid. Oregon's economy is crap right now, and there really are no jobs.
Even if all of the above is true, he still shouldn't sell his kid's underwear. Encouraging a 14yr old to view himself as a sexual commodity is a problem no matter what the motivation. The kid is just forming a sexual self, which is not the best time to introduce money into the situation. No matter how badly you need the money, you are not going to starve to death in this country, so don't fuck up your kid, ok?

For anyone who reads this far:

I'm active in the furry fandom, and not only are we NOT into bestiality (it's a fantasy, guys, all in the head), for a lot of us it's not even a sexual fetish. It's a fandom, like Trekkies or Star Wars fans. They fan over space ships and aliens, we fan over anthropomorphic animals. So whatevs.

However, being a furry is not an exclusive thing, so you could find furries who are kinky and stuff, just like you can find Christians and Republicans who are kinky.

Dan summed it up really well: Furry is not an issue, autoerotic asphyxiation IS.

Oh, and KF79, I forgot to answer your other question: Some aces identify as a "gay asexual" or a "lesbian asexual" or a "bi asexual" but often they are referring to their romantic orientation - ie who do they fall in love with even if they aren't sexually attracted.

@34. if only dan had asked you to answer this one for him. you said it perfectly. even sucking dick yourself is better than selling your kid

Don't buy the asexuality thing as an orientation. The explanation that it's an orientation because "some aren't opposed to sex but feel the pursuit is not worth it" and "some get aroused at exposure to sex but insist they aren't experiencing a sexual fantasy" and "some masturbate but insist it's merely a massage" all sound a lot more like inexperience, and/or bitterness and/or fear and/or self-esteem issues locking their trains of thought away from the body's normal sexual urges. Avoidance is a common approach to dealing with a fear of "risk" (which emotionally and physically, is inherent in sexual interactions), and given the frequency with which arousal, masturbation, and "yeah I have sex sometimes but the pursuit it's not worth it" is the descriptor for what it is, it's far more likely to be a symptom of low self-esteem and depression, which indeed is markedly higher in those who are "asexual" (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asexuality#…)

All that said, the meaning of someone identifying that way is still deserving of respect. They made their choice, it's their life, I accept and respect that. "Asexual" - easy to understand what it means. But as an "orientation?" I doubt it. There may be degrees of libido, but at the most extreme ends often lurks untreated mental health issues that contribute to the emergent behavior. You'll note, for example, that "Nymphosexual" is not on the list of orientations on that wiki page.

@113: In my experiences "asexuals" have generally been rape victims.


That definitely does not count as a "sexual orientation," either.

@86:
It's wrong to assume at someone who is a "furry" HAS to be into beastiality. But being a furry doesn't not ensure that one isn't also into beastiality and it's not unreasonable to think that a connection could exist.

You sort of missed my point, though. When it comes down to it, it's no more a reasonable or unreasonable connection than any other "kind" of person. Being a furry doesn't ensure a lack of interest in bestiality any more than a person NOT being a furry doesn't ensure a lack of interest in bestiality. In fact, given the amount of human-on-animal bestiality websites out there vs. the relative lack of bestiality art as represented kink in the furry community, I'd say NOT being a furry is possibly a more likely connection to being interested/involved in bestiality.

You could put any other interest/identity/hobby vs. disturbing kink in those sentences and it'd make for one pretty obviously fallacious argument.

Examples:

"Being a dedicated volunteer at an animal shelter doesn't ENSURE that one isn't also into bestiality. Therefore it's not unreasonable to think that a connection COULD exist."

"Being a competition horse-drawn carriage driver doesn't ENSURE that one isn't also into BDSM-style pony-play. Therefore it's not unreasonable to think that a connection COULD exist."

"Being a butcher doesn't ENSURE that one isn't also into dismemberment porn/sex. Therefore it's not unreasonable to think that a connection COULD exist."

Sorry, but I don't immediately jump to thinking of the possibility that someone expressing an interest in meat products means they want to dismember people or animals in a sexual manner. It's not logical to place two items with sort of a superficial similarity together and claim it's not unreasonable to think of the possibility that SEX OMG.

@117

context, context, context

If you look at what I was trying to say, (and in fairness, I was responding to Erica's point, not yours if I'm remembering correctly) it's that people were jumping on this parent as if they were wrong to be concerned. Concern, and curiousity are allowed. They aren't bad. And making erroneous connections doesn't make that parent a bad person either, or a bigot, or "furryphobic". All I was trying to explain is "here are some reasons someone might be concerned, they are not outlandish suspicions to have if you aren't educated on the subject". And everyone wants to come down with "well if you actually know about the subject, then THIS"

Well yes, but you've missed my point.

We're all better off if we respond to eachother with open minds. Sometimes people are so rabidly defensive of their kinks they miss oppotunities to educate people who are poised to be tolerant.

I suggested the way a parent who is concerned about the kink might be thinking (and for the record, I see no evidence of the parent being concerned about the kink itself, I believe that was Erica's fabrication). The tone of the replies was fairly negative/hostile towards any speculation that the kink could be implicated with anything bad. And I get it, people are defensive of their kinks. I just don't think it's a productive tone, and not useful for helping concerned parents become supportive parents.

Whatever.

Oh, P.S. I didn't look at your furry stuff in too much detail (as it's irrelevant to my point, but I'll get around to it out of curiousity) but to be clear, the context people were talking about is "furry" being already in the context of a sexual kink.

If you're talking about furry in nonsexual terms? Then no, I definitely wouldn't see a beastiality connection. But then you're linking non-sex to sex and that's less intuitive than linking sex-with-someone-dressed-as-x and sex-with-x which is less of a mental leap, as you can imagine.

P.S. for the record! As a tween I picked up a lot of drawing style from a website that was all (non-porn) furries. I thought they were super cute. http://yerf.artspots.com/yerfartists but it's mostly gone now. It used to be pages and pages.

My point isn't "BOO unconventional/kinky people" my point is "let's be understanding of the point of view of conventional/nonkinky people" and bridge that gap. Also: singing kumbaya.

@119 - "Erica's fabrication"???

From the letter: 'What troubles me: My son and his boyfriend are "furries" and open about it.'

I was providing some reassurance to the parent-- hey, in my experience, furries are harmless. (But warn your kid about autoerotic asphyxiation.) Where do you see me being rabidly intolerant of the parent's concern?

Ohhh lord, here we go with a whole lot of accusations of pedophilia and "I'd call CPS so fast" and all this noise.

First off: Calm down. The 14-year-old is okay with it. There's nothing sexual about what they're doing. There IS something sexual going on when it comes to the fetishists purchasing those items, and I'm with Dan when it comes to not actually going through with it, because that 14-year-old shouldn't have to have his face posted everywhere for old guys to masturbate to... but not because he's a 14-year-old boy, but because they're only doing it for the money, and he's got a lot of years ahead of him, and god forbid those postings land his parents in trouble or end up coming back to haunt him later in life.

They aren't whoring him out. They're thinking of selling his used dirty clothing online, and there is a big difference. "Well, what difference is that?" The difference between letting some guy smell your socks and letting him put his dick in your ass is probably a pretty damn big one, I'd say.

So, to reiterate, calm down. There are way bigger fish to fry when it comes to the issue of pedophilia. PORTLAND is not a monster. Save that label for the people who would get a lynch mob together over the *possibility* of him *maybe* selling *some* clothes online.

*It depends on how you read the letter, and where you think the text included after the ":" ends. They way I read it, she seemed more concerned about the D/S nature of the relationship and (again, erroneously) was thinking that it was because of the furry thing. In terms of the tone of responses, I wasn't as much referring to you as a general intolerance of anyone raising an objection/concern to kink.

Ever. Even in terms of personal preference. Maybe Mr. J, for an example.

Oh well.

*It depends on how you read the letter, and where you think the text included after the ":" ends. They way I read it, she seemed more concerned about the D/S nature of the relationship and (again, erroneously) was thinking that it was because of the furry thing. In terms of the tone of responses, I wasn't as much referring to you as a general intolerance of anyone raising an objection/concern to kink.

Ever. Even in terms of personal preference. Maybe Mr. J, for an example.

Oh well.

@124, thanks. We had a phrase, back in the early days of kinky online discussion groups: YKIOKIJNMK: "Your kink is ok, it's just not my kink." Came in handy in these sorts of discussions, to reassure people that you didn't think they were bad just because they hit people (consensually) or dressed up as schoolgirls.

twofer! Good trolling!

@122, 125: The kid would only be marginally involved, and it sounds like his name or picture would not be used. So the only reason not to is the legal problems, which is what the LW asked about and Dan answered. Everything else is besides the point.

And as the letter made clear, the reason to use his son's stuff is that there's a much bigger market for it.

@113, 114: You're misinformed about the definition of asexuality. Which is understandable because the name is a little misleading.

Asexuality has nothing to do with sex drive. It has to do with who you're attracted to. Just like you can be gay or straight with a high or low sex drive, you can be asexual with a high or low sex drive.

Asexuals just aren't attracted to anyone else. Just like gay and lesbian people aren't attracted to people of the opposite sex, and straight people aren't attracted to people of the same sex. It's just how people are wired.

All your criticisms of asexuality have been made over and over against LGBT folk as well, with equal validity: abused as kids, rape victims, higher rates of mental illness, avoidance, immaturity, inexperience, self-esteem issues, and so forth.

a·sex·u·al   [ey-sek-shoo-uhl] Show IPA
adjective
1.
Biology .
a.
having no sex or sexual organs.
b.
independent of sexual processes, especially not involving the union of male and female germ cells.
2.
free from or unaffected by sexuality: an asexual friendship.

@126

Bingo!
I think for my part I'd just want to say that not all people turn their traumatic lemons into kinky lemonade and the idea that someone should be ok with a suggestion of "age play" from a partner, or that it's somehow bigoted to be put off by it... well, I just don't think that's fair. Maybe the person isn't anti-kink, more just anti-PTSD.

Again, that's not in reference to you specifically. Jus' saying.

@Hunter
re: trolling.

Bitter middle-aged man is bitter.

@122 Speaking as a Psych grad and a sex worker: It's absolutely inappropriate regardless of whether the kid is into it. The kid is unable to give meaningful consent. The power dynamic of this being between parents and a child is what makes this insidious: if he wasn't into it, could he genuinely say no to mom and dad, believing they might lose their house without his help? Highly debatable. Does he actually understand the ramifications of catering to the desires of people who seek out the soiled clothes of 14 year olds? Probably not.
And yes, they are whoring him out. They're selling his (or another's, or a fake teenager's) sexual image, as someone else pointed out. The clothes are worthless without the impression on the part of the buyer that there is a person under the age of consent involved. Profiting from the sexuality of pedophiles in any way is pretty gross and alarming - profiting by selling the sexualized image of your own kid: yes, I'd call CPS. Even if daddy doesn't want to fuck him, there are very few ways that conversation could have come about that don't indicate something being very wrong.

@135 It's difficult to believe anyone could be so obtuse as to require an explanation here... but you did a marvelous job of it.

@124
I called BS because you want to play intellectual whack-a-mole. You went from spewing a bunch of bigoted opinions about people as some kind of received wisdom that you have right into "I date who I want." So yeah, that was a bullshit response.

Have you noticed how often you make generalizations about people? You're saying I'm totally intolerant of all people's concerns because of my annoyance with you.

I love reading your column so much it's crazy. You're a great voice of reason. Kids should never play choking games as the lack of oxygen causes cell damage, which is detrimental to developing minds. I'm so glad you mentioned for the father to talk to his son. You are awesome Dan, love you.

@134: It's fine to not be into age play or any other kink... but judging people who are into it and saying you wouldn't want to date them, or saying you'd have a bunch of questions, is very different. After all, just cause someone has a kink doesn't mean they need to engage in it with you.

I understand what you mean about not wanting to date someone who is not primarily attracted to adult women... but that's an extreme case and doesn't include most people into age play. Presumably, these hypothetical people who are into age play and want to date you are very attracted to you, hence the desire to date you.

Age play: it's a kink. People who are into age play are into other consenting adults*. That's why it's age PLAY. Just like BDSM tops don't actually want to abuse their partners, nor would the vast majority be attracted to a partner who was so broken they would be okay with a real abusive relationship.

Is that really hard to understand? If you're not into it, don't do it. If you really suspect your partner might be a pedophile, by all means, run - what we're trying to tell you is that you're actually not going to be able to make very accurate decisions using the assumption you're making about kink. Of course if someone asked me if I'm a top because I secretly want to abuse my partners I would laugh so hard.

*I don't think it's a legitimate argument to point out that some very, very small number of them could be real pedos. That's really the equivalent of responding to a discussion of consensual straight sexuality with, "Yeah but some men are RAPISTS!" Yeah, well, they are, and watch out for them, but that's not what we're talking about at all.

"Age play" doesn't require soiled undies from real 14-year-olds.

@ 142
I agree completely. I forgot in that comment to specify that I was responding to the general argument about age play indicating pedophilia or it being at all appropriate to assume someone who reveals they're into age play is not actually attracted to adults.

I've already made my feeling on PORTLAND clear ala comments 28 and 135. Quick refresher: it's unequivocally inappropriate (and has nothing to do with age play); there's something gone really wrong in that family.

@141: Wrong.

Pedophilia, by definition, is an attraction to prepubescents. Most pedophiles are not child molesters, no more than most straight men rape women. Age play, like rape play, is a safe and consensual way for people to deal with attractions or turn-ons, such as pedophilia or being turned on by rape, that would be unethical, illegal, or impossible to practice in real life.

Why is this so hard to understand?

@146: My earlier comment was a slight tangent. But in this case, I don't see the kid being "pimped out." His name and picture wouldn't be used. All that's going on is that he's selling some old clothes.

It's crazy to say there's anything incestuous about this. It's just an idea for making money. And I know you said he could pretend that the clothes were his son's, without actually using his son's clothes. (I suspect he just wanted to be honest about everything.) But I really don't see what would be different about that.

How would you feel if he used his son's clothes without discussing it with him? Better? Would that be very different from him selling/donating the clothes to a thrift shop or something? And if that's ok, what's the harm in telling him that people are interested in his used clothes? He's 14: I doubt sex and porn and fetishes are unknown to him.

I'd just like to point out to the asexual guy's friend that the papers are full of people who make sexual connections and are 100% not okay psychologically. I came to a similar conclusion myself when I admitted that whenever I was with a guy, I felt like I was impersonating a gay man, and not too happy about it. I love good-looking guys, but I like everyone to keep their penises to themselves.

I need HELP from Savage Love readers!

I'm supposed to do a reading at my son's wedding.

All the others will be reading poetry about love, every single one. Not kidding.

I wish to counter with something from Dan, something he wrote about love or marriage or toegetherness that I read in the ARCHIVES. It was three or four paragraphs long, one of his longer classics and talked about the lies we tell, the lies we try to believe, the blind eyes we turn. IT WAS GLORIOUS IN ITS TRUTH.

BUT NOW I CAN'T FIND IT AND I CAN'T MAKE IT THROUGH ALL LEVENTEEN HUNDRED ARCHIVE ENTRIES BY TOMORROW NIGHT (when it must be submitted - don't ask, long story, local government involved).

HELP ME! Anyone remember this answer????

M.

I need HELP from Savage Love readers!

I'm supposed to do a reading at my son's wedding.

All the others will be reading poetry about love, every single one. Not kidding.

I wish to counter with something from Dan, something he wrote about love or marriage or toegetherness that I read in the ARCHIVES. It was three or four paragraphs long, one of his longer classics and talked about the lies we tell, the lies we try to believe, the blind eyes we turn. IT WAS GLORIOUS IN ITS TRUTH.

BUT NOW I CAN'T FIND IT AND I CAN'T MAKE IT THROUGH ALL LEVENTEEN HUNDRED ARCHIVE ENTRIES BY TOMORROW NIGHT (when it must be submitted - don't ask, long story, local government involved).

HELP ME! Anyone remember this answer????

M.

Sorry for the double. 'Puter acting up ...

@149 I'm not sure which passage you're talking about, but I think that you may want to reconsider your desire to tell the couple (in public, at their wedding) that they will undoubtedly lie to each other. Particularly if you have issues about lies with your son's mother, which some of the people at the wedding will know about or guess.

That said, here is one of Dan's insights about marriage: "A successful marriage is basically an endless cycle of wrongs committed, apologies offered, and forgiveness granted, all leavened by the occasional orgasm."
http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/Savag…

You might also find something you want to use at:
http://therumpus.net/2011/08/dear-sugar-…

>> Most people don't cheat because they’re cheaters. They cheat because they are people. They are driven by hunger or for the experience of someone being hungry once more for them. They find themselves in friendships that take an unintended turn or they seek them out because they're horny or drunk or damaged from all the stuff they didn’t get when they were kids. There is love. There is lust. There is opportunity. There is alcohol. And youth. And middle age. And twelve-day-long writers’ conferences in rustically genteel settings that give one the impression that the world one left no longer exists. There is loneliness and boredom and sorrow and weakness and self-destruction and idiocy and arrogance and romance and ego and nostalgia and power and need. There is the compelling temptation of intimacies with someone other than the person with whom one is most intimate.

>> Which is a complicated way of saying, it's a long damn life, Happily Ever After. And people get mucked up in it from time to time. Even the people we marry. Even us. You don't know what it is you’ll get mucked up in yet, but if you’re lucky, and if you and your fiancé really are right for each other, and if the two of you build a marriage that lasts a lifetime, you're probably going to get mucked up in a few things along the way. This is scary, but you'll be okay. Sometimes the thing you fear the most in your relationship turns out to be the thing that brings you and your partner to a deeper place of understanding and intimacy.>>

RE: Asexuality, i haven't read all 150+ posts here, but i am married to an asexual person. He failed to tell me of his sexual orientation when we were dating, so therefore, a sin of omission. I am highly sexual. He tried to match my sexuality while we were dating, and because we had a long distance relationship, he hid it well. We lived together for half a year before marrying, and what do you know?... as soon as we were married, sex began to fall off... I eventually found myself begging for sex from him. This is a pathetic situation for anyone. I blamed myself for the longest time. Then i came across the website www.asexuality.org and realized just what i was dealing with.

My point here is that, had he only been upfront with me about his sexuality, we would have never married. But he realized that, and of course, that's why he was not upfront. He had to have the arm candy. I am very angry with him for this circumstance in which i find myself. I am now surfing through chat rooms, looking for someone who would like to fuck without commitment, though this is totally contrary to my standards. But i am only human. We had counselling, but to no avail; the counsellor privately told me that he is what's deemed a "cold fish".

My husband won't talk to me about his lack of libido. He gets all uptight if i try to talk about it. I have had an affair, got my heart broken, and am in the midst of a 2nd affair now all because my husband couldn't be upfront and honest about himself. We have 2 children; one is autistic. We haven't had sex since 2005. I feel painted into a corner since i am unemployed. I cannot leave without a job, and i cannot look after our autistic child myself.... life really isn't fair, is it.

I am not a bad person. I just want to love and be loved, which includes (for me) the physical expression of love and all that goes with it.

If only people would just be honest about themselves.

Thank you for listening and for being non-judgemental.

@Blackrose, I think you've got it the most right. People trying to argue that there's no age-play pedophilia link... are confused, I think. I think most people into age play do have a least some pedophilic nature. And again, if they are able to only act on that in terms of fantasy, that's fine with me, and not something I object to.

But! Because sex is a deeply subjective/personal thing, I don't understand why people are getting all up in arms about my personal preferences.

Re: your comment towards me specifically... that depends on what you mean by "judging". I wouldn't be judging on a moral sense, but rather on a personal-preference sense. And again: I'm allowed to do that.

In reference to dating, I'm pretty strongly monogamous so if someone has a kink that I can't fufil, I see that as problematic.

In reference to fucking casually? I can be even more carefree about who I choose to reject, so there's a good chance I'd show a guy the door in that context too.

I'm not saying anyone else should/must/might. All I said was my own preference. I don't understand why this makes so many people angry (well, I can speculate as to why it makes Mr. J angry).

Especially for the reason I brought up earlier: I'd just want to say that not all people turn their traumatic lemons into kinky lemonade and the idea that someone should be ok with a suggestion of "age play" from a partner, or that it's somehow bigoted to be put off by it... well, I just don't think that's fair.

Considering that for a non-insignificant number of grown women, the simulation of what is essentially a pedophilic interaction might bring back some extremely troubling memories, it's mind-boggling to me that there apppears to be zero sensitivity to the idea that "age-play" might not be something we can expect from every partner.

Finally... Mr. J

I actually reread over all my posts (boooring) and couldn't find a single generalization. Unless this is what you meant?

"I'm not talking so much as you in specific, more the tone of a lot of people's answers to things in general." Or my fiscal conservative social liberal thing? Yeah that was bitchy, but politics is rarely a civil topic.

I think you were perhaps not reading what I actually wrote closely enough or possibly I was unclear at some point or some combination of both.

If you look at what I actually said about someone requesting "age play" you'll notice that BlackRose agrees with me!

verbatim: If someone's into age play, presumably they're turned on by the fantasy of sex with a young child... that is usually the whole point of age play. Hence, they'd fall under the definition of a pedophile (being attracted to young children). I think we agree on that, and that there's nothing wrong with consensually expressing the attraction or fantasies through age play.

@144
I disagree with your definition, as do most age players I'm aware of, and I think a very firm line should be drawn between people who would actually fuck children given the societal okay and people who enjoy the power dynamic inherent in age play. I disagree with your definition - because it is incorrect according to modern Psychology, which is the arbiter of the standard definition of all our philas. The diagnostic criteria of the DSM-IV is very clear that one only qualifies for a diagnosis of pedophila if one has sexual urges toward children AND acts on them with a child OR the urges disrupt the person's ability to function in society. THAT is actually "pedophilia by definition." And there's a reason that AND OR clause is included in the definition when it comes to sexual disorders. No age player who functions in society outside of their fetish and has only played with consenting adults is a pedophile. If anyone would actually fuck a child if they could get away with it (if it was practical, moral, and possible) then they have a pretty serious problem on their hands.

I honestly don't know any age players who are actually attracted to children, but rather to the abstract idea of purity and helplessness. The age play is an expression of the attraction to those concepts, and the turn on would be the same if another fantasy was found that met the same criteria. Perhaps I haven't met the right people, but in my community expressing the desire to fuck real children even if you would never REALLY do it is a surefire way end up banned.

I don't think any OTHER lines need to be drawn unless those in the former category (people who are attracted to real children) actually offend against a child. But they are in fact distinct categories IF you want to continue using the real definition of pedophilia.

@150:

http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/Savag…

@154, 155: Some of this is confusion about definitions. evolveevolve is correct to point out that the DSM does require action or marked distress for a diagnosis of "pedophilia." However, the word is sometimes also used to just mean "attraction to prepubescents." This isn't the DSM usage, just another definition (just as "depressed" or "narcissist" have other definitions besides their official diagnoses).

The DSM definition isn't related to age play, but the "attraction to prepubescents" meaning (which should have a better term, since the word is so often used as an insult and has such negative connotations) certainly is. But we're not talking about the DSM definition, just people who are attracted to prepubescents but do not meet the DSM diagnosis.

evolveevolve, I believe you that a lot of age players are all about purity, helplessness, power dynamics, and so forth. That's fine, but age play, as opposed to daddy/daughter play in general, at least sometimes focuses on age as a fetish in particular because people get turned on by it.

Another example is erotic fiction involving underage characters, which is often written because people find it a turn-on; roleplaying such fiction is a form of age play. It's just not true that age players are never into the age as an attraction, though they may use careful wording when they discuss it because of people who don't seem to understand. I know of plenty of age players who are turned on by the idea of sex with prepubescents, and for them, that is the whole reason why they engage in age play.

Desire is a complex thing. We can have desires but not really want to carry them out because we know they're wrong and harmful and don't want to risk jail time. Do people who have fantasies of raping someone "really" want to rape someone? Well, in a sense, yes, but overall, no, because even though they might have the desire to, it's more important to them to not go to jail or hurt someone. Or, I might get angry and have an intense desire to punch someone in the face, but I don't really want to do that for various reasons.

Similarly, someone who roleplays having sex with a six-year-old, say, might find the idea attractive and have the desire to do it, but not actually want to do it for real because it's illegal and harmful and so forth.

I don't understand the "firm line" you are trying to draw: there are DSM-diagnosis pedophiles who have molested kids, there are DSM-diagnosis pedophiles who suffer "marked distress" (seems like age play would help reduce that distress), there are non-DSM-pedophiles who engage in age play because they are attracted to prepubescents, and, as you say, there are others who engage in age play but don't have that attraction and do it for other reasons.

@141: As a furry into age play, I've heard the same argument used against both kinks. Yes, I am attracted to canid furries. NO, that doesn't mean I want to fuck my dog. Ew.

I find it strange that in a world full of GTA players, we actually have to remind folks that people fantasize about a lot of things they would never do in real life.

mydriasis, the reason it bothers me that you'd reject someone for a kink is that no two people ever have exactly the same kinks. If you're monogamous, there will always be kinks that one or both of you can't engage in because the other person isn't interested. That doesn't seem like a good reason to dump someone. I have a whole lot of kinks and no one is going to be into all of them.

It's totally cool to be squicked by age play or any other kink. Of course it's understandable that a lot of people wouldn't be into it.

But it's not cool to reject someone because of one of their kinks, if the person is fine with not engaging in that kink. Then there's no issue of compatibility, and the only reason to reject them is that you think there's something wrong with the kink. Otherwise, why not just say "that's cool that you're into that, but I'm not comfortable with it, so we can just do other kinks"? And you seem to be setting aside age play as a special category, as opposed to any other kink that you're not into. If someone liked anal once in a while, but you weren't into it, would you dump him, or would you just say you didn't want to do it?

@Blackrose

"If you're monogamous, there will always be kinks that one or both of you can't engage in because the other person isn't interested."

Says who? Not everyone is kinky. Maybe I've just been lucky, but I'm personally a non-kinky person. I'm open to most things, though. This means that
a. I will never have to worry about an unfufilled kink
b. it is unlikely that my partner will.

And yes, I do put it in a special category for the reason I listed above.

Dan has shown us multiple cases of people trying to put aside their kinks and it catching up with them later. Why would I want to risk that?

I'm sorry but I'm firmly in the camp that people can turn eachother down for whatever reason they like. If you think it makes me a jerk, then presumably this theoretical person is better off.

@152
Erica:

Thankyou for your help. And for your words. I was going to heavily edit what Dan wrote (the parents of the bride are self-described stereotypical stuffy Brits) so even the slightest mention of sex would have thrown everyone, so maybe I'll save Dan's words for the Bach Party.

M.

@160 I'm with mydriasis on this. If a guy isn't into BDSM, then I'm not compatible sexually with him, not in a long-term sense. And if a woman is squicked by ageplay, or pet play, then she probably shouldn't date someone who frequently fantasizes about those kinks. Granted, people may have to do without lactation play if that's not their partner's kink, but in general it is important to determine early on if you can handle your partner's kinks.

@162 - sounds like a plan. Also note that Dan posted @156 with a great potential reading choice for a wedding, from the 2003 Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court decision legalizing same-sex marriage.

Portland shouldn't have custody of a child he's willing to lead into prostitution. Because let's be honest, that's what he's doing. It may be items of clothing and not actual sex, but it's the same to that kid's psyche.

@161: What is the reason you listed above? If you mean wanting someone who is primarily attracted to you, I don't see how that applies at all. Or do you think everyone into age play is primarily attracted to prepubescents? I see age play as just one of many things that's fun to try once in a while, not something that's necessarily a really strong orientation or something that's a necessary part of someone's sex life.

"Kinks" may not have been the right word to use. I wasn't talking about being "kinky." What I meant is that everyone has lots of little things that turn them on: certain words, articles of clothing, different positions, and so forth, but it's not a big deal if not all of them are present. I'm not sure what the word for that is. Turn-ons? And those definitely aren't always going to match up perfectly.

For instance, I think black stretchy pants are kinda hot, but I don't really think about them that often, they're just fun to play with once in a while. And it definitely wouldn't catch up with me later to put it aside.

Anyway, that's how I see age play, and so it's kind of confusing that you seem to see it as an all-or-nothing orientation thing, or something that must be frequently fantasized about, like BDSM is for Erica. Not all kinks or turn-ons need to be like that. So I still don't understand why you would reject someone for having a slight interest in that type of roleplaying. Of course you can turn someone down for any reason you want; I just find it puzzling and wonder if it's based on inaccurate information.

@166 - see @134, where mydriasis wrote: "not all people turn their traumatic lemons into kinky lemonade and the idea that someone should be ok with a suggestion of "age play" from a partner... maybe the person isn't anti-kink, more just anti-PTSD."

That suggests she was abused as a child but doesn't feel like going into the details. I recommend giving her that space.

@167: mydriasis is free to respond, or not, as she wishes.

I can certainly understand someone who was abused or traumatized being triggered by the mention of different scenes. I'm dating someone who was abused by a single-tail whip and can't stand the thought or sound of them, for instance. But rejecting or dumping someone just for asking about a certain type of play doesn't seem reasonable to me. Obviously repeatedly bringing it up or forcing the issue would be a douche move, but punishing someone for asking about something they might possibly be interested in trying seems contrary to the goals of open and honest communication and having a good sex life.

Do we really want people to be afraid they'll get dumped if they ask about their turn-ons?

@168: people into ageplay should realize that about 10% of men and 20% of women were sexually abused as children. They might consider having some intimate talks in the first couple of months of dating, to find out if your partner is among them. Armed with that knowledge, and an understanding of how traumatic it was, the kinksters can then judge how to bring up their kink with sensitivity. Similarly, people should figure out if their partner was raped, before asking for rape-play. Rape-play might still be on the table, but, come on, use some sense when asking about this stuff with people who have been traumatized.

@Blackrose/Erica

Thanks for pointing out the correct passage and sorry about the confusion.

With me personally, I like to err on the safe rather than sorry side. It's certainly possible that someone brings up the kink/turnon and it's only a minor interest, but (unfortunately) because of the stigma surrounding it, I'm under the impression that if someone is willing to bring it up outside of kink circles (and risk being judged) they probably have quite a strong preference.

Kind of like that "rule of threes" joke where every woman has slept with three times the number of men she admits to.

And even if that theory isn't true, the fact is, there are people who will downplay their kink for various reasons. With that specific one, it's not a risk I'm willing to take.

I'm not a gambler, in general. That's just my nature.

You also said that you thought that because I'd reject a partner over it, it's a moral thing. I disagree. For example: someone very close to me has a strong "age kink" I guess you could say. This is someone who was a friend before I knew, and a friend after I knew and I don't love them any less. It's not a moral thing. I'm just exceedingly picky about my partners.

"Do we really want people to be afraid they'll get dumped if they ask about their turn-ons?"

I have long hair, but maybe one day I want to cut it. Lots of men love long hair and I could worry that my short hairstyle would get me dumped.... but who would want to be with that asshole?

@blackrose: rape o philes are said to be into 'Ravishment', or less used is the word "coercion" scene, and many of us prefer Ravishment over rape-ophile and rape-play since those describe a crime (but, hey, each their own).*

Blackrose, I admire your simple reasoning. It's solid and non-alarmist - kinda refreshing for this place. I pray you don't lose it anytime soon.

* There's also the Dom/Sub play of 'forced orgasm', which can be related to ravishment, but more often is, er, tied to bondage play.

In any case, people should identify their own kinks and clubs and dealbreakers and sexuality, and should never put up with those labels being glued on by others.

Kinks and fantasies and in-yer-head dreams can be whatever the hell you want so long as what you actually do "IRL" is legal and consentual. If I want to pretend I'm ass raping a furry version of Rick Santorum with a Lolita lollipop while wearing his collar, so be it. =D Not unlike abortion, if it squicks you out, then please just don't do it.

Devil's advocate: While it's implied otherwise, PORTLAND's son could be the one who came up with the underwear-selling plan (frankly it seems too net savvy to me for parents of a 14 yo, (but maybe they're terribly young parents?)). What then? A teen with a modern take on the lemonade-stand-on-a-hot-day (albeit sweaty and with possibly questionable customers) should be able to exploit himself all he wants so long as it's within law.
The parents should step aside completely. Also, they oughta be firm and realistic to their kids about economics: no more free rides on non-necessary expenses: pay your own way in the Great Recession. Duh. Then, if his lemonade stand, whatever form it might take, nets him some cash, then surely the kid paying his own way for concerts, music, fashion, WoW/monthly gamer subscription, etc can't hurt THEIR financial troubles.

@174: Thanks! That's a great compliment. And I won't lose it anytime soon.

As far as rape vs. ravishment, I actually think of those as two different fantasies, though they're related. Ravishment fantasies are more about wanting to be wanted and taken roughly and thoroughly. Rape fantasies are more about having sex forced upon you when you don't want it. I've also heard rape play described as 'nonconsent play.' Though for some of us the criminal reference makes it hotter!

Good point about the LW's son coming up with the idea; that actually makes a lot of sense.

When I was in highschool it was just "noncon"

@171, 172, 167: Got it, thanks, makes sense. Though I don't think you're an "asshole" for making sure something doesn't trigger or traumatize you.

@169: I agree that sensitivity and not being a douche are important, though I don't think that rape victims are necessarily delicate flowers who require months of hesitancy before asking if they're into something. I'd even guess that rape victims are more likely to be into rape play than the average person, though of course many are not.

Though if you're meeting kinky partners online, a lot of this is upfront anyway since people write what they're into on their profile page.

@177 - I was more interested in the order of events (find out about past rapes/abuse, then bring up rape-play/age-play), and not how long it should take to move through those stages.

@180: I really don't think that's a good idea. For one thing, as I said, people's fetishes and turn-ons are often online, or discussed upfront, before having that kind of deep personal conversation. You should be upfront with your turn-ons, and you should talk about them early on.

For another, a lot of people would be annoyed or not want to talk about it out of the blue in response to asking if they've been sexually assaulted, especially if you're having the initial conversation about sex and fetishes and so forth.

I just don't think it's something that requires that much sensitivity: you're just asking if your partner is into something, which you should be able to do freely. Can you give me an example of how the kind of conversation you propose would go? It seems like it would be awkward.

@Hunter
he isn't, he's making a joke

@Blackrose/Erica

I think the sensitivity is required on the occasions where they aren't into it. Mr. J's response was - in my eyes - an example of a somewhat insensitive response. If someone reacts negatively to an age-kink it doesn't mean they're a bad person or even close minded, it might just be upsetting for them.

I don't think that it's really feasible to leave off your "I'm into age play" conversation until after a conversation about sexual abuse. That's not something that's easy to bring up, even in an LTR. So if you wanted to have the other conversation first and test the waters you might have to wait for quite a while into the relationship before you start probing. Doesn't seem logical to me, but everyone's different.

I think the kink scene's all cards on the table up front model is actually really ideal. I consider myself neither vanilla nor kinky since vanilla implies that I won't engage in kink and kinky means I have kinks of my own. Being open is always good.

@cocky
Agreed. This is a HUGE petpeeve of mine too. If someone's into 17-year-olds or even 13-year-olds it doesn't matter how old they are, they are NOT pedophiles. You could say "ephebophile" if the teen is somewhat older and post pubescent, or "hebephile" if they're pubescent. I'm not expecting people to use all technical terms correctly (there's special terms for people attracted to babies/toddlers too, I believe) but at least don't call someone a pedophile for being attracted to a post-pubescent teenager, that's just stupid.

As a furry, I'm amazed that this particular column dealing with my ilk managed to come forward with an EVEN MORE MESSSED UP THING concerning selling your 14 year old son's underwear. Eeeek.

@185 - yes, you're right, people differ in their reactions to abuse/rape. The assault I experienced at 17 was redefined/erased/forgotten except that for many years I disliked receiving oral sex. But the assault I experienced this year is the first thing I bring up when someone suggests that rape-play might be fun. So, yes, I guess there's not going to be a standard way of dealing with this issue.

@187

Absolutely - you brought it up. Which I think is smart, by the way. Also, you brought it up in response to the kink. I think Blackrose was just saying she couldn't imagine how the kink-haver could go about asking 'hey have you been raped?'.

I've never come across anyone who's asked me to do... well... much of anything kinky really. Your standards, but definitely no 'age play'. Again, probably because it's not necessary.

@Hunter - a) what do you mean by "even if only self proclaimed" ??? If I don't get to say what my orientation is, then who does? Who picked your orientation labels for you? I can say "orientation" is not the same as "behavior" until I'm blue in the face and I don't think you'll ever get it. A behavior may be "microsexual" or "semi-sexual" or full out "sexual" but engaging in it does not change the person's orientation. A straight woman engaging in an act of any-level-sexual does not necessarily make the woman a lesbian. How about sex workers who are lesbians but who take on male clients? Gay men who marry and have sex with women because that's what they think they're supposed to do or to hide their orientation? Since "asexual" isn't a commonly understood or discussed orientation a lot of aces find themselves trying to be straight, and then maybe gay, hoping to find something that feels right... obviously with little success. Meanwhile, I'm a graduate student in human sexuality... what exactly was your area of study? I think it was BlackRose who pointed out a point I was going to make in regard to your comment about asexuals being rape victims: people who are ignorant about the LGBT community often make the same claim about lesbians - "of course they were naturally supposed to be straight but then they got raped and it fucked them up and now they're into women! Poor lesbians!" Can a person's sexuality be effected by a traumatic experience like rape? Of course it can... but I don't hear "oh, you're Gay? OMG, who molested you as a child? Was it your uncle??" Traumatic experiences aren't actually the MOST COMMON influencing factors on sexuality, go figure!

@BlackRose - yes, thank you for making the point that asexuals have sex drives/libidos of varying levels just like people of other orientations.

@BlueJean - I'm sorry about how things have gone with your husband, obviously this is a terrible situation for you. What he has done is not okay and the only way I can even try to understand it is to think of it in the same way that gay men (and lesbians) used to marry because that was what was expected, it wasn't okay to be gay and so they married to show that they weren't... leaving no one happy. I have been able to make my relationships work with my non-ace partners reasonably well because I'm non-monogamous and generally I date others who are also non-monogamous so that everyone can get what they need. There are some excellent books on the subject - I particularly recommend Dossie Easton's the Ethical Slut and Tristan Taormino's Opening Up. I realize that non-monogamy isn't an option for everyone, but if you're already having affairs perhaps it would be a healthy alternative to you feeling like you're cheating and your husband feeling cheated on (surely he has an idea).

dammit, edit: "a woman engaging in an any-level-sexual act with another woman"

Oh, and @Uncelestial - the idea that a person isn't interested in sex because they haven't had it yet is the gateway thought process to corrective rape. I have read written accounts from aces who said that they were already out and openly ace and eventually had a partner who was sure they were going to "fix" them by having sex with them... Guess how well that worked. Let's play a game where we apply your assumptions about aces to people of other orientations: How about straight men are only straight because they haven't had sex with a man yet... and even the ones who did try out having sex with a man and decided it wasn't their thing... well, they obviously need to keep having sex with men until they realize they are actually bi or gay. Sounds TOTALLY REASONABLE, right?

And back to Hunter: If you want to play the "the plural of anecdote is data" game: I know two people who were sexually assaulted, neither of which is ace and I've met a lot of aces who have stated in one place or another that they were not raped (because you know what's fun, having to disclose if you've been raped or not every time you tell someone your orientation) and while there are a lot of aces who I don't know about their status as an assault survivor I assume their numbers are about the same as the general population... but the only accounts I've read about were people who already identified as ace before they were assaulted (see above).

@188: Yeah, it just seems like a weird jump to ask a partner if they've ever experienced sexual assault, and then switch to bringing up the kink.

Even if it's in a later conversation, I don't like the idea that some kinks are "bad" or "extra sensitive" and need to be brought up carefully just to talk about them. There's already too much of that attitude towards kinks. I have had negative reactions to some of mine and don't always bring them all up right away out of fear (that and listing them all would take a long time ;) ).

I don't necessarily think it's wrong to ask someone if they have experienced sexual assault, but that's a personal conversation that should be separate from, and come well after, the initial conversation about what kinks people are into. Unless the assault victim brings it up earlier, which is a good idea if they're comfortable with doing so.

As far as age play, I know it's not the only kind, but I generally think of it as explicitly talking about someone being a specific age (typically much younger than they actually are) during sex, such as saying "fuck your X year old girl." Even if someone is young looking it can still be hot for some people to talk about pretend ages specifically, as a type of role-playing, which is why a lot of underage erotic fiction makes a point of bringing up people's ages often. It's the same way that interracial erotic fiction brings up people's races often, because it's a turn-on for some people.

@153: Being dishonest is never acceptable. My condolences. I'm asexual myself (by some definitions, although the details are vastly more complicated) and I decided early on that there was no way I'd get in a relationship that wasn't with another asexual, for exactly that reason.

@115: That's not my experience. But I suppose the plural of "anecdote" is not data. Still, I'm reluctant to talk about asexuality because it always seems to come around to exactly that assumption -- that I was somehow sexually traumatized as a child or something. Whatever. I am how I am, it works for me, and I don't need other people to try to fix me.

@Blackrose

"I don't like the idea that some kinks are "bad" or "extra sensitive" and need to be brought up carefully just to talk about them."

sometimes things are true, even if we don't like them ;)

My point wasn't that people should be extra-sensitive in terms of not bringing them up or even trying to not bring them up to certain people. I'm with you that people should be open, I want to know my partner's kinks especially if they're something that's off-putting to me.

(And I do think I'm allowed to drop a partner for a kink or for whatever other reason I like. I've dropped guys for lots of reasons others consider finicky or trivial. I know what I like.)

My point was that people should be sensitive to the rejection of their kink. Maybe the person has a legitimate reason to be uncomfortable with it. Even extremely so. If someone freaks out over your foot fetish, that's probably just them being unreasonable, but if someone freaks out over being asked to enact a pedophilic fantasy... well, maybe they have a reason. Not because they hate you. Not because they think your kink is "wrong" but because of personal experiences.

I brought it up because I got a very negative response from a poster when I said I would be put off by the suggestion of age-play and I think that was an unfair response.

I think kinks that potentially involve people reliving trauma are by nature, "extra-sensitive" but I'm not conflating that with the kink being any less okay.

@194: I understand what you mean, and I agree you are allowed to drop a partner for any reason or no reason. And yes, people should understand that some people, for whatever reason, can't handle certain kinks, and that's ok.

I think that the reason you got negative responses from me and from other posters is that your reaction seemed extreme. If you can't handle X, and your partner brings up X, and you say "I can't handle X" and your partner says "that's ok, we can do other things"... well, yes, you are allowed to drop him, it's just that it doesn't seem reasonable to me to do so. Not that you always have to be reasonable or fair, but it's a little unfair to a partner who is being open and understanding about your boundaries.

I'll be sensitive to the rejection of my kinks, and be willing to respect people's boundaries, but I don't think it would be fair or reasonable for someone to dump me for just mentioning a kink. But again, you don't have to be fair or reasonable, and you do have the right to dump someone at any time.

"Dog collars seem like a heavy activity for a lad, Dan"

Tell that to all the Hot Topic mallgoths.

@195

This might sound like a trivial distinction, but I wouldn't (in theory) dump someone for mentioning it, I would dump them for having it and only because it suggests possibilities I'm not entirely comfortable with.

The idea being that bringing up kinks (even ones I'm not into) is totally cool, and I don't endorse at all the idea that someone should hide or be ashamed of their kinks or that it's ever better for a relationship for that to happen. I'm not in the "bad kinks should be kept to yourself" camp.

I guess in my ideal world people are comfortable enough with themselves to reveal their kinks even IF it might be a dealbreaker for their partner.

@rand

I'll tell them as soon as I can fire up the time machine and visit them in the late 90's when they still existed?

@cocky

scroll up?

Someone into catholic schoolgirls (we're talking highschool, right?) is unlikely to be a pedophile because highschool girls are postpubescent. My discomfort is with someone who would want me to simulate sex with a prepubescent girl.

Not 99% of straight men.
I'm not sure what the percentage of pedophiles is but it's pretty low (count in hebephiles and it gets higher, but still, nowhere near 99%)

I can rock the schoolgirl outfit no problem. I love a good kilt.

P.S. I won't fuck 99% of straight men anyway, so... shrug?

@200: Wait, what? Even in the context of roleplaying/age play? You feel the same way about fantasies of raping someone? This doesn't make sense to me... you understand that fantasies are not always things that people would act out for real, right?

If you dump anyone who's ever had a "bad"/illegal/disturbing fantasy, you're not gonna have that many people left.

@cocky

we're 100% on the same page, it's nice to see.

@197: But if they didn't mention something that turned them on, and thus you didn't know about it, it wouldn't matter. Someone having a kink that you don't like doesn't affect you in any way.

I don't think people should be open about their kinks if it means they will get dumped or rejected. If I were dating someone who said "If my partner were into kinks X, Y, Z, I would dump him," I wouldn't reveal those kinks if I had them. Why would I? Their existence doesn't do any harm, and people don't have the right to know everything in their partners' heads so they can decide what they don't like.

Cocky said he'd be irrevocably turned off if his partner revealed some kinks... isn't that a bad thing? If you had a good relationship, and you stopped being attracted to the person even when you WANTED to still be attracted, seems like you wouldn't want to know those kinks.

Basically: it's not fair to dump someone just for having a kink. Since you have the right to do that, your partner also has the right to keep his/her kinks private for fear of being dumped. People should only be open about their kinks if they will not suffer any penalty for revealing them.

Blackrose, I was with you up to this post.

First of all, I'm not with you on the "what you don't know won't hurt you" premise, but if that's what you believe then there's not really any way I can get you to see eye to eye.

On the rest of it... I wouldn't want to be in a relationship where I hid something from someone for fear of them dumping me and I don't think anyone with healthy self-respect would. Having a kink (or, as we're implying, orientation) such as the one we're discussing is not inherently immoral. But I do believe that hiding something that your partner would dump you for so that they don't dump you is immoral.

And condescending.

I generally won't date or sleep with a guy if his body fat percentage exceeds that of my glass of milk. That's not really fair either, but hey, I may date whomever I please, and so may cocky.

So to answer your question, yes of course I would still want to know about those kinks. Two reasons...

1. I strongly believe in honesty in relationships. No honesty? No relationship. See above.

2. There's no perfect world where secrets can be perfectly kept. "Oh I'm going to cheat on my wife and she'd be devestated if she found out but she WON'T find out so it's okay". As long as there is human error there's no guarantee that you can keep any secret from someone forever.

@205 and 206

I think there is a pretty big difference in what the 2 of you are saying.

@BlackRose, I absolutely agree that it seems silly to dump someone over something they're into. But this is assuming that it is an INTEREST, and not a REQUIREMENT. What mydriasis seems to be saying (and please correct me if I'm wrong), is that she wouldn't want to date someone with these kinks because she feels that, whether they state that they are ok going without them, eventually they will want to act on them and she would be uncomfortable with that.
It seems that we're back on the difference between kink and fetish. But I think it goes further than that. Just because something isn't a fetish, doesn't mean its not a requirement.
For example, I'm into somewhat rough sex. Can I get off without it? Absolutely. Would I be happy in a relationship with a person who was only capable of gentle sex? No way in hell. Yes, I can enjoy gentle sex, but if that was my only option, I wouldn't be able to stay. So, I certainly wouldn't consider it a fetish. I'd consider it a kink perhaps. But it is a requirement, at least a bit.
Counterpoint. Once when fooling around with an ex we both (don't ask me how) slipped into an accent. It was kinda hot at the time, but never happened again. Would I be willing to do it again if it came up? Sure. Will I never enjoy sex again if I find out it can't possibly happen again? Nope. Still good.
So I think the idea is more along the lines of, "Will this person feel cheated if I can't accommodate this interest?" If there was something someone was into that I knew I could never do, even being assured that they were ok going without, I might be concerned. What if it's more important to them than they thought? What it, after going without for a long time, they realize just how important it is? Will they need to go outside the relationship for this (which would be a concern in monogamous relationships only, of course)?
So I can understand why mydriasis might feel the need to just end things then and there with someone who is interested in something she's definitely not. It CAN become an issue down the line. Its hard to decide what's worse, giving up someone with a kink you don't like who may have ended up the love of your life, or giving yourself the opportunity to love that person, only to have your heart broken when they realize their kink is more important than you?
Personally, I'll try a lot of things, but everyone draws a line somewhere. That's just where she draws hers. I think it's awesome how open you are to everything BlackRose, but people like you are fairly rare, I think.

@197: "I'll tell them as soon as I can fire up the time machine and visit them in the late 90's when they still existed?"

I can still see glimpses at Westlake and in the Juggalo-spawn.

@207: But that just seems like being misinformed. I understand dumping someone if your sexual needs are incompatible. But if you told someone you were dating that accent story, and they dumped you because they didn't like accents and they were worried you might someday need them to get off, wouldn't you think that they were just not understanding the situation correctly and getting the facts wrong? A random thing that turns you on once in a while will not just turn into a full-blown fetish.

@206: You seem to be confusing thoughts and actions. If you cheat on someone and don't tell them, you've done something wrong and dishonest. Then you're hiding something and keeping a secret.

If you have a random thought that your partner would irrationally dump you for, then it's a different story. Not revealing every thought that comes into your head is not "hiding" something or keeping a secret. Do you tell your partner every single thing you think? Even if it's a mean or unpleasant thought and you know it would offend them?

I don't think "what you don't know won't hurt you," I think that an undisclosed random thought in your partner's head that does not affect you in any way won't hurt you. Again, there is no duty to tell someone you're dating every fantasy that pops into your head and every weird or crazy thought you have. This is very different from cheating.

Ideally, I'd want a relationship where we could be totally honest too. But I believe that honesty and full disclosure require a great deal of trust. And part of that trust is the agreement to be reasonable and not end the relationship over something irrelevant. Ending a relationship over cheating is perfectly reasonable; ending it over a private fantasy isn't. You can have honesty, or you can exercise your right to end a relationship over something minor, but you can't have both.

By the way, I think it's perfectly fair and reasonable to have physical standards for your partners. There's absolutely nothing wrong with requiring a certain body fat percentage, or dumping someone because their body changed. Though I'm curious: less than a glass of milk? That's 3% or so, right? Is that even physically possible? And do you insist on regular weigh-ins to make sure they maintain it?

@207: "Its hard to decide what's worse, giving up someone with a kink you don't like who may have ended up the love of your life, or giving yourself the opportunity to love that person, only to have your heart broken when they realize their kink is more important than you?"

Wouldn't you find that out, either way?

@Blackrose

Your idea that there is something objectively "reasonable" to expect or not expect isn't fully rational in my mind. People have their expectations, sometimes they work, sometimes they don't. I've certainly lived up to certain requests others might call 'unreasonable' too. That's love, sometimes.

I wouldn't want to be in a relationship where I worried that disclosing a thought (ANY thought) would get me dumped, but that's never been the case. If I thought that something about my inner workings would end the relationship, I wouldn't want to be in that relationship, I would end it. I certainly wouldn't conceal thoughts I had (erotic or otherwise) for fear of losing the relationship. Once I conceal something, the relationship is already robbed of it's intimacy for me, which is pretty much equally as bad as the relationship being over.

If you're talking about the random thought of being sexual with someone prepubescent popping into the person's head, no I wouldn't dump them after that. A lot of us have things pop into our head that we wouldn't do. Every time I'm on a balcony, the urge to jump pops into my head. (Have at it, Hunter) But that's not the same as a fantasy that a person has a desire to simulate whether or not they're willing to give it up.

Re: body fat

I was being somewhat snarky, but I honestly find myself put off by squishiness on a male body.

"Essential" body fat for men is allegedly 3%. So I'd imagine it IS possible, although in practice I'm sure I really go more towards the 5% range.

Basically if you can't tell the difference between not saying "I fantasize about fucking little children" and not saying "God, I hate that shirt" then I don't think I can help you.

Although the underage son's sweaty undies screams bad parenting, it gave me an idea. I'm an of-age redheaded female with a moist va-jj...I wonder how much I could make selling my panties!!! Laws aside, supporting some guy or gal's undie sniffing kink doesn't strike me as amoral.

@213: At least a few hundred a week, especially with some R- or X- rated pics included. Try craigslist or backpage.

Except for the possible charge of fraud (and what perv is gonna call the BBB?) why not sell panties/gym clothes that YOU wore, or, better yet, your dog wore for a run and you later rubbed an anchovy on???