Columns Oct 9, 2013 at 4:00 am

The Coast


I had to google Jorge Mario Bergoglio, because I only know him by his title, but good answer!
A full bar in a high school? Oh waaaaaaaaiiiittt.... the drinking age is only 18 in Canada!!!
Dan Savage, weilder of snark, defender of traditional spelling.
Is it inappropriate for me to flirt and attempt to have an affair with a married coworker?

If the attention is unwelcome in any way to your target, it could turn very bad for you. So go after someone else.

The rest of the office will notice and discuss, whether your target is interested or not. So go after someone else.

(Both of these were an amusing theme at Prudie's chat Monday, with one woman completely oblivious to how her boss casually letting her know how her uninterested target's girlfriend was going to be at the next company outing indicated that she was really, really making a fool of herself.)

This person's spouse has done nothing to you and does not deserve your scorn and malice, so go after someone not married. (If this person's spouse cut you off in traffic and you have spent the last six months engineering your way into their spouse's path as a means of revenge, you need a hobby.)
Am I being too PC thinking Dan should have pulled up that guy for sort of slut shaming his partner by calling her a "whore" in bed? Sort of thought it was inappropriate myself but Dan didn't comment so maybe its just me. Like, what does that really mean? Is there not a better way to express the same idea?

Um.... assuming that being compared to a sex worker is offensive is kind of slut shaming in itself, isn't it?
@4: No, "cum" is NOT fine, and THANK YOU DAN for saying so!
@7, and here I was stuck on my partner's a "control freak." I'm whorish in bed and proud of it, but if my partner described me as a "control freak," I'd have to sit them down and get them to admit they're wrong.

Hmm perhaps but the term whore doesn't imply sex worker to me. Its not that I think the guy was trying to slut shame his partner, it just struck me as a strange choice of word on his part.
Whore used like that is an implied comparison. She's as uninhibited and wild in bed as a woman who fucks for money. It's more of a compliment to whores than any kind of shaming. It's a good thing; not a criticism. (Actually, I think the questioner was just bragging.)
1. Kind of crushing on him, too.
2. Perhaps a better question is am I a masochist?
3. Normal if somewhat behind-the-curve.
4. Epic, traumatic levels of grossed-the-fuck-out, personally. Doesn't seem comfortable either.
5. This seems much more problematic on the honesty front than is being acknowledged, but I guess if she's down with it...
6. You're adorable.
7. Does anyone want to recount that story amongst strangers?
8. Such a 60s question.
9. Unless you know for a fact that the marriage is toxic and irredeemable, it's a dick move.
10. Remember that it is not a free pass to act like an asshole to someone you're having sex with.
11. N/A
12. N/A
13. Pineapple juice for no bitter aftertaste. Still tastes like come, though.
14. Dirty sex in a dirty setting can be awesome too.
15. You could also ask him if he'd like to try.
16. Here's a link to address the real issue here (those concerned about Murphy's stance on gay people should note his arrest record and his outfit and keep laughing):…
There is nothing wrong with "cum", especially when used as a noun. Come and cum are both slang terms to describe semen/sperm and I don't think there are any hard and fast grammatical rules about which one to use. The way Dan dismissively wrote his response and made a big point of it suggests to me that something about the word "cum" personally irks him. But no, there is nothing wrong with using it. "Come" can be an ambiguous usage since it's also a common verb ("Come visit me"), but "cum" has only sexual connotations and is easier to understand in noun form. The general accepted definition from my quick google search is that "come" is to be used more in an erotica context for verbs ("I'm coming") and "cum" more in a porn/dirty/explicit context ("He shot his cum all over me"). But again, it's debatable at best and if you have a room full of editors you will get a room full of conflicting opinions.
Re Pope Francis, actions speak louder than words.…
I don't have anything against female dogs, either, but I don't want to get called a bitch.
Since you often remind your readers that a straight-identified man's interest in receiving anal play does not imply secret longings for faggotry, your strap-on answer to Married Straight Lady may confuse people.
@16 Agreed. He follows the same dogma as his predecessors, he's just decided not to talk about it so much. I'm not so sure a PR makeover is all that crushworthy.
What the heck is anal rose budding? (Except that it reminds me of that "stem the rose" comment from "Brokeback Mountain.)
Married Straight Lady irks me. It's bad enough when the bi person uses their own bisexuality as a special pleading for extracurricular sex. But she is taking his sexuality and using it against him, for her own ends. If he himself is EXTREMELY monogamous, then it doesn't matter if he is bi or not; what matters is the number "one," a number which his wife doesn't quite seem to grasp. If she wants to have some extra-relationship sex, she should take responsibility for her own desires. Making it about _his_ bisexuality, in order to satisfy _her_ desires, when he doesn't even want it, is EXTREMELY disingenuous.
Totally agree with hunter78. Is it just me or has Dan been such a dick lately? #lameadvice
@20: Just google 'anal rose budding' for examples, but prepare yourself (definitely NSFW, not to mention just plain disturbing). As for 'stem the rose' in Brokeback Mountain, it's either a Shakespearean allusion to fighting against falling in love ("Despite being from two families at war with each other, Romeo and Juliet were unsuccessful in their attempts to stem the rose... and love won out".) or, more likely in the context of Wyoming cowboys in the 60's, a metaphor for anal sex (stem=penis, rose=anus). This has been a very ass-centric inquiry, I must say.
So "Mr. 200% Straight Guy" now resides in Halifax, Nova Scotia? Does he still have the same masseur?
Sorry--I couldn't help being a wiseass.
I'm just curious, though.

Congrats, Dan, on your recent trip to Canada!
Nova Scotia is definitely another travel destination for me.
I agree with 7 and 11. Calling your girlfriend a control freak and a whore isn't cool. Dan's reply was snappy and all but I think the guy realllly needed a smack upside the head. Dude, your girlfriend is entitled to be free in the bedroom, she is a real person, just like you she has desires and fantasies. Don't be intimidated by them, embrace the fact that she is an enthusiastic lover and enjoy yourselves. If you find that her desires go beyond yours don't chalk it up to her 'whorishness', just admit you're sexually incompatible and move on. Contrary to what you may have been told, men are not the only ones who want sex. Your girlfriend sounds completely normal to me...except for the clean freak thing...that's one of those things I just accept as a mystery of the world...

I commend Ms Grizelda on correct use of "masseur" and applaud Ms Erica's round of humour.

1 Would it have been Alan Cumming if he'd spelled it differently?

2 To which asylum?

3 Pro tip to questioner - when questioning a partner's celebrity obsession, USE A LAST NAME.

4 Pass

5 A point to Mr Rhone for noting the timing. A point and a half to Mr Avast for smacking the questioner. She should clearly divorce her husband and marry Mr Ophian. But this question is an excellent illustration of the sort of predatory opposite-sexer female attitude exhibited by those women who think that male same-sexerism exists only for their own jollies. Thus far, the R&O Fan Club members have, to their credit, not demonstrated such an attitude, highly reminiscent of the stereotypical straight male interest in female same-sexers.

6 Isn't kissing considered a higher tier of kink among those circles?

7 But Mr Savage ratted on Mr Miller in #3? Still, good for Mr S.

8 No weirder than the questioner's buying into the brainwashing.

9 Inappropriate depends on who's setting the standards, but I'm sure it's in character.

10 Well played, Mr S.

11 Join MENSA?

12 At least Mr Savage's competition justifies his optimism.

13 The greatest purpose of that spelling is that it serves to warns those who might otherwise be attracted to its users.

14 This is the one chance the questioner has to have Mr Savage save her from her disastrous life, and she chooses to ask if it's normal instead of how to get out? (gendering as female deliberate just to counter the male gendering)

15 If the Match Game teaches us anything other than Charles Nelson Reilly's distaste for socks, it is not to attempt to match a general and a specific.

16 Well played again, Mr S.
@25, I think most control freaks know they are control freaks. Not an insult to acknowledge that.

Plus, he could be describing my wife and those are the very reasons I married her. I agree with 13, I think he was bragging.
@21 has a good point: It's just not that freakish for someone to not want their partner to have sex with third parties, whether that's in private via an open marriage or in a threeway with both spouses present. Whining "But it's for yoooouuuuu" is just annoying.
this is what i don't like about dan. sooooo traditional.

google scholar:
7,190 entires with "pre-cum" vs. 2,310 for "pre-come" = 3.1:1 for pre-cum
since 2012 it's 903 for "pre-cum" to 220 = 4.1:1
= trend is pre-cum wiping pre-come off the face of the ass

Oxford English Dictionary approves of pre-cum as acceptable incl it's first 1984 use in print, which is slightly NSFW:

pre-come n. (also pre-cum) = pre-ejaculate n.; cf. come n.1 5.

1984 R. N. Boyd Sex behind Bars 174 His cock, wet from pre-cum, slid easily into the ass that Steve had already loosened up.
2004 Gay Times Feb. 45 (advt.) HIV is in the blood, cum and pre-cum of an HIV positive man.

source: OED Third Edition, March 2007, retrieved this morning (full subscription OED online)
@26: His question is an excellent illustration of the sort of predatory opposite-sexer female attitude exhibited by those women who think that male same-sexerism exists only for their own jollies.

I've heard this from some gay writers exasperated with slash fic. A good point. More broadly, with avast's point: It's about your partner, not about you. I recall a comment from a guy who'd figured out his wife was bi and dropped in a casual "If you wanted to try it with a girl sometime, I'd be mellow with that." Then backed off, rather than go into a frenzy of trying to convince her to bed a woman pronto and tell him all the details, or they could find a third on Craig's List RIGHT NOW, come on, I know you think girls are hot!
"Anal rosebudding" looks a lot like "rectal prolapse". That's an injury, can severely interfere with normal life, and often requires surgical correction. WTF. People do this on purpose?
the nail in the "pre-come" old timers' spelling coffin: us yung uns who r interwebs savvy spell it cum…

the last few times pre-come was more widely used were 1830s and 1912. hmmm... maybe this means dan's preference for pre-come means he is a true uber radical seeking to overturn the existing cum-spelling-hegemony, and i am the defender of the entrenched status quo. uh oh. at least i have my lowercase and lack of final punctuation
33 I always thought the proper noun - and spelling - was "semen". I thought the proper (commonly accepted) spelling of the slang term for ejaculate is "cum" just as the proper spelling of the slang term for penis is "dick". Urban Dictionary and back me up in this. Common (accepted) usage is what decides an otherwise arbitrary choice (spelling).

As an anal fan, I have to say, Rosebudding is just...dumb (nothing sexy about it) and seems like a bad idea for the long term...unlike gaping.
@33: Yes, if we're going to be pedantic (and you know we are!), the proper spelling of the noun is indeed "semen" and the verb is "orgasm" or "ejaculate" as appropriate. :-)
My only problem with the spelling "cum" is that it has rather spoiled the usage of the Latin derivative carrying the meaning "turned into," as in 'legislator-cum-financial saboteur."
Jorge Mario Bergoglio? You can do better.
@37: I agree. I feel like every time I use it when it is warranted, it makes someone snicker.
To me, there's something kind of juvenile about spelling it "cum," rather than "come," but I admit that if the usage is limited to it in its noun form (semen) it does cut down some occasional temporary confusion. It's not something I'm going to spend a lot of time worrying about.

Question: is there something male-centric about cum? Does it refer to any and all ejaculatory fluids produced by both males and females when it's a noun? When used as a verb, does it refer to orgasm or ejaculation--not the same thing. (I've known men who orgasmed without necessarily ejaculating, and of course: women.)
My guy and i did a juice cleanse once and his come tasted like candy, fyi
That is because his body went into ketosis. This also happens to anorexics and during starvation. The body produces ketone bodies in the liver to provide energy for the brain. These ketone bodies have a fruity / citrussy smell.
Cum passed the auto-spell test...

(and yes I know about "kyoom" (cum))

@41 - another reason to go super-low carb! I had no idea it had this effect!

@29 - I should've read all the comments first - yours was better and better sourced.

WRT the threesome jollies: I don't disagree with the annoying factor some respondents have cited, but I somehow think the odds he's not so offended by discovering his wife would like to watch are all that great, his being a man and all. Ok, nomex suit on.
Jorge Mario Bergoglio.

I think he's straight, even though I'd bet you $10,000 of Mitt Romney's money that the last one wasn't. Does that have a bearing on celebrity crushes?

@ 39: Question: is there something male-centric about cum?

My understanding is "no," though in the noun form it has a sort of de facto male-centric meaning, just because juveniles on the internet are more likely to be talking about a man's ejaculate than a woman's. No idea about the rest.

@ 42. Cum passed the auto-spell test...

God dammit.
@ 11: ...but if my partner described me as a "control freak," I'd have to sit them down and get them to admit they're wrong.

lol. That's what would happen to me if I said the same, but it would be about the "neat freak" part. There are many ways our place could be neater, and I imagine this would make her explain them to me in detail. And then make me agree.

About the taste of come - if he comes while fully inserted into the back of your throat, you're not going to taste a thing.
AFinch @44:
Ketosis is not necessarily a healthy state (you did read the "starvation" and "anorexics" point?).
Hmmm... a bi husband who is "EXTREMELY monogamous"... and that doesn't read to you as gay and closeted, Dan? Seems that if he was truly bi, he'd be eager to get out and play with his wife and another guy. But if he was gay but contentedly married, perhaps he is afraid of opening Pandora's box...
If "cum" isn't a way to spell the synonym of "ejaculate", then someone needs to tell every porn title ever.
bisexual =/= poly

Come on, folks, it's not that tough.
Dan, I love your column, but I'm surprised to see your criticism of the spelling "cum". Written language is always evolving, and the English language has too many homonyms to criticize this one: "cum" is extremely well known, used and accepted widely, and it makes clear exactly what you're talking about. imho, clarity in written language is a good thing... and can be quite tasty!
Do *NOT* look up anal rose budding unless you want to be disturbed for at least the rest of the day. And a true NSFW Goggle if there ever was one. Sadly, I'm at home today, so I went for it. Poor me. No mental bleach to get that stain out any time soon.
Mr Hunter - Mr Savage, being not much younger than I am, takes his instinctive reactions from the days when people who used that spelling were distinctly seedy. The utility of the spelling is not sufficiently great to justify overturning such a response.

Now, it is true that I am a great advocate of divorce, with the only flaw being that it enriches divorce lawyers - a serious flaw indeed. However, to paraphrase Miss Crawford, I should have almost everybody divorce, as soon as they could do so to advantage. My main exception would be the S&Ms, as their divorcing would be too great a victory for Ms Gallagher and might give real momentum to the emissaries of evil.

Thank you, Ms Eirene. Bisexual people can be just as monogamous as anybody else. The questioner was basically asking how to get her partner into her kink against his inclination, and sugar-coated her selfishness with his potentially being capable of some attraction to her hypothetical third. It is almost like Mr Rhone being no more inclined to a threesome if Mr Alan were to be the third than if the proposed third were Ms Sissou or Ms Thinking.
1. Being called a bitch isn't a bad thing for all of us either.

2. To the google scholar comment - really? You know that "pre-come" isn't the medical term, right?
For sweeter cum: eat parsley. (Lore that was mostly lost during the first decades of the epidemic)
Thanks for defending accurate spelling, Dan!

Says Dan:

""Cum" is not a word."

Says Oxford:

Any word is a word if it gets used often enough. And if it gets enough press, we'll *make* it a word!

Just like santorum, right Dan?
I am pretty sure there are foods you can eat to influence the taste of genital fluids.
It's definitely true for women (Cabernet franc, anyone?) so it's probably true for guys. Semen is mostly sodium bicarbonate anyway.
@#18, the woman said her husband is bi, not straight
@50 - ketosis is not, in and of itself, a harmful metabolic state. I'd bet dollars to donuts humans evolved to spend a lot of time in ketosis (just pure fat conversion/metabolism). You can be not-starving (or not self-starving via eating disorder) and still be in ketosis.

keto-acidosis on the other hand, is bad news.

Meh, she doesn't swallow anyway because I wind up coming in other cavities and I'm just fine with that...maybe I'll try the parsley thing.
@51: What 53 said. And monogamy is not something over which to clutch your pearls like this has never happened in the history of earth. Monogamy is a perfectly normal point on the sexuality spectrum, occupied by lots of people.

@10 (and others who argue that usage is the main important factor in determining if a word is "correct"): that's pretty debatable.

Here's a great article on the topic, if you're into that kinda thing:…
Or you can read the unabridged version of that same essay in the collection "Consider the Lobster."
If you really care about grammar when there's an orgasm involved, you're not doing it right. Can't we let come/cum be equivalent to color/colour and be done with it?
On MSL: There's a good chance her hubby expressed extreme monogamy because he didn't want her to worry he'd "need" to see/sleep with other people (men) and because he is not keen on her going off (alone) with other men.
I am the wife in question. Thanks to your comments, I feel like a POS for even asking Dan. I love my husband a ridiculous amount, and not only do I want to have sexy fun with him, but his pleasure is even more important to me. I sometimes worry that I won't be enough for him. Thanks to @53 for putting it simply.

That being said: Am I still cool to imagine my guy with another guy when I'm getting myself off? Or does that still make me a POS using my husband for my own jollies?
68 is the LW of the bi-husband, for those of you who don't read unregistered comments.

I don't think you're a POS for whatever goes on in your imagination. I also think it is normal to worry that one isn't 'enough' for one's spouse (regardless of their sexuality). I think as long as you aren't manipulating your spouse, you're in the clear. And it doesn't sound like you are.
@68: Fantasize about whatever the hell you want. Share the fantasy with your partner only if you know he finds it hot and not upsetting.

I think part of the lecturing is aimed at Dan for going straight to three-ways, which you didn't actually mention. 53 put is well and simply: bisexual โ‰  nonmonogamous, just like someone who's attracted to more than one physical type (blonds AND brunettes) may not want to score some blond on the side, or in threeways, after marrying a brunette.

It might be the exclamation points in your initial question: You phrase his monogamy like it's a stumbling block to your sexy fun times. Drawing on past SL letters I'd advocate calming way down and calmly tossing out "Well, if you ever wanted to try X I'd be cool with it." Then back down: it's not like he's going to forget you mentioned it. Make sure X is a small step (to you, emotionally) and that you really mean it.

So.. If you have to sit them down to explain how they must be wrong...

You couldn't be a control freak...?

@68: I don't even think you are a POS for wanting what you want. I just think you need to be honest about your motivations. The vibe I got from your initial letter is that you wanted to figure out how to dislodge him from being extremely monogamous by making your wants be about who he is, which didn't seem very respectful. What you want is what you want. It has nothing to do with his orientation; it's just that his orientation maybe enables what you want. However, I don't blame you for seeing the possibilities.

You need to be prepared for him to want to continue to be extremely monogamous, at which point fall back to Plan B (fantasizing about him, rather than acting on it).
Awww, I grew up in Halifax and first discovered Dan in the Coast. It was an education for university-age me, and reading Dan at young age has been a huge influence. Kept me from freaking out over finding my boyfriend's porn stash, and helped me be GGG when my now-husband revealed his kinks. I remember Dan agreeing to let the Coast run his column for free when one of their big advertisers dropped out after being offended by the column. I'm so glad the Coast is still around and still running Savage Love. Keep up the good work, Coast and Dan.
@55: I said as much @23.
@68: For clarity's sake, your husband just told you he's bisexual? Even if it's hot to you, isn't that the kind of major disclosure that's supposed to happen before you get hitched? Seems to be working out, I'm just wondering how that went down.
@70 I think it's ok to share a fantasy that you know your partner doesn't find hot, but is willing to tolerate at times because you love it so much. I agree with you that if the fantasy upsets your partner, you should keep it to yourself.

@71, you found me out.
Until Dan stops ending the podcast with "Me and the TSARY will be back at you next week", I'm not taking his spelling advice.
Wife back again. He came out to me after we were married not so much as an omission, but because it was something he hadn't quite realized about himself (or allowed himself to realize).
Seriously, we're back on the taste of come?

1. Shout out to the vegetarians! Best tasting come.

2. Smokers: yeah it's not just your mouth that can end up tasting like an ashtray...

3. Unless you have some sort of fetish about keeping it around in your mouth, you shouldn't really be tasting it that much, should you? I mean, it goes in your throat, and then it goes to it's home in your tummy. Mm-mm.
@68 - Nooooo...definitely NOT POS for asking. The bandwagon that jumped on the "double standard" about things, and while technically correct, are over-reacting. There are a ton of guys who will pressure the hell out of their (really straight) GFs to bring someone else (another woman) into it for their own (the guys own) pleasure, so naturally everyone has a reflexive negative on that.

Still, I stick by what I said before: your husband might just be totally cool with threesomes and was just emphasizing monogamy because he wanted you not to worry. I forget which comment (and am too lazy to look it up), but as someone suggested, casually dropping it and then dropping it accomplishes what you want/need in a guilt-free way.

Further, for everyone who jumped Dan's case for this: his first suggestion was role-playing, not threesomes, which is another completely not POS thing for @68 to do.
I think what Dan is saying is that if you drink enough Guinness beforehand, the other person's cum will taste just fine.
@77: Fair enough.
@45 - re: whether the sexual orientation of the object of a celebrity crush matters to having that crush....
I would say, on the whole, no; personally I've had celebrity crushes on women I have no reason to believe aren't straight.
As for Mr. Bergoglio; I can't agree with Dan's taste, but hey, that's what human diversity is all about.
Mr Finch - Strap-ons = role play? Mild stretch, though you could reasonably say it's implied. Given Mr Savage's pushing of the instruments on relationships containing straight men with female partners, that part felt a bit like a near non-answer.

To Wife - Fortunately, it's a fairly easy fix. It's not a bad thing that you reacted to your husband's news with enthusiasm, but occasionally a Big Revelation meets with a more positive reception than that which the outcomer can handle. Your husband is still probably getting used to himself. Let him know where you'd be happy to go with him and then let him drive his own sexuality, as others have suggested.

The parallel that comes to mind is when a fairly inconspicuous and mostly closeted person comes out to someone, typically a parent, who immediately starts living, eating and breathing All Things PFLaG. There's lots of good in that, but it can make the outcomer feel pushed into wearing much more of a 24/7 label than (s)he finds comfortable, or being somebody else's idea of a _____.

To paraphrase Tim Minchin, spelling it "cum" is like thinking The Doors is poetry - cringingly teenaged.

Mr, Ven - they are at the very least "top/bottom" role reversal if not gender play. Not to be an apostate here, so let me re-affirm the dogma/mantra: the butthole is not the gayhole and getting pegged by a woman does not make you gay. I do really endorse this notion. I think the gender you are attracted to (aroused by) and fall in love with is the defining feature or orientation. Sounds like bi husband is attracted to both and his wonderful wife is enthusiastic about trying to do both for him.
@78 IME, the cum of men who've had a vasectomy is *much* milder tasting than the "fully leaded" stuff. YMMV.
i like this article very much.
Mr Finch - For some reason, I thought you were the poster who "defended" Wife by saying she never mentioned threesomes - although what people are supposed to infer from a complaint about Husband's "extreme" monogamy in that case I've no idea. Role play is a reasonable inference, as is threesome.

I do think that, given her clarifications and willingness to present and take lumps, there is an above average chance that they can work things out well, although I cannot in good conscience call any woman wonderful who presents as a "lady". Women who proactively call themselves ladies might not be at the top of the LMB list, but they get dinged. (An example of reactively comes from Clue when Yvette declines to look at the photographs Miss Scarlet offers to show her; that I do not ding.) I'll grant that I have a high lack of tolerance for this for personal reasons and will not quarrel severely with those who don't find the style annoying, although there does seem a residual hint at wanting a favourable double standard, given that one can go from one month's end to the next without stumbling across a gentleman.
I EXTREMELY DISAGREE WITH YOUR DEFINITION OF THE "gay normal" definition of monogamy: Have threesomes only with each other and one additional hot gay....
@86: As for Mr. Bergoglio; I can't agree with Dan's taste, but hey, that's what human diversity is all about.

To be fair, I've got a bit of a crush on Bergoglio too, and I guess my own straightness hasn't interfered with it.
Mr. Ven - I was more 'defending' Dan's advice to her that she suggest redefining monogamy to her husband. Sure, there's a double-standard at work, but let's be honest adults here: by and large there are not lots of women emotionally traumatizing their male partners by pressuring them into same-sex interactions the women don't desire and which run counter to their own desires for emotional one-on-one connections. Sure, lots of men want sex to be an expression of their one-on-one love bond, but they also just like sex.

I guess I'm defending the double-standard; I'm ok with and women are different in the aggregate, whatever individual cases might be exceptions.

re: lady v. woman - whatever! It's just an expression! My wife is slightly my junior and loves to tease me about "old fashioned" expressions like "gal(s)" - I sometimes call myself a gentleman too - and it's nothing more than arcana. LMB over the top response. It's been far too long since I've watched Clue, so sadly, the reference is lost to me.
@98. Absolutely wrong. Bisexuality is about the scope of your attraction, not the satisfaction of a sexual appetite.
@95: It was a joke, man. Have a drink.
@99: Alanmt FTW squared.
@101: Lots of people are attracted to people and can 't exercise that option. They are prisoners, they are too socially awkward, or too unattractive or have some other impediment. They have taken a vow of celibacy. They are in a monogamous relationship. One doesn't need to be bi to be attracted to people and not be able to exercise that option. It's not necessarily the end of the world or even a fucked situation. It's called "you can't always get every single thing you want." It happens to all of us. Bisexuals not excluded.
@103: I'm attracted to blondes. I'm also attracted to brunettes. I'm monogamously married. Is my situation fucked too?
Yeah, I'm not understanding how bisexuals have it worse than anyone else who is attracted to other people while in a monogamous relationship. I'm very attracted to my neighbor, but I'm not going to flirt with him (even though my marriage is open), because I don't shit where I eat. Does that mean my situation is fucked?

"Attracted to men" doesn't equal "unsatisfied with straight sex with my partner."
I will say that many people find it easier to bend the rules of monogamy in their own favor. (That is, they can cope with fucking someone else themselves; they just get jealous when faced with the idea of their partner fucking someone else.)

So she could propose a threesome where she only touches her husband's equipment, but where she gets to enjoy watching him play with the other guy.
@103 Hunter,

Since when did being GGG have anything to do with being non monogamous? Unless that is what the partners all want?

From the married and been flirted with peanut gallery: Please, please don't. Unless the married person is blatantly hitting on you, please don't. Don't confuse kindness, warmth and courtesy for a need to have sex/an affair.

Re #11 (financial domination), I haven't done that, but my own approach would be to get out into the kinky scene where you live and meet people face-to-face. Build relationships -- a young female domme will be very popular.

Once you know likely candidates (people you can trust, who don't have hang-ups about sex work, and who have enough disposable income), explain that you like them a lot, and would love to treat them the way they need to be treated, and isn't it terrible how having to work a real job to pay your bills makes scheduling so hard. Sigh...

Don't take photos, don't allow them to take photos. That way you won't have an online persona to bite you in the butt once you want to move on from this life.
@106: So she could propose a threesome where she only touches her husband's equipment, but where she gets to enjoy watching him play with the other guy.

Yeah--or one where she only watches. It's a convenient way to ease into it in any circumstance, and seems particularly applicable when the proposing partner's interest is primarily in watching (which it sounds like might be the case).
@ 110:

No, she can't. That would violate his monogamy, which is what she's complaining about.

Proposing it wouldn't.
@112: In this context, what's the difference?
@26 vennominon: You're most welcome. Actually, I think it was you who initially offered me the correct terminology of "masseur", rather than my erroneous use of "masseuse" from a previous blog session...?
Anyway, masseur it is.

As long as we're still on the subject of come, here's a dumb question: As a recovered ex-sugar junkie (my Type II diagnosis is reversed!! YAAAAY!!), would (my) come be sweeter after the safer consumption of sugar-free semi-sweet or dark chocolate (90% is best--also an antioxidant)? I'm on a high protein / veggie / low carb / no gluten or sugar diet.
I'm just wondering, and still having J.D. fantasies.
@auntie grizelda, seems worth experimenting to find out!
Some bis feel unhappy if they can't have at least occasional sex with people of both genders, but many are fine with satisfying sex with a single loving partner, who could be of either gender. (There are infinite other variations, of course). Yes, gender is more fundamental than hair colour, but no, the fundamentality of the difference doesn't necessarily amp up the intensity of the *desire*. It can just be a matter of: "Oh, cute blonde girl... oh, nice arms on that dude, I wonder what he'd look like naked, anyway, this sudoku is tough..." the latter attraction doesn't have to be more ferocious just because there's a woman at home and not a man. The LW's husband probably just fantasises about men from time to time but he's happy with the real life sex he has, so he doesn't feel the need for it to go any further. (It's possible this could change, but it's not a given that it must.)
@93 in my one-liner index card I jotted to Dan, I mentioned that I was married. Not that I was straight or a lady. Infer what you like from that. It's been fun! Going to spend time with my lovely husband!

    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

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