Always learn something new, glass dildos is just something that sounds dangerous

Great description of catching a glass dildo

Short and sharp works well for Dan. Imo.

Great way to catch a glass dildo

The professor one needs more info. He could be telling the truth, and one of those three kids could be a baby. Having a sexual dry spell with pregnancy and young infant care (especially if one of those other kids is a toddler) is not ethical grounds for cheating.

Christmas gift receiving letter writer might find it useful if she explicitly tells her boyfriends that gift giving (and receiving) is important to her as a way to communicate affection. At the same time, she should find out how her partner likes to give and receive affection - chances are pretty good it's not gifts and she might be missing it.

LUGgage? I'm officially lost. Can anyone help me out here?

In my defence: I did catch the Smiths reference.

@7 LUG = lesbian until graduation

LUG = "Lesbian Until Graduation"

Re gay tops & bottoms... the LW annoyed me by not mentioning that of course they have a good supply of dildos and he's happy to peg his partner whenever requested. Tons of straight women do that for their partners, even if it wasn't part of the original deal. But for a man to want prostate stimulation should not be seen as a huge imposition.

Not the most impressive column. Sorry.

Summary pee-on-him: It's best to do what your partner wants (sexually) because they might appreciate it enough to make it worthwhile. --- Dan's line is do it if it probably won't scar. Mine is enthusiasm. Lady boner/gent boner or other communication of enthusiasm required for the good kind of consent. Reluctant consent sucks. Try to get into the idea. If you can't get it up then drop it.

Summary ex-prof: It's moral to fuck a married guy if he's not getting laid. --- I think it's moral to fuck him if he's getting laid or not, and it's stupid in either case if it doesn't seem aboveboard with the wife. Unless an interest in causing or receiving pain makes it worthwhile... or if you're desperate.... or if you just want one night to remember and back off...

What are the ethics of hoping your hired dom will kill you? I don't think it's unethical because the dom wants something different and didn't consent to these feelings. I think it's unethical if you manipulate the dom. Encouraging them to kill you, even straightforwardly asking them to kill you, is unethical. And it's pretty goddam shitty to kill yourself in bed with someone else. But letting someone else kill you? It's a borderline suicide, not quite, like a habit of long walks through bad parts of a city late at night. I think the burden is on the dom's shoulders not to take life risking activity.

I think my response would be it's fine if that vision gets you off but I hope you are separating fantasy from reality here. If you're talking about real suicide you need to see a doctor.

Wow--this is why I love your Savage Love column so much, Dan--I keep learning something new from you and everyone blogging in every day.

A glass dildo and the term LUGgage (thank you, @8 & @9, for the clarifications) are news to me. Great responses, too.

Catching a glass dildo dropped from a great height in one's pussy... doesn't Cirque du Soleil do that?

Speaking of such things, am I the only one who can't watch a contortionist without the intrusive awareness that they've certainly given themselves head?

@ 15 - Is there any reason to watch a contortionist other than to fantasize about that?

I'm always surprised that more 14 year old boys don't take up yoga/contortionism.

LUG? I guess I'm old because we used to call those girls one semester lesbiens.

Ms Erica - That questioner was annoying, and I do find there's something very Gordon Merrick about a total top/bottom mind set, but I think this is one area where same-sexers are going to know themselves in general rather more thoroughly than opposite-sexers might due to the lack of a default. Your straight woman who agrees to try it and finds she can get through it might well never really have thought about it much before the question was put to her (although, if she had and had concluded herself to be a total bottom, she'd have been as entitled to belief as the questioner). Same-sexers will have thought about it a great deal.

Additionally, calling oneself a total bottom tends to encompass other activities as well, but it's too late for me to go on and make much sense.

@19 So if you're a "total bottom" it follows that you can't hold a dildo with your hand and penetrate your partner with it? Are they also incapable of picking up their partner at the airport after a trip?

To Pee or not to Pee ( on your partner).
THAT, is the Question..

I'm a 35 year old vegetarian woman in Australia and all men here eat meat. Some of my relationships have failed because they keep trying to get me to eat meat and become quite verbally aggressive about it. I don't know why. I don't care if they eat meat, it's fine in the house and all restaurants here serve vege options (even steakhouses!). What gives? I don't know, I think it's about control. Also, I have no Morrissey in the house - I feel like I live up to my end of the bargain.

Q1: To pee or not to pee? Dan seems to overlook the fact that some people are pee shy, and even if they're doing their damnedest to be GGG on this, the pee just won't come in the presence of another person. I've seen Dan's bias on this issue before: HE thinks watersports are no big deal, so we all should. I agree with oral-as-standard, I can't agree with pee-as-standard.



Q12: Not all meat-eaters will have to put up with a meat-free house. As a vegetarian, my rule with my meat-eating ex was: you want meat, you cook it. He also didn't eat spicy food, which I love. Restaurants exist for a reason.

Dan's answer to the question on fucking the ex-professor was a little too short and sweet. It matters WHY the wife hasn't fucked her husband since March. I'd also like to know Dan's magic number for how long is too long to go without sex.

He gets to play with another top—safely—or he walks.

WTF? Why is Dan interpreting this as an ultimatum?? There's no ultimatum! Nothing in this question indicates that the dude's husband is going to leave if he doesn't get his way!

If I were the asker, I'd feel really shitty about Dan's automatic assumption that not getting to be topped would be sufficient reason for my husband of five years to leave me.

Short depressing column this week. This sort of thing, where all you get are smart-arse one-liners, always gives me the feeling he's phoning it in. Probably an artefact of answering a lot of questions fast, but it's always more interesting when Dan and the commenters get their teeth in.

...and following @26, "if I were the asker, I'd feel *really* shitty" is the other reason this sort of column puts me off. Presumably there were people out there struggling with difficulties in their personal lives, and having it treated as a) obvious and b) stupid probably hurts.

Longtime vegetarian here, married for a decade to a meat-eater. Our (workable) rules: he buys it, he cooks it. I don't touch it. He consumes only ethically sourced meat. If he grills both meat and tofu, spaces and tools are segregated and washed as needed.



I wasn't crazy about the idea of any of my money going towards the industry, but he has his own income, and I can justify it that way. All other products in our house are cruelty-free, which helps.



We both listen to Morrissey.

Cute but not very satisfying.

Great answers but not on the glass dildos. Go with steel.

I've had glass dishes, cups and bowls crack, fall apart and with the slightest of touches, almost exploding and shattering if tempered glass. Thick glass is especially likely to have problems, and even a small dildo is pretty thick.

Basically, if you heat and cool glass of most chemical compositions, thermal and mechanical stresses can build up internally, regardless of what type of glass, and they can accumulate so a very slight touch can cause the final break.

Even leaving thick glass in the sun can do this, light taps when you set it down can weaken the glass internally but it "looks" fine till it goes.

Kind of like an orgasm building up: http://uk.saint-gobain-glass.com/trade-c…

Ms Erica - When I was still socially active, in my neck of the woods "total bottoms" were the "receptive" partners in ALL climactic activity involving multiple people, not just the one you mentioned. My first thought went to a completely different climactic activity, one which is closer to universally performed among MM couples. I was really considering this as the end-of-the-spectrum version of the mild problem Messrs Ophian and Rhone will have because each of them has reported being extremely enthusiastic when giving oral and basically just being GGG or not much more when receiving it.

Had the questioner merely claimed "bottom" status, your argument would have had a good deal more force. If you were implying that many people who claim the T or the B are using it as a Get Out of GGG Free Card, I'd quite agree. I'm inferring that you think this mainly an equipment problem - that the questioner doesn't like to or can't be the active anal partner naturally and therefore should do it artificially. With most "total" bottoms though (at least in my area when I was socially activity), a claim of that status would be a forceful indication that penetrating his partner *by any means* happened to be a *total* turn-off.

I also inferred an equivalence between OS and SS relationships that I think you take a little too far, though not much. There are more fixed quantities in OS relationships. Whatever you've ever done with Mr Erica, you were always going to be the one who got pregnant. I'll avoid speculating about bi experience, but suggest that exclusive same-sexers are more likely than opposite-sexers to cling to sexual roles as a result of thinking that What We Do affects or even defines Who We Are, as we have fewer hard realities to which to tie a sense of self. Exclusive opposite-sexers are more likely to let Who They Are affect What They Do. I suggest that, while opposite-sexers may be just as invested in a constructed role as same-sexers once it's constructed, OS reluctance is more likely to be on the front end of a role-breaking activity and SS reluctance on the back end. They require a different approach, and the simple fact that Activity X works easily in a relationship with rather different dynamics doesn't mean it can carry over simply.

I can agree with your ends, but not the path by which you're trying to get there. (I could blame HUMP, but that would make for a very long post indeed.)

I eat meat and I have the complete Morrissey in the house. And The Smiths.

@ 28 - "We both listen to Morrissey"



You meant to his music, I hope, as it's such a bore to listen to him speak on any subject (since they all end up being the same subject: himself).

@ 25 - The asker's attitude is rather cavalier: "That was the price of admission. Can you tell him to stop annoying me?" He doesn't seem to care one bit about how is husband feels, wants or needs. Maybe that's what Dan's reacting to.

I know that if I were the husband, I would have divorced that selfish asshole (and the man attached to it) a while back.

@30 what a cool post. thank you. especially don't put glass dildos in the dishwasher. this week seemed less thoughtful and more fluffy off the cuff and male biased. glad it's not the norm.

And why is it that the gay gent not into topping should outsource but the pee shy lady should do it herself? Wish Dan would advise outsourcing for anything that you can't get into, whether lady or gent.

(Just because it's not easy to see a lady boner wilt doesn't mean our junk works very differently. Unaroused sex can be at least as bad for us although technically easier to do.)

I'm not saying OS and SS relationships are the same, but I'm saying that people's sexual needs change over the decades and if SS people can't accommodate some degree of change and be sensible about meeting each other's needs, and if they're not willing to open the relationship at all, then they'll be doomed to short relationships.

>> penetrating his partner *by any means* happened to be a *total* turn-off. >>

So the bottom's tongue stays limp inside their own mouth during kissing?

I dated a dedicated meat eater for 3 years. I was the type who didn't even like meat to be cooked in the same pans at first, but I mellowed. It wasn't that hard, although of course we couldn't often split appetizers at restaurants, but he also didn't get the luxury of me cooking for him very often, because I'm not going to make delicious curry for you just so you can toss foreman-ed freezer burnt chicken breast into it. Hell naw.

@5 THANK YOU. There's a lot of extenuating circumstances that need to be filled in for me to rule on that.

Correction to 34: I meant "...how his husband feels or what he wants or needs."

"Are they also incapable of picking up their partner at the airport after a trip?"

With or without the partner's LUG gage?

@Mr. Venn, I should say that from the D/s perspective, I do sympathize with people who are strongly one role, and don't want to see their partner adopting their role. Many subs don't want to see their dom getting spanked, and I can see that a "total bottom" may not want to watch his partner suck cock (or even suck a dildo). But figuring out how to cope with a partner's new needs is part of the work of being in a long term relationship.

I agree with #24 on this one.

Yes, if someone has unilaterally cut off their partner from sex, when sex was previously a part of the relationship, then they have jeopardized the relationship. And if they can't or won't bring sex back into the relationship, then that is implied consent for the other person to go outside of it for other partners.
HOWEVER, I think this is a situation where affirmative consent is required.
The "straying" partner does not ethically get to just go straying without a) giving their partner a chance to resolve the problem within the relationship; OR b) telling their partner, "you chose not to fix this/you seem to be stalling and refusing to fix this. Now your choices are to either end the relationship or to accept that I'm going to go outside of it."

Just as neither partner has the right to withhold sex unilaterally and without discussion, neither partner has the right to unilaterally open up the relationship without discussion.

If you're going to pee on someone and you don't want to be confined to the tub, here's a tip: spread out a large shower curtain, and put a blanket or sheet on top of the curtain. The pee-ee lays on the blanket and the pee-er does their business. When you're all done you just fold up the curtain with the blanket inside, dumb it in the tub, and rinse. Then you can wash them both in the washing machine. The blanket soaks up most of the pee and the curtain keeps the floor from getting wet. TADA!



I read this tip in the wonderful "Sex and Bacon: Why I Love Things That Are Very, Very Bad For Me" by Sarah Katherine Lewis.

*dump it in the tub, my bad.

"partner drops it from the top of a building, you catch it with your pussy" Dan, you are a tease. We want the canned hams, not the glass dildos.

Does my bum look big in this?

Geez, you guys are sticks in the mud today. Most of the questions he gives flip answers to are ones he's gone into detail on a million times. Do you really want to hear the long well established and thoroughly footnoted version of when cheating is or isn't ethical again rather the clever comebacks you get to hear at a live show?

And if you did want that version just read #41 and let the rest of us hear the funny answers.

@ 22:

It's the same here in many parts of the states. There are just as many militant meat-pushers as there are militant vegans/vegetarians - possibly more.

Some men seem to cling to meat-eating as a kind of virility reinforcement. Seems to me one's virility is in pretty sad shape if it relies on needlessly killing small, defenseless animals. Such a choice makes you a punk in my sphere of ethics...

The vegetarian question is such a non-issue. Make meals and leave the meat until the end, or split two pots. I've been a vegetarian my entire life. I've only dated meat eaters, and it's never been a problem. Some food suggestions - Pasta (meat sauce in one pot, veggie in another). Tofu steak + meat steak with veggie sides. Veggie burgers + meat burgers. Red beans and rice, add sausage to the meat dish. Chilli - split the pot and make one with ground beef, one with veggie ground beef or just beans. Salads of all kinds, meat on the side. Stuffed bell peppers, one with meat and one with rice.



Meat eaters can eat veggie meals too, depends on the person your with. Some people like having the occasional vegetarian meal, some people want meat all the time. Everyone has to adjust to their partners tastes whether they are vegetarian or not.

I am the "total bottom" and I wrote the question at the Neptune after a *few* drinks. To clarify, my husband is not turned on by me topping him nor am I turned on by topping him. And we've tried a few times before. We had these discussions five years before getting married. Personally, I have been in an open relationship before and realized the whole idea was not for my personality type. It's a choice that I cannot personally manage or handle, no matter how many rules, walls, and structures are put into place. I should also mention my husband has a jealous streak too, and has noted that he wouldn't like the idea of me playing around with others. So while hypothetically it may sound hot, gaming it out it will likely be disastrous. The discussion will continue, but I just wish Dan had put an end to it. :) And no, no ultimatums have been made. It's not that serious.

I've also listened to/read Dan for over a decade, and feel he's moved the goal post a bit on his price of admission concept in this response.

@13 Not if the dom is relying on your feedback to prevent them from going too far. Which is what the asker hopes they are doing, hence the risk.











That adds another question - is it ethical to include someone else in your suicide? This extends to train drivers, truck, bus and car drivers, etc. My thought is no, as it is life ruining for the other person involved (generally. Most train drivers experience it as a part of the job, and they are generally helpless to stop it, which may not be the case for regular drivers in traffic who could potentially have died to save the other, etc.).











In fact, it's really a good idea to try to find a way that still allows you to donate organs, which is a tricky prospect, but doable. That would be an ethical suicide. At the very least, you should make the very least mess possible, emotional and physical.











It's very easy to play with the sensation of being near death - narrow windy roads during ice storms come to mind, overpasses: and then it's just you vs. the brain damage likely if you attempt that way. Ditto to the asker - she's far more likely to incur brain damage than death. Perhaps if she spends some time in a brain injury ward she might reevaluate her technique. My bet is she's lying and she likes the BDSM. There are so many more mundane ways to tempt death you hardly need to outsource.

@53 Wow, sorry about the formatting. Yikes.

@53 Unless what she specifically likes about it is the possibility of ruining the other person's life. In which case, she's a complete asshole.

Ms Erica @40 - No disagreement. I do think Mr Savage occasionally over-pushes sameness.

Mr Ricardo @34 - We can give the questioner some credit for being up front about price of admission/dealbreakers, but the debit side is much greater. The harsh contempt of wanting Husband to "stop bothering me" speaks for itself.

My analogy: Questioner's position seems to be that Husband knew the terms when he bought the annuity. Mr Savage seems much nearer the mark in considering it similar to a recurring credit card charge; should H find himself in dire need of immediate funds that Q won't okay, there could be a call to 877-CASH-NOW and the selling of the annuity to J.G. Wentworth.

@Auntie G, my thoughts exactly! LUG is a new one on me. Glass dildo I knew about but still seems awfully cold though, do you warm it up first?
I LOL'd at Morrissy, Dan, brilliant as usual.
As for the petulant pisser, if it's in the bathtub, would that be more palatable? Say, a nice warm bath, sex it up as the tub drains, pee on him at the peek moment, he's happy, you can rinse off after a decent interval, no mess!

@49 - you know what's even less sporting? Predating on plants, which don't even have the benefit of locomotion or sharp, pointy teeth, or a nervous system even!

@51/52 thanks for writing in, Total Bottom! What does your husband think should happen? Are you fine with him fantasizing about bottoming? Could he develop an internet buddy who will play to those fantasies while not meeting in person? Or if that seems emotionally scary, have you considered hiring a professional to help him out?

@52: It seems to me that he's just taking it to its logical conclusion. If prices of admission clash, either one person gives in or they split. That's putting it in the starkest terms but basically one of you is going to be compromising (ie. paying the other's price) whether he goes without or you hire him a pro or whatever. If, gods forbid, one day he decided he couldn't go without anymore and you couldn't stand to see him go elsewhere and you broke up over it, then ya'll weren't willing to pay the price of admission.

@51." ... just wish Dan had put an end to it"? You serious? So if Dan had said-
" stop bothering this poor boy, Husband", your Man would just forgo his desire and stop bothering you? That's amazing.

How do vegetarians and meat eaters compromise in LTRs

From what I've seen, the vegetarian demands his/her way for a number of years, and then, often upon having kids, he/she finally gives up vegetarianism altogether.

You could save yourself a lot of trouble by skipping to the giving up part.

@Shazamsy: become quite verbally aggressive about it. I don't know why.

Vegetarianism entails an implicit (and sometimes explicit) statement of moral superiority, and most people perceive such statements as their own form of aggression. Also, for those of us who believe that eating, like sex, is a sacred part of the human experience, vegetarianism is inherently threatening.

@ 62/63:

Better yet, you could give up the having kids part. What's the global population up to these days? How many unwanted kids awaiting adoption?

And I'll take implicit aggression any day over, say, bashing in a puppy's head. The difference between a pig and a puppy is purely arbitrary & contrived.

I generally find your posts quite insightful, seandr, so please take these points simply as intellectual sparring. But we're getting off-topic. The initial question was one of co-existence with someone who holds differing viewpoints. Hardly insurmountable, though I suppose it would depend on how much the point of contention matters to the respective participants.

@61: It does seem naive to think that The Word of Dan would be enough to resolve this, but I think there's something to be said for taking no for an answer. Not every partner is willing to accommodate every desire, and at some point, continuing to ask and argue about it becomes unfair. It sounds like Total Bottom's husband needs to decide what his price of admission for a relationship is and act accordingly.

@AntiEverything: What's the global population up to these days?

The thing about population growth is that everyone who studies it seems to agree that it will flatten out and even start shrinking in the not too distant future, just as it has already among most Western European demographics. Thomas Pikketty, for example, details this "Capital in the Twenty-First Century" (in service of his point that population growth will not drive economic growth indefinitely).

And I'll take implicit aggression any day over, say, bashing in a puppy's head.

Fair enough. I'll take my chicken burrito any day over yet another rigid moral framework that is fundamentally hostile to human beings.

The difference between a pig and a puppy is purely arbitrary & contrived.

One arbitrary, contrived, and yet historically factual difference is that domestic dogs were bred by humans to provide companionship, protection, and to perform jobs, whereas domestic pigs were bred for food. Thus, we mostly eat pigs but not dogs. Of course, some cultures do eat dogs, too, because they either didn't get the dog memo, or they are feeling pretty fucking hungry at the moment and dog meat tastes better than dirt.

Damn those human beings and their arbitrary contrivances! When will they stop what they're doing and conform to my ideals?!

@ seandr

Good on you for observing that my worldview is fundamentally hostile to human beings. That (I think) blatantly obvious fact eludes a good many, I must say. But, seeing as humans are violently hostile to both their own living environment, their fellows, and all other living things; I sleep quite easy in my hostility.

Population-shrinkage is a good start. Let me know when it reaches zero.

Regarding dogs (and pigs), I'd sooner save one of them and leave the hungry person to their dirt. But I'm often called a great big ol' teddy bear, so take that for what it's worth.

@66 cultures that eat dog generally don't eat all breeds, just the ones they've bred as food: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog_meat

@68 you've got it backwards. I topped from the bottom when I decided after a couple of years to stop having sex with people I met online; Mr. P copes by having me tell him stories of the crazy sex I'm supposedly having. (Perhaps he also gets his girlfriend to tell him all about her sexual adventures.) What was the lesson you think the "total bottom" LW (posting as gseattle123) should draw from my experiences?

The professor's answer should be "yes OR no." He's not Schroedinger's Horndog

@ 70 Not to go off topic, but I live in Beijing and have traveled around the north east of the country (China), where dog meat finds its way to the dinner table more often than other places and...well the meat is not bred for that purpose specifically because the meat is sold on the "gray" market. I've heard that this is also true in South Korea, another big market for dog meat. Basically, all breeds are in danger of making their way from the street into your hot pot, though there is a growing movement away from eating dog meat and recognizance of dog as a "companion" animal and not a "food" animal.

@72 I've heard that the reason whole carcasses and not neatly butchered steaks/ cutlets/ chops/ fillets are presented in Asian meat markets is precisely to guarantee that you're getting the critter you think you're getting. Generally speaking, the degree of population density in that region of the world necessitates greater flexibility on the protein-source issue.

@AntiEverything: Humans became much less irritating to me once I started seeing them as just another kind of animal.

@74, my husband was turned on by knowing I had sex with other men, and pushed me to do it. He would get hard when I was getting ready to go out with another man. When I got home he wanted to hear all the details while screwing me. It was fun for a while, to turn on my husband and see that I could still attract male attention. But the outside sex wasn't satisfying and some of it was awful, and so I stopped. That was disappointing to Mr. P. (Hence I was "topping.") But he seems to have consoled himself.

"vast superiority as a philandering spouse" is about the least accurate way you could describe my life. Does it really make you so mad to hear that men want casual sex with women? They didn't want me, particularly. It doesn't make me "brilliant" that I could put up a female profile and get lots of hits. You could too.

@74/76 I guess the lesson is that if you really can't do something, then don't. But gseattle123 seems to have already figured that out.

@72/73 I defer to actual experiences, such as Beijing Maitaihaier's buying dog meat on the "gray market."

But on principle I don't put much faith in: "I've heard." I'd be more interested to know if you have met people whose mutts were stolen (ie, not rare breeds, but just ordinary dogs.)

Giving you a big hug thru the cosmos EricaP.

so sweet, LavaGirl. Hope you're well (not too hot) today.

@75 We're a pretty fucking awesome kind of animal. But yeah. We do irritate each other a lot.

@51 Total bottom - "To clarify, my husband is not turned on by me topping him nor am I turned on by topping him."
First gratz on 5 years of marriage. Next -- is the issue about wanting new sensations, or wanting new people? From this it sounds like topping your H means new people for y'all, so it's hard to tell. It's fertile ground for cheating so you might consider agreeing to outsource your H's need, once you clarify it. I think it's time to reexamine your feelings about non monogamy if you'd like to get another 5 years without cheating, and what it might take to make both of you happy so H will shut up.

I've these news reports of stolen mutts http://www.chinasmack.com/2012/stories/t…, (english)
and some dog thieves recieving justice peasant style http://www.daot.net/eg/696.html (chinese, graphic)
http://news.qingdaonews.com/shehui/2014-… (chinese, graphic) (according to article those guys lived FYI)

I had an ex girlfriend who lost her dog but its very hard to know if the dog ran off, got hit by a car, or was actually stolen. The cops here are not known for the keen detective skills.

Dog is a "specialty" meat, and your unlikely to get it on accident or as a substitute for other meat because it is more expensive than pork, mutton, beef and chicken. It mostly appears at restaurants, generally in wintertime, and supposedly has TCM properties that help maintain you body heat in cold weather. While the "population density theory" is interesting, dog meat is not sold in Japan with a way higher pop density, and the east central part of China is the most dense pop wise, and dog meat is hard to find there... so yea. Keeps you warm in the winter is the reason you'll hear if you ask.

And I've never bought dog meat on the grey market! Lemme clear that up haha. This just comes from watching people and asking questions.

I've known a few couples where one is a vegetarian and the other isn't. In those cases, the vegetarian does NOT get to enjoy a meat-free home. What she does get is:

* no pressure to eat meat -- ever (well, not from her partner, anyway)
* partner cheerfully eats the vegetarian meals she cooks
* when partner cooks, some vegetarian option is provided
* sometimes, she also enjoys a set of dishes that never touch meat. If she doesn't have her own dishes, she enjoys a high level of cleanliness from her partner, who is careful not to cross-contaminate her food.

In exchange, she

* doesn't hassle her partner about eating meat
* allows her partner to serve meat to guests in her house
* ends up doing most of the cooking for the household

This set of rules has worked for decades for a few couples I know. I'm sure there are other arrangements that work, but I offer this as an option.

@57 portland scribe: I agree. I think a glass dildo would need a little warming up first before use to be at its optimal (read "most comfortable"). But--being glass...run it under warm tap water? Anything hotter might shatter it! Didn't someone mention lead dildos? Hmmm.

LavaGirl: Happy Summer and Merry Christmas! Hope it's not too hot.

Ricardo @34

I think you're right that the asker sounds selfish. To be fair though, perhaps his husband is taking the pestering approach to getting what he wants, which is kind of jerkish in itself.

My real issue is with Dan answering a different question than the one that was asked. Actually, come to think of it, Dan assumes two things that are nowhere in the question - (1) that the asker's refusal to top is a big enough issue to lead to divorce, selfish or not, and (2) that the asker's husband would actually want to look for someone else to do this with.

" It's starting to smell a lot like Christmas."
Mangoes, Peaches , SunScreen...

Thanks Grizelda ;I just go with the flow. Don't need to bother with Saunas.
And big cuddles for Christmas to you, too.

I've recently become aware of why I obsessively listen to The Black Keys latest CD. I have tried other Music..
I go back to THAT Music.
The singer, Dan- is singing from a position I recognize. A parent looking after a child, or children- when the other Parent has done a runner..
And this music has helped me find my Art work again.
As a Woman, I do admire how Men can create a cultural expression, that is sharp and intense. It encourages me to find that equivalent Female Energy - Cultural Expression
( FECE), in myself.

@84: Yes. This is how it works when grown-ups are involved.

Seandr either is a dick, or has been dating dicks.

A vegetarian is no more a "threat" to meat eaters than a gay person is to straight people. I hope Seandr was simply trolling.

Ms Mother - Is the vegetarian partner always a (or the, for OS couples) woman in your sample group?

@BidDanFan: I'm just describing a pattern I've seen in couples I've known over the years. I'm not a vegetarian, nor have I ever dated one.

Vegetarianism is a belief system, not an inborn trait, and as such, it's more analogous to religion than sexual orientation. Vegetarians believe eating meat is wrong, much like Christians believe homosexuality is wrong. If vegetarianism isn't as threatening to omnivores as Christianity is to homosexuals, it's only because there aren't nearly as many vegetarians as Christians.

@ven: Is the vegetarian partner always a (or the, for OS couples) woman in your sample group?

No. One couple I know was a Jewish vegetarian male married to a meat eating shiksa. He banned meat and any reference to xmas from the house. They divorced, he remarried years later, and he started eating meat around the time they had a kid. I think xmas is still banned, though.

Re: the therapist's question: it seems that her patient is looking for a proxy suicide, of course, but I wonder why she wants to do it in a dangeoun. Is she looking to die in pain? Does she want to take revenge at the BDSM community and why? Is she convinced that she is a reborn Spanish Inquisitor looking for redemption? It is a very sad and dangerous situation which would require, in my opinion, to Baker-Act her. It's not just her life what's at stake here. It seems to me that Therapist needs help from other professionals.

Re Vegetarians

My dear brother lives in his own home with a vegan daughter (age 28) and food-Nazi wife.

His Wife will eat meat on occasion but always presents her home cooking as "my favorite" dish (meatless spinach lasagna, meatless spaghetti, meatless meatloaf) when I eat at their house.

I say nothing, as I am the one who is overweight (but, also employed & happy!) but their daughter wants every meal cooked at home to include an available, delicious meatless option. My brother answers in our dear departed mothers words: "this is not a restaurant!". I do not envy my brother.

@92 Some vegetarians don't think that eating meat is wrong period. They think that eating meat is wrong for themselves and are not preachy at all. They'd just like their preferences respected. No inviting them to a bbq joint. Are you talking smack about my mom?

@94 Yeah she sounds old enough to cook herself some delicious meatless options.

I didn't see that the S&M ethics concern was from her counselor. Does that mean youth pastor?

@95: They think that eating meat is wrong for themselves and are not preachy at all.

That's more or less the attitude of most religious minorities, including Christians back when the Romans used them as a nutritional supplement for lions.

Once religions comes into power, however, they tend to get a lot pushier.

@seandr – you've never dated a vegetarian; do you even *know* any? Because you speak with great authority on how we ALL FEEL and you're pretty full of crap.

If you dislike Brussels sprouts, are you an unreasonable zealot with a morally superior belief system to which you want to convert the entire world? Well guess what, I only don't eat meat because I can't get past that it is a dead animal, like, dead road kill, and that grosses me out. Just like moldy food grosses me out, or apples with worms in them. Or Brussels spouts. And that's it. It's a preference I'm allowed to have, and I recognize it's a personal preference.

I now turn my attention to the sane people.

For @37, who doesn't want to see his/her delicious curry ruined by the last-minute addition of some poorly-thought-out freezer chicken, check out the cookbook, "The Flexitarian Table" by Peter Berley. It's been the bible of high-end meals in our mixed household, where the addition of meat isn't a last-minute afterthought and won't make you feel like your slaved-over meal has been brought down a few notches. In most cases, the meats/seafoods are not brought together until they're on the eater's plate.

And finally, nobody's mentioned this, and maybe it's rare to be as sensitive as I am, but I can actually *smell* non-vegetarians up close, like, on their skin. It comes out their pores. Especially when giving a blow job – you have the trifecta of skin, sweat, and cum all smelling/tasting like a meat-eater's. Despite being careful not to complain or decrease my frequency, I've had two husbands voluntarily become vegetarian so as to ramp up my enjoyment of the act (how selfless of them!). Both of their health and energy improved along with our sex life, so all's well that ends well ;-)

@97 So... your proposition is to use vegetarians to solve the hungry lion problem before the scary vegetarians take over the world? Ok Hitler. Or wealthy Roman male, whatever you prefer.

@ Mr Ven - Sorry for not responding to you on last week's column. It was late when I read your post and I planned to reply in the morning but I flaked.

No worries about being touchy on this topic. I don't think you were at all but even if you had been, I absolutely wouldn't blame you.

Hating gay people is less scripturally important than, say, slavery. Or giving away all of your worldly wealth. But Christianity has abandoned both of those practices to varying degrees even though they play such a major role in the Bible. I think your jenga tower analogy is excellent. But I don't think removing the "we hate gay people" block will necessarily make the whole tower fall over. Instead, I think the tower is being slowly deconstructed, block by block. And now it's a much smaller tower than it was back when society removed the "we hate lefties" block.

That said, I absolutely agree that they're clinging to that "we hate gay people" block tooth and nail. And I think the real reason for that is extremely self serving: Same-sex attraction is THE sin, right? Even though the Bible doesn't support that contention, the people who use religion as an excuse for their bigotry fixate on same-sex pairings. By contrast, most of them ignore what the Bible says about divorce or gluttony or being rich, even though all of those things are presented as being more important within the scripture. But that makes a certain kind of sense. If they are straight, think about how easy it is for them to be "good Christians." All they have to do is not have sex with other dudes* and be assholes to anyone who does. Then they're better than everyone else and they get to go to heaven. And they didn't want to do have sex with other dudes* anyway.

*substitute "chicks" if the bigot in question is a woman

I don't entirely disagree with your point about eugenics. Science, medical science especially, likes to find uses for information. But an understanding of the cause isn't necessarily a requirement for finding "a cure." Since 1984, the steroid dexamethasone has been administered prenatally to prevent the cosmetic effects of congenital adrenal hyperplasia. It feminizes the female fetus. As a result, in addition to preventing masculine-looking genitalia, it decreases the occurrence of "masculine" behavior and also decreases the rate of same-sex attraction. This is the best write-up on the topic that I could find:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles…

Here's another write up if you're not partial to reading medical journal articles:

http://www.thehastingscenter.org/Bioethi…

So what you are concerned about is already possible to a certain degree. No solving necessary. That's why I believe that increased understanding, hopefully leading to increased acceptance, is so important. In order for parents to choose to prevent themselves from having gay kids (if and when that choice becomes available) they need to see having a gay kid as a problem in the first place. Parents who don't see having a gay kid as a bad thing are much less likely to choose to prevent themselves from having one.

Changing gears completely if you don't mind and please accept my sincere apology if any of the following is assholish in any way: how does the top/bottom vs total top/total bottom thing work? Is it primarily a sensation preference for tops and bottoms? And for total tops and total bottoms, you said that the opposite role was a total turn off (almost like another layer of sexual orientation?) but you also talked about constructed roles leading to a complete lack of versatility, so is there some element of development there?

@98.... guessing that in a few more years time...you'll be able to say that you have had 4 husbands voluntarily become vegetarians.... just a hunch. Lay off seandr (not that he needs MY help) he is entitled to think insufferable people are insufferable....regardless whether their reasoning is sound or not....

I know... i have thus joined the list of the insane. So be it.

@Boything's Girl: Because you speak with great authority on how we ALL FEEL

But I've done nothing of the sort.

I've simply shared some anecdotes, offered some insights into the tension that sometimes occurs between vegetarians and omnivores, redrawn a flawed analogy, related the subject to historical trends, and tried to sprinkle in a few bits humor. My conduct here has been a veritable model of sanity.

And while I'll admit to having implied a certain perspective on this subject, I'd never be so crass as to make the kind of clumsy generalization you've attributed to me.

@Philophile: If this vegetarian thing really takes off, it's only a matter of time before they start feeding us to the lions, if only because the symbolism would be too good to resist.

@100: Christianity was an anti-slavery movement. That's why, for example, the cross is such a big deal to them: crucifixion was how the Roman authorities killed people of low social status, particularly slaves, who got out of line, when they wanted to make a point that it was a really bad idea for low-status people to get out of line. A pro-slavery movement would never have thought of representing someone who'd been crucified as a someone they were proud to be associated with.

@98: I think it's normal for vegetarians to be able to smell the meat on meat-eaters.

@ 104 -

"οἰκέται (household slaves), in reverent fear of God submit yourselves to your masters, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh."
1 Peter 2:18

"δοῦλοι (slaves), obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ."
Ephesians 6:5

"All who are under the yoke as δοῦλοι (slaves) should consider their masters worthy of full respect, so that God's name and our teaching may not be slandered."
1 Timothy 6:1

"The δοῦλος (slave) who knows the master's will and does not get ready or does not do what the master wants will be beaten with many blows. But the one who does not know and does things deserving punishment will be beaten with few blows. From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked."
Luke 12:47-48

"Masters, provide your δούλοις (slaves) with what is right and fair, because you know that you also have a Master in heaven."
Colossians 4:1

@103 "Let's get them before they destroy us," is Hitler-esque. But I can more easily imagine you in the wealthy roman male role. Feeding vegetarians to lions.