firstest with the mostest?

I feel so sorry for the LW1's friend. Her husband believes in a literal interpretation of the Madonna/Whore complex. He seriously needs help.

Totally agree Buffy- I think he's stuck in the Victorian Era, when wives were meant to be focused completely on homemaking and children, and submit to sex as a duty of being a wife (but not enjoy it!). No wonder they invented vibrators in that era! In fact, he's even worse, since he won't even have cold-fish sex with her!

"He "petted" me over the underwear, and then I did the same to him. I also went under his underwear and rubbed my hand around his penis without actually touching it."

How is that not "below the belt"?

Nice variety of letters, and actually about sex.

If it isn't already, UNCL's situation sounds like a movie trope. Like so many recent letters, "Use your words" is a good answer.

LW1 hasn't given us the whole story: how did No. 2 get conceived if she was lady in the Madonna box. Not that's it's fair, but if he's turned off because she still had 40 of first-baby fat, at least they can go forward from his true basis of assholery. As presented, this doesn't make sense.

I'm guessing the "mother/lover" thing with LW1's friend is an excuse. Her husband probably just isn't excited about sex with her anymore for whatever reason - post-baby weight, she's too busy with the baby to pay attention to him, he's having an affair, whatever - and doesn't want to cop to it.

As far as LW4 goes... you're used to the behavior of desperate horny 16-year old boys. Most self-respecting grown men won't beg and writhe just because you stick your fingers under their waistband without actually touching anything. (Unless you're doing some kind of dominance/submission game - which, if you do like having those guys beg you, just might be your thing.)

First letter - Hearsay evidence! Maybe not quite so bad as when Rumpole gets a Chancery brief for a spiritualist client who converses with the dear departed via planchette and is about to tell the judge what the late Colonel told her about his brother yesterday evening when Guthrie Featherstone informs her, "That would be hearsay evidence. We shall have to wait and see whether my learned friend Mr Rumpole calls the deceased gentleman as a witness."

Granted, it's a real question, but not a taxing one; I'm much more interested in why this is a third party letter. My advice to LW would be that it's much more fun corresponding about one's own problems than those of one's friends, and, if LW doesn't see any problems to own as personal, to look harder.
*****
Second letter: Well played, Mr Savage.
*****
Third letter: Mr Savage's suggestion might work, but Mr Savage has manifested a personal agenda full of the intent to put the benefit of sex workers first. Unless LW is on a par with Ms Erica, Mr Savage's course of action will drain the couple's finances so quickly that soon they'll be both poor and bitter. This is a golden opportunity for a charming divorce, preferably without divorce lawyers involved (thus proving that I have no agenda to favour a class of person with rather lower favourables in this, and seek only to emulate Mary Crawford in reverse by advocating for a much needed increase in the divorce rate).

All right, I might have been not entirely serious this time, but there is a sort of 1%y feel to some of Mr Savage's answers, and Husband gives me a vibration of somebody who, once let loose, could have issues with pacing his indulgence. I've seen it before.
*****
Fourth letter - What a piece of work. It would have been a kindness to Boyfriend had Mr Savage told LW he was off the Gaydar Chart (rather like Emily Brewster wishing that Poirot had told Mrs Gardiner that he'd come to the Jolly Roger Hotel on the trail of a murderer); while he may be a perfectly dreadful person, the last thing most reasonable people would need would be LW judging them forward and backward according to some arbitrary interpretation of how her exes had acted in the past and then resorting to some scheme worthy of Wile E Coyote to unravel the great mystery when Using One's Words would be simply too easy.

Then again, perhaps Team Homo could give her a cushy deal as a Recruiter?
*****
Fifth letter - This LW reminds me of Lady Russell thinking that Bath will be good for Anne Elliot for not much real reason beyond her being lured by her own liking for Bath into being disposed to think it must suit Anne as well. I suppose we could look into why someone so open to exploration took up with someone so much otherwise, but it's too late to do much beyond guess that she thought she'd wear him down in time.

I think Dan missed some options for WHWLAB. Obviously her boyfriend is straight and any type of male-male interaction is not going to happen and she shouldn't push that.

But there is a whole lot of space between MF couple sex and MMF bi-male sex for a woman to enjoy the company of two men without the men having to interact with each other. Not all MMF threesomes involve contact between the guys. If WHWLAB just wants two guys at the same time, that can certainly be arranged with two heterosexual guys.

WHWLAB might try asking her BF if he would one of the males in activities that don't involve male-male contact, like blowing her boyfriend while the other guy has sex with her, or the other way around, or him watching her, or the other guy watching them...

WHWLAB might also suggest another couple; then there are two men available, but the boyfriend might be comfortable with an even ration and/or his own distraction.

Dan is right though that MMF threesomes with one straight and one bi guy are definitely not a good idea, and her boyfriend is definitely straight, and she should definitely NOT push any type of male-male interaction... it's not going to happen.

Uh, the "conservative" woman sounds so annoying.

@GAY

Your boyfriend is not gay, he is taking your "no below the belt" policy as a sign that you want to be the one in control of how far things go and on what timeline. His hardness says he liked you and the mutual petting, and his lack of reaction beyond that is a sign that he is not trying to pressure you or appear over eager.

Be aware though, this has a sex negativity / manipulative feel to it. You ban below the belt, but allow that boundary to be pushed. You engage in VERY light mutual petting, and you take the the fact that he does not go further beyond your below the belt ban as a sign that he is gay rather than showing restraint. That sounds like a self inflicted mind game.

Yeah, LW4 is downright confusing. If he wasn't having as much a reaction as you would like why not vary what you're doing? Or ask him questions? I'm sure there's things you could think of touching/doing that wouldn't force you to compromise your values.

MUM: My first thought was "Your friend's husband is having an affair." "Your friend's husband is a lunatic" came two or three scenarios later. Make of that what you will.
UNCL: An old friend of mine had a close friend in high school come out to him while they were in (the same) college. My friend- a good guy with quite the ego at the time- half-jokingly asked his newly out friend "So all that time you were watching my back you were actually just looking at my ass?" To which his friend replied: "You have a much higher opinion of your ass than I do."
GAY: You should be more concerned about his potential confusion than his sexual preference. Nothing-below-the-belt dick stroking? A few weeks of this rhetorical/physical clusterfuck and I suspect many boys would just go find someone who'll touch it without all the semiotic acrobatics.
WHWALB: And people in hell wish for ice water...BTW, how would "Let's fuck an ex-fuck buddy of mine that you're not at all attracted to!" sound coming from him ? You've actualized more fantasies than most. Let this one go.

LW 3-Seriously? Your husband finds the nerve to bring a fantasy to you that he would like you tto help him explore and you are repulsed?! Unless it involves dead bodies, children, animals, or a trip to the E.R. as his wife you should try to help him explore these fantasies. I'm not saying you should go farther than you are comfortable but talk them through, look at porn together, read stories, and find a way to work on this together before you send him to a Dom. While most do not have penatrative sex with a sub client, by not being active in this you will expose your relationship to outside influences that you might not want.

lw3 says hubby’s been passive in bed all these years, so in effect, she has been domming him to get sex, just less overtly than he would like. she might want to re-think what domming really is, and if maybe it might involve things that could be, you know, hotter than what’s been going on so far. i figure: if you’re going to be vanilla domming anyway, you might as well try the real thing.

Heh...I'm with @19 - LW2 sounds awful (not just annoying). If her BF is lucky, she'll decide he is gay and dump him so he can go find someone who doesn't get off on frustrating him.

Maybe LW1's husband is crazy, or maybe he's just freaked out, but he doesn't win the DTMFA freak award here - LW2 does.

LW3 & LW4 are just with the wrong partners. Can we cue the frustrated letters of the peg-ees and heteroflexible men who are stuck with women like LW2? And what do they say about two bottoms being a disaster - LW3 and her husband are both bottoms.

What! I'm disappointed in DND. She's spent 10+ years trying to get her hubby to come out of his shell -- in other words, expecting HIM to participate in HER "toys and playful games", and he's been GGG enough to do so, and now that he wants domination, she outright refuses to even give it a try? Talk about double standards!

@9, and Dan: LW1's husband kept having sex with her between Babies 1 and 2 in an effort to conceive Baby 2. Surely that's obvious?

MUM's friend's husband is not going to get better, but kudos for honesty. It's a lot more painful for the wife to figure it out in individual counseling years later. Having been there, my guess as to why he didn't go M/W complex after the first two kids,is that he wanted three. Having sex for procreation is different than "regular" and won't trip his conplex. No sex during pregnancies is a big tip off.

I don't know if the hubby is having and affair yet, but he will, with a "whore". Lucky girl - imagine how much disrespect she will receive. MUM needs to divorce ASAP. Hubby will go @pe$hit if he finds our Madonna is getting some. Since she has expressed a continued interest in sex, he will be watching her like a hawk.

meh, I got all my @#s off - ignored LW2.

It's fine for everyone to demand that @DND not reject her husband over his request/fantasy, but the truth is that she's not rejecting him - she's asking for help in trying to address his fantasy. It's unfair to slam her for having her own feelings - we are all entitled to feel how we feel about anything - but especially about what turns us on. I think she is attempting to be GGG and doing something that grosses her out and will ultimately cause her to develop feelings of revulsion and contempt for her husband is a bad idea. Dan's advice is great, and I think she ought to tell him "don't tell me about it" so that she can preserve her mental image of him as the dominant he-man who ravages her.

@26 - Ok, now that I think about it, you are right - he's as nuts as @GAY, the other repressed "(sexual) conservative".

@23 exactly. I've never used this term before because I dislike the connotation but LW2 sounds like a smug cock tease to me. A guy in his mid-to-late 20s is supposed to pant, plead, and beg because her besainted hand got *near* his penis? Ugh, this isn't about her values, this is about her liking to have men grovel and jump through hoops.

I still don't understand what she was doing if her hands were in his undies and she was feeling all around but NOT touching the goods?! What was she touching? His pubes and the crease where leg meets torso? What else is there for her to touch? Why exactly was he supposed to pant and writhe around? If she says "nothing below the belt" then fine, but then she goes and breaks her own rule, and because he does not react like a teenage boy she's thinking he's gay? Weird!

I was married to a 50yo woman who did nothing more than make feeble attempts to meet my needs of submission in our 26 years together. I admit going to see prodommes in secret very occasionally to keep the pressure from exploding.

When we were going thru a challenging time out of the bedroom, my needs in the bedroom became to great and I finally confronted her with an ultimatum... either we play D/s with her at least faking enthusiasm and the D/s lasting more than 3 minutes before our sex returned to the normal variations, or she come with me to a Dominatrix to see what I was really into, or I openly would go to a Prodomme without sneaking around. She was in shock for a few minutes and then chose course #2. We went online right then and there and chose a Prodomme to call and she loved the idea of seeing us as a couple.

We went to see her and the evening was incredibly fun for me, and..... tada! for my wife. She discovered that nipple torture and using a Wartenburg wheel on me got her off. She loved the expression on my face as the Prodomme gave me a golden shower. Watching the prodomme use a strap-on gave her the confidence to later use a dildo on me.

Fast forward 6 years. We are now swingers. We have enjoyed cuckold, bisexuality, 3 ways, 4 ways, play parties at both clubs and houses. We are now talking to one partner about arranging an evening with 3 guys and my wife while his slave and myself being submissive to all.

I htink that when the submissive one says I want you to Dominate me, the submissive one needs to give the partner support in doing so, not just expecting the other one to don leather, grab a whip and flail away. Our way may not be your way DND, but at least think of accompanying him to seeing that Prodomme and see what ideas you can learn. And remember that nice girls can and do spank and pee on their lovers. And last, my non vanilla wife gets oral whenever and however she wants with or without reciprocation and with my releases at her direction as to when, if and how. I mean shes the Domme now and her word is my deepest desire.

I wonder if MUM's friend's husband looked around the curtain/between her legs during the birth of kid #2. I've known several guys who were utterly put off by doing this and have a hard time wrapping their heads around the fact that vaginas can issue forth 8lb. humans and then (after appropriate healing time) go right back to normal. It is possible to be too involved in childbirth for one's personal tastes.

Is it me or do the phrases "I would like to think that this is the 21st century..." and "...although I have slept over, I banned anything below the belt..." seem contradictory, to say nothing of using the term "petting"?

@33 I thought the exact same thing.

I would think in the 21st century you could date someone without constantly going home with blue balls. The writhing is probably them trying to find a more comfortable position for their swollen testicles.

Geez GAY, you give a guy clear boundaries and when he respects those boundaries you assume he is gay?

You are all kinda fucked up.

I'm with those who think that DND shouldn't just tell her husband to see a pro-domme and wash her hands of it all.

wine-o's advice is exceptionally good @31, and holds out hope for DND and her husband finding a great path forward.

But in addition, I think DND & husband both need to wake up to the real world. As your desires change over time or become more intense, eventually adults realize that you have to ask for what you want. And you have to not freak out when your partner asks for something too.

If her husband is a typical tyro sub, he doesn't really want to do whatever she asks ("do the laundry, boy!") He has a set fantasy of what he wants her to ask him to do. He needs to explain the fantasy to her, as a favor he's asking of her.

With or without the advice of a pro-domme, she should give it a try (And also get some books, like the New Topping Book, to help her figure out her own approach).

And she should learn (as ellarosa said @22) that she can just be less subtle about asking for what she wants in bed, and she'll end up getting more of that too. But she has to be willing to own her own desires, and he has to be willing to own his.

Re LW1: There is no "friend." That is all.

DND's situation is an excellent example of why you should get over all your sexual inhibitions before getting married. You never know what you might end up wanting.

DND, I'd suggest that you try to see your dislike of playing a dominant role as a sexual inhibition of your own. You might make an effort to find the pleasure of it before sending your husband off to a dominatrix. It has occurred to you that you can order him to eat your pussy for two hours, right?

LW4:
You sound like a mess. Do you even know what you're looking for?. Here's why he's not writhing and moaning: he's too busy debating himself as to whether he should abandon you as a prospect, because you set arbitrary boundaries and then arbitrarily violate them. He's confused as to just what the fuck to make of you, at 25, with the hang-ups of a 16-yo high school girl. Perhaps this is a result of some past trauma, perhaps it's some 'conservative' religious bullshit. In either case, get counseling.

Jesus, GAY, you're 25, grab his cock already!

The reason he didn't writhe, pant, and beg isn't because he isn't straight, it's because he isn't fifteen. If you want reactions like that from guys your age, you're going to need to get over your "conservatism" and go to work. Stick a finger in his ass while you suck his cock and you'll get all the writhing you want!

I congratulate Mr Wine on hitting the jackpot, but his level of success might scare off some people afraid of such an adventure taking too well. Think of all the people for whom winning the lottery turned out to be a huge overall minus.

I'm going to guess that LW has been doing almost all the heavy lifting in the bedroom to this point, or at least thinks that to be the case. After years of prodding, she finally gets Husband to reveal what's behind Door #3, and instead of the Big Deal of the Day, there's just more heavy lifting for her to do, which appears to be one big Zonk. There's something of a sense of exhaustion about her letter. I'll agree with Ms Erica about the specifics and what he needs to explain to her.

For LW1 I'm going with the friend's husband is a closet case.

He got married as a cover, has now produced two babies with her to prove his manhood, and now that his obligation to procreate and appear a typical heterosexual couple has been completed he's done with that part of the act.

Or maybe not, but without further evidence or information I'm going with this.

DND, if you're game to consider his request, I recommend mentally splitting your play time into three different categories:

A) activities you both have enjoyed in the past and find familiar, sexy & easy.

B) D/s play you do for him: enacting his fantasies, while acting like you want it. Spanking him, CBT, nipple-play, making him suck your (detachable) cock, whatever floats his boat. Eventually you may find that his excitement turns you on, but be willing to fake it in the meantime.

C) D/s play you do to train him to please you. Here it's not about his fantasies, it's about figuring out what you get out of being a dom. Would you like a foot massage? Do you want him to do more housework, or at least stop leaving his socks on the floor? Are there sex positions that you enjoy more than he does?

My advice is not to mix this kind of scene (C) with (B), because in the end a sub who only does housework to get an immediate spanking is likely to be demanding and whiny. Instead, the idea is for him to do what you tell him to, just because you tell him to.

Keep the distinction between B & C to yourself as long as he's cheerfully participating in both. If he won't do C then at least the two of you can agree that the D/s is just a sex game to him, and you'll indulge him about as often as he indulges your own sex preferences.

MUM - What Dan said. It's bad enough when the sex slowly leaks out of the relationship, but when the other person actually tells you they aren't interested in sex any more, they are giving you official notice that they are abandoning their post. At that point your sex life is no longer their concern. At all. Well, one last thing: they did you the courtesy of informing you of their position, you should return the favor. Go ahead and tell him that you agreed to monogamy, not to celibacy, and if he refuses to fuck you, you regard him as being in violation of his vows. Either he takes care of your sexual needs or you are going to find someone who will.

Probably should also tell him that there is a difference between being a husband and being an asshole. Also a difference between being a father and being a writer of child support checks, but he is rapidly going down the road of being the latter.

UNCL - Dan didn't say it, but you are going to have to use your words again to tell him to shut it down. Yes, it's going to be awkward, but you can tell him that that he seems to be broadcasting sexual signals to the wrong people, and this could end badly. In your case it merely made you uncomfortable. Now OF COURSE he didn't mean anything by it (you are his uncle after all), but the nature of the expression seemed pretty explicit, and others might actually take that seriously. Maybe he had better look in the mirror and double check the faces he is making.

Bottom line: no, there isn't a "look" to tell him to knock it the fuck off. That sort of attempt at nonverbal communication is what landed you writing to Dan.

DND - Have you actually tried it? Or are you turned off by the idea? You say he has willingly tried some stuff at your behest. It's your turn to at least attempt to accommodate his desires. Don't knock it until you have actually tried it once or twice to be sure it really is as mood killing as you imagine it will be.

GAY - Your acronym should be "God I Love Mixed Signals Drama." You "ban" anything below the belt. Then you go there anyway -- but ever so careful to not actually touch his hard cock. Then you interpret said hard cock while you are going there but carefully not touching it as indicating he's probably gay because a hard cock doesn't really count unless he leaps on you and ignores your stated boundaries. No, I take it back, your acronym should be "Why Am I Such A Moron?"

WHWALB - I might be projecting here, but there is the added issue that the guy in question is a former fling of yours, which means that maybe Boyfriend sees him as a threat to the stability of your relationship. That's a reason to be extra careful about nominating this particular guy.

Ya know, if I had read GAY's letter and instead of "I am a 25-year-old woman," it had said, "I am an 18 year old woman," and instead of, "When I have done this to other guys," it said, "When I did this to my first boyfriend," this letter would make a whole lot more sense. It would explain the lack of understanding that a boner without boundary pushing is not what gay means. It may also explain the weird interpretation of and the use of the phrase "banning anything below the belt." My guess is either this is a younger person writing in under the guise of an older person to make her problem seem more legit, or this is actually a 25 year old who never grew up/hasn't been sexually active with a guy since she was 16.

Also, why does everyone think that the husband mentioned in MUM's letter must be having an affair and that's why he's withholding sex? Usually an affair is a symptom of not having sex with your spouse, not the cause. In fact, I seem to recall that there are many instances in which one partner having an affair can improve the quality of their primary relationship (until the cheater gets caught of course). Couldn't the husband in MUM be having a drop in sex drive? Or maybe he never had much of one and now he's done procreating and feels his duty is done and he's putting a weird judgmental rationalization on it.

A number of people have also mentioned that the LW of MUM is actually the wife, not a third party. I would agree, except we are left with so few details, especially so few FEELINGS. First person accounts usually include all kinds of details and feelings that aren't relevant at all, but seem like they are to the LW. So my guess is it's just a worried/meddling friend of the wife who is writing in.

@46: I think you may be onto something with GAY not having fooled around with a new partner since high school. (Maybe paired off with him for the next few years, they broke up, and she's newly single and dating again?) If that's the case, GAY, then you are allowed to draw limits, like no sex before a certain level of commitment, but you need to knock off the setting boundaries and then violating them stuff.

I would disagree with "Usually an affair is a symptom of not having sex with your spouse, not the cause," though. Both are, most generously, the result of something being wrong in the relationship. I think it is very far from the rule that when one person is cheating, the person they're cheating on has been refusing to have sex for a long time. (That they might have claimed that to their partner in the affair is another question.)

To DND - I hope you are able to sift through and pick out some suggestions you like, because I think finding some way to interact with your husband that incorporates the D/s dynamic could be rewarding. (I liked the ones from Wine-o and EricaP especially.) I wanted to add that there is a big difference between "passive" and "submissive". A submissive person being dominated more likely will be very responsive, excited, and into it. As someone for whom dominating has not come very easily, I've found that the enthusiastic response from someone who likes being topped excites and encourages me too.

@37 - speaking for myself, deblueing takes some time. You'd think it would be a faster than usual event, but the swelling makes things more challenging. Maybe that's just me though.

vennominon, if you can arrange it, I'd gladly chance winning the lottery to see if I can make it work out. I'll write you from Italy to let you know! $5 or so mil would do, I am not greedy.

@46. You simply don't know what you are talking about with regard to affairs. It is common for the CPOS to withdraw from his or her spouse (emotionally and sexually) as a way to deal with their own cognitive dissonance of being a total asshole and being in denial about it, and as a way to justify their asshole behavior. No one *DRIVES* another person to cheat -- that is a choice the CPOS makes all on his or her own.

DND, I can relate. My last BF was very passive in the bedroom, one of the reasons I ended things.

Come to think of it, so was my ex husband. I need to re-think my taste in men. ;-)

GAY, get a grip. Literally, and metaphorically.

WHWALB -

My opinion as a very straight man who is into MMF 3-ways is that you might still be able to talk your BF into the MMF 3-way IF you make it very clear that both the M's in the MMF will be focusing on the F (that's you) and not on each other.
In other words, have the 2 M's make a WHALB sandwich with you in the middle.

To pull this off, you'll need to be up for satisfying 2 men in one session AND you need to stop looking for bi guys who are into your BF & instead look for another straight guy who is into you enough to do you on one end while your BF does you on the other.

You might also let your BF know that if he can't get past his hangups enough to do this kind of MMF 3-way, then the FFM 3-ways are off the table also.

@56: she wasn't doing the FMF threesomes as a favor to her boyfriend, they both wanted them. There's no quid pro quo, so you're essentially telling her to bully him into it. That'll be great for his motivation.

If she wants the MFM, she's going to have to (a) address his reservations and (b) offer him something he wants, not punish him for not sharing her fantasy.

MUM states that the husband stopped wanting sex with his wife when their second child was CONCEIVED. She doesn't say if this second child has actually been born yet, and if it has, how long ago. Some men have a hard time with sex during pregnancy - it's not always easy to be in awe of a woman's body as it houses, grows, and protects your precious unborn child and at the same time have powerful physical urges to plow and jostle these same lady parts. If the baby has been born, lactation could be a problem too. (It's worth mentioning that a lot of women feel the same way during these times, and frustrate their husbands.) There are some things that certain people just don't associate with sex. He may very well get over it as the kids get older and his wife's body is no longer directly responsible for nurturing them.

@54, Perhaps I spoke too generally. Reading many of Dan's letters and responses, both of the situations around affairs that I mentioned are ones that I hear come up rather often, so they do happen. I didn't make those ideas up.

However, you are right that a possible side effect of a person having an affair could be to pull away from the spouse. But that is not always the case and I don't think that explains what's happening here. It would make sense to me if the husband in MUM were passive aggressively avoiding sex, just kept making excuses (ie: I'm too tired), and this added up to sex stopping all but completely for a long period of time. But this husband has outright refused to have sex with his wife indefinitely, because she's a "mother" now. That doesn't sound like denial or guilt, unless this guy expresses guilt through being controlling and judgmental towards his wife (which is possible I suppose). An affair just does not sound like the simplest, most logical explanation for what's happening here. I wish the LW had provided us with more details. It sounds like a lot more is going on than meets the eye.

@58 (Haley): The child has been born: "she has two little kids."

@59 (kellarules): I wish the LW had provided us with more details. It sounds like a lot more is going on than meets the eye. I agree that it would be nice to have been provided with more of the details in this marriage. However, it's neither the husband nor the wife that has written this letter, but the wife's friend, who may well not have any herself.

I generally find that the Savage Love commentariat hypothesizes and projects too much onto these letters, but in this case, literally any theorizing is kind of ridiculous since the letter writer really has no way at all of knowing exactly what the husband said or didn't say to his wife (the wife may be misrepresenting the conversation to her friend; the wife may have misunderstood the husband; the friend may have misunderstood the wife, etc.) We usually get one person's motives at one remove; this time, we are getting the husband's at at least two removes. Who knows what is going through his mind.

Ultimately though, as with so many of these letters, it doesn't matter why the husband has stopped being sexually interested; what matters is that he has stopped being interested. What matters still more, is what the wife wants to do about it.
But she isn't the one writing in.

I'm just wondering if anyone over the age of 14 years is comfortable with "heavy petting"? Maybe his silence was one of astonishment.

I take it the unifying theme of this week's batch of letters is "complete nutters"? Oddly enough, the husband in letter one seems potentially reasonable, since it sounds like he only stopped having sex during the actual pregnancy. Perhaps he's anxious about harm coming to the baby and things will go back to normal later. (This can happen on pregnancy #3 for a number of reasons, if even if he was cool with sex during pregnancy before.) A clear conversation with a doctor or midwife should help set things right; if not, then yes, stern talk for the nutter is called for.

The Uncle strikes me as perhaps the craziest of all these folks. I can't believe this isn't receiving more comment. What on earth is a "hot steamy eye-fuck", anyway, and why does the Uncle assume his Nephew was giving him one?! Does this strike nobody else as completely insane? It sounds a lot more like wishful thinking from a person weird enough to think that big smiles at the dinner table convey the message of "my wife and I are allies!" Brrr. Stay away from your funny Uncle, Nephew!

Straight woman in letter #3, your husband has tried "games" and "toys" for you after initial reluctance, but now the slightest suggestion you might participate in dominating him is "grossing" you out? Get a grip! He was willing to be a sport for you; the least you can do is try it once or twice for him. Selfish.

The woman in #4 may be beyond help. You're 25 and you use the words "'petted' over the underwear" to describe deeds you did? You think a guy is gay when he gets hard while "petting" but doesn't "writhe" and "beg" for you? Maybe you need to call the couple in letter #3 and see if you could perform the dominatrix role they need filled, because you sound like a pure crazy natural for the job. If your boyfriend actually likes you and the relationship is going well in other respects, never, ever let him get away because I don't know where else you'll find another compatible match.

The last letter writer seems like the most normal, because at least she just yearns to have her fantasy fulfilled and merely wants to step all over a number of ethical boundaries to make it happen. Well, just don't. Don't do mean things that will hurt others, because not doing that is more important than getting one of your fantasies fulfilled. Dan is right. I grant you, that was definitely a fascinating group of letters.

@63
You are misreading Dan. Sex is not just the grinding of genitalia; it is intimacy. When that is withdrawn by one partner, the other one needs to know when, why, what and any other W's. Families aren't strong just because they look like they are.

I'm really glad I'm not dating GAY.

Let's look at what UNCL is complaining about and guess what really happened, because there is no such thing as an unmistakable "hot steamy eye fuck" and never will be such a thing until eyeballs grow genitals. This HSEF might have been solely in the eye of the beholder (forgive me). It probably was.

The reality could be that the nephew understood he was being sent a warm smile of support, and he was so grateful that whenever he looked at the uncle he had an expression of loving gratitude -- which the uncle then misinterpreted as sexual desire because that's something some straight men do. You must know yourself, Savage, that there are straight men who cannot receive friendliness or warmth from a gay man without assuming that it involves sexual desire. Part of what fuels homophobia in straight men is the idea that all gay men want to fuck them.

It's kind of sad. The kid is beleaguered by a semi-hostile family, gets a non-verbal show of support, responds with a non-verbal look of gratitude, and then the uncle decides it's (homo)sexual. Some show of support!

I would have asked UNCL what made him so sure it was an "eye fuck" and suggested that, without an overt pass being made, he was getting the wrong idea and should drop this nonsense until he had something real to act on. And I'd try harder to read between the lines of the "facts" presented in these one-sided descriptions.

Let's look at what UNCL is complaining about and guess what really happened, because there is no such thing as an unmistakable "hot steamy eye fuck" and never will be such a thing until eyeballs grow genitals. This HSEF might have been solely in the eye of the beholder (forgive me). It probably was.

The reality could be that the nephew understood he was being sent a warm smile of support, and he was so grateful that whenever he looked at the uncle he had an expression of loving gratitude -- which the uncle then misinterpreted as sexual desire because that's something some straight men do. You must know yourself, Savage, that there are straight men who cannot receive friendliness or warmth from a gay man without assuming that it involves sexual desire. Part of what fuels homophobia in straight men is the idea that all gay men want to fuck them.

It's kind of sad. The kid is beleaguered by a semi-hostile family, gets a non-verbal show of support, responds with a non-verbal look of gratitude, and then the uncle decides it's (homo)sexual. Some show of support!

I would have asked UNCL what made him so sure it was an "eye fuck" and suggested that, without an overt pass being made, he was getting the wrong idea and should drop this nonsense until he had something real to act on. And I'd try harder to read between the lines of the "facts" presented in these one-sided descriptions.

Why is everyone being so nice to GA? I'm "old school" and I have to tell it like it is: GAY is nothing more than a good, old fashioned cock tease who enjoys torturing men.
If I were her BF, I'd simply DTMFA!

Another possible answer for GAY: This fellow is just not that into her. Possibly because she just violated her own rules, so he's busy thinking that there's no way he should trust this woman.

It's also the height of arrogance to think that just because doesn't want to bang you, they don't want to bang anyone with your anatomy. Guys used to say things like "You don't want to sleep with me? You must be a dyke!", in part to pressure women into sleeping with them when they didn't want to.

@61: The term 'heavy petting' or the act? It's a bit more specific than 'fooling around' to convey something beyond chaste kissing and short of orgasm. If the latter, then no, I am all in favor of allowing for a level of physical intimacy between "chaste kiss at door" and "oral sex." Even for people over 14.

GAY's main problem is that she draws boundaries and then violates them, which is not a fun trait in a partner. Followed by an odd idea of what constitutes or generates writhing arousal, and putting them together, whether getting your partner to beg you to break the rules even more after you broke them somewhat is a reasonable goal.

IPJ @70,

“Petting” is hand jobs. “Heavy petting” is oral sex.

... vs “necking” which is kissing and anything else that happens outside your clothes.

@Alison: Then what is 61's problem?

Fwiw, I would tend to interpret petting as exploration/teasing that stops short of orgasm, heavy petting as hand jobs, and "fooled around but didn't go all the way" as oral. Likely the meanings vary within social groups, like "hook up" which can mean "have sex casually" or "give phone number."

LW2 basically says "If he's not attracted to me, he must be gay." Such narcissism. Total logic fail.

Hot Steamy Eye Fuck video (NSFW if looking at a shirtless twink will get you in trouble):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f8QEe49XB…

If someone did that to me at a family dinner I'd be a bit rattled at least.

@MUM, this is just the beginning of the torture. He will play this game and it will escalate. I agree with the other observations...affair, depressed,bad childhood, etc. Whatever the reason, get to therapy and/or dump his ass. This is mean, and mean people get meaner with age.

This probably will not be terribly popular among the more, shall we say, "modern" SL readers, but part of my spoken "Stop it" to the 19-year old would be a reminder that the LW is married to his aunt and that relationship and institution should be respected...it certainly will land the young fellow in hot water if he goes around eye-fucking his friends who are in committed relationships. I'd give him a good smack if he got all come hither on my guy.

The LW with the MFM fantasy needs to clarify what her fantasy is. Does she want two dudes focused on and fucking her? Or does she want to be a part of a real ménage where everyone is fucking everyone? If it's the former, her man should be GGG and try it, albeit with very clear and strict boundaries regarding "no touching" by the other guy (except perhaps for some accidental sword crossing, which can happen). If it's the latter, she needs to understand that it's not going to happen, but the former might be a good compromise for her.

GAY sounds very young and naive, right? Like she was raised in a conservative community? She likely grew up hearing women who have sex before marriage called all sorts of nasty names. She's been given a lot of mixed messages about sex, with some sources telling her it's fun and expected of women her age and other sources saying that she's a horrible slut if she doesn't wait until marriage. Plus, a conservative upbringing likely means abstinence-only sex ed giving her tons of misinformation about the scary things that can happen if she touches a cock. You might consider the scenario from other points of view before thinking with your dick and declaring that a 25-year-old woman who is scared to even touch a dick is being intentionally evil. She's got issues, but at least she's finally found a place to get good information about sex.

Speaking as someone incapable of getting blueballs, there are a lot of women out there who LOVE being teased, or forced to let the anticipation grow because of some outside constraint. I've had a partner get terribly confused that I wasn't immediately jumping his bones and that's because nothing gets me off like getting turned on slowly without someone trying to slam a cock in me when I'm not ready. I'd rather be teased without release during 3 out of 4 sexual encounters (blowjobs for the partner), as long as that 4th one is satisfying, than be stuck with a guy who skips the foreplay (isn't that pretty much the same thing as teasing?) and wants to immediately jump to the cock grabbing. This girl was probably told that blueballs is a lie told by evil lying perverts who want to steal away her chastity.

TL;DR: It's not terribly productive to go hating on someone who is seeking out some much-needed education on a subject they know too little about.

WHWALB - We obviously are withe the people meant to be with the people the other person is meant to be with. I did MFM before and I like it better than MFF, and I am secure in my straightness. I love seeing and participating in my wife being made love to by another man. Another guy's dick is the ultimate sex toy! It is so sexy! But, my current wife has said no. Sigh, I hope, for your sake, your guy changes his mind, I hope my gal does too. We're missing out! Sigh...

"or a divorce attorney who will fuck her."

You mean "a divorce attorney who will fuck HIM". Hard. The way only divorce attorneys can - through his assets.

Oh for fuck's sake, have none of you ever heard of TEASING? GAY, you go girl. I am totally on your side about the way you tease and love to be teased. It is SO hot when you're both horizontal, heavy breathing, that slight moan and sharp exhale and your fingers go... right...almost...maybe.... The long, drawn out foreplay is AMAZING, whether you draw it out over an hour or over two weeks. Not everyone is focused on the goal line. You and I are sisters in control.

That said, GAY, maybe your dude isn't gay (95% of the evidence says he not) but maybe he's still getting over his ex, or maybe he was having anxiety about a work situation, or maybe he was focused more on not blowing his load in your hand - in other words, maybe he wasn't using his #1 sex organ 100%.

Best you can do is try again.

And another thing, GAY - I don't think he was turned off at all when you supposedly broke your own rules. That's half the fun! Going just a little farther than the rules... bringing an element of 'will we?' to the table. So fucking hot.

"Your boyfriend isn't bi, WHWALB, he's not even heteroflexible, and he's made it clear that he's turned off by the idea of a threesome with another male. Even if you could talk him into it, arranging a threesome with a dude who has expressed a sexual interest in your boyfriend would be disrespectful and potentially disastrous. Drop it"

Respectfully speaking, Dan, this advice is BS....so lady entertains dude's fantasy being with two women---and happily goes there (we're not sure she's bi, simply that she's GGG) and she asks him to return the favor and he won't even consider it? I call shitbird here.
What's good for the gander is good for the goose--if she's willing to live out fantasies, so should he...he doesn't have to touch the other guy, draw up clear boundaries ahead of time, but not going there because he's afraid of crossing swords? UNFORGIVABLE. As a woman who has experienced two guys, she's damned right---IT'S AWESOME.
One good turn deserves another....if he's not willing to entertain her fantasies, she should stop entertaining his.

please shack up with another taxing woman, GAY.

@95: "We have had a few threesomes involving women, a fantasy both of us shared."

So, no, it is not the case that the FFMs were his idea and she disliked it and nonetheless threw herself into it for him. (If she had, and he didn't want to reciprocate, her taking FFM right off the table would be totally rational. Also examining whether this was symbolic of other imbalances in the relationship, or whether she had a habit of saying "sure" when she meant "for you I will make this great sacrifice" and expecting him to inuit whether it was a big or minor deal that she indulged him.)

You also quote, but do not address, the "threesome with (an ex) who has expressed a sexual interest in your boyfriend" aspect. If a guy wanted an FFM threeway, and his idea of a great option to get his "really I am totally not into girls in any way, it's a turnoff" girlfriend to go along was to suggest his hot ex-girlfriend, who had told him all about what she wanted to do to his current girlfriend during one of their little chats, people would see some likely problems with this scenario.

GAY's friend is most likely taking the limits on the consent she gave him seriously. It's actually a little bit charming that they are taking it slow and there was a non-intercourse sleepover, but she should be cautioned that that will probably grow tiresome quickly for most guys in their mid-20s. Like after about the first time. As so many have said, sex is a reasonable expectation in a serious adult relationship. If you don't want it, don't have it, but it's reasonable for your partners to expect it. Also, one of the traditional stereotypes of straight men vs. gay men is the former's enthusiasm for going down on a lady. She might suggest that to her friend and see how he reacts.

@95: "she asks him to return the favor and he won't even consider it? I call shitbird here."

The physiology of bisexuality is different for men and women. Women tend to be more flexible in their relationships across/within genders than some men are. Kinsey put the percentage of men willing (to a greater or lesser degree) to entertain some MM contact at about 35%. That ranges (Kinsey actually created a scale) from 'occasional' to out and out gay. On the other side of this population, the 65% or so that say 'Nope. Never." actually experience a threat response to the presence of another penis. There have been some fMRI studies that reveal this. Its possible that this 65-35% breakdown is due to an underlying gene, the rest of the Kinsey scale being a matter of nurture rather than nature.

WHWALB may very well have a member of the 65%. And VeryCarrie might be fortunate enough to have bfs in the 35%. Its very difficult to explain to a woman, or a member of this 35% what that threat reaction is like. But it exists. It goes well beyond a phobia that might be managed or eliminated. Don't push it or you'll push your bf away.

Holy fucking SHIT! Did MUM's unfortunate friend in her late 20s meet up with my equally warped ex?! MUM mentioned that her friend's husband "had a rough childhood and has some issues"--exactly like my ex.
Hoo boy.

Perfect advice for MUM, Dan, and I fervently hope MUM passes it on to her friend--unless she's really meaning herself. Either way, I feel genuinely sorry for LW1, MUM, her friend, and anyone else wearing the same sexless mom shoes.

Yeah, WHWALB you're more than likely are going to have to chalk this up to a never to be realized fantasy. Which is too bad, but not necessarily drama or pity worthy. After all, think of all the things you guys have going for you now.

In comment 92, someone wrote: Some people’s comments sound disturbingly hateful, attacking Gay’s sexual boundaries. Her sexual boundaries are her choice, not yours. Maybe your reasoning is- a person with high boundaries poses too much burden on most people- who have sexual needs.

It isn't hateful to encourage someone to get over exaggerated sexual boundaries. Don't mistake encouragement for mocking. And getting over her hang-ups isn't meant to benefit her partners; it's to benefit her.

@104: That's all fine, as long as you didn't turn around and suspect him of being gay, for god's sake, all for the crime of sitting there semi-quietly with a hard-on in his shorts, one clearly caused by you -- yes, you, there, the one touching gingerly around the edges of his erogenous zones. Inside said shorts. With your own hand. I'm talking to you. That hard-on is directly related to you. And yet you think he's gay? Is today Opposite Day or something? No, you're just an idiot.

So, yeah...don't be that person, and it's all good.

@104: The letter writer didn't say anything about it being a first date. She admitted to being "conservative" which probably means "severely sexually repressed by a sex-negative, religious upbringing." A 25-year-old who has a sleep-over date, but is afraid to touch the cock, needs a bit of a push.

People can get over their sexual hang-ups faster if they recognize them as a problem, make an effort, and receive a little encouragement. Grab the cock!