I’m unemployed in Oregon and trying to come up with simple ways to make rent. My dear wife and I would like your opinion on the legality of selling my teenage son’s sweaty gym clothes online. It sounds rather skeezy, I realize, and I’m only half-joking here. If we had a nonsexual website with pictures that weren’t necessarily of my son, would that be buffer enough? Would this be seen as me whoring out the boy? He’s up for it—as long as he gets his cut—but could I go to jail for this? He is 14.
Pimpin’ Out Real Teen’s Leftover, Acrid, Nasty Duds
Speaking parent-to-parent, PORTLAND, informing your 14-year-old son that there are perverts all over the internet who would be willing to pay him for his sweaty gym clothes wasn’t the best idea. Whatever you ultimately decide to do with his sweaty jocks, shorts, and T-shirts—and I vote for tossing them in the wash—dangling the money your son could make catering to the desires of online pervs in front of him might inspire him to go into business for himself, whatever you decide to do. So keep an eye on his internet usage, okay? As for the legal issues…
“Selling a physical property—sweat—might be an issue,” said Chris O’Connor, a public defender in Portland, Oregon. “Also, he could be [charged with] fraud and misrepresentation for selling clothing he says is his 14-year-old son’s but isn’t.”
Even if no dissatisfied customers go running to the chamber of commerce, PORTLAND, there are other potential problems. For instance, as your son’s sweaty gym clothes make their way from his bedroom floor to the hands of underpants-huffing pervs all over the world, some items would travel—via US mail or UPS or FedEx—through different jurisdictions. While there may not be a statute in Oregon that you could be prosecuted under for selling his undies, Mississippi or Illinois or Vatican City “may have specific laws, too,” says O’Connor, laws that you could be violating.
The biggest potential problem: Underpants huffers wanna know exactly whose underpants they’re huffing. That means you’ll have to include pictures and biographical info on your website, PORTLAND, and involving a minor—even a fake/buffer one—in what many police officers, district attorneys, judges, and some sex-advice columnists see as a kind of gateway sex work will quickly add arrest, prosecution, incarceration, crushing legal bills, and a lifetime on a sex-offender registry to your current troubles. Even if the authorities can’t point to a particular law that criminalizes your home business, they’ll find something to charge you with.
I’m sorry you’re hurting right now, PORTLAND, but I think you should come up with another way to make rent.
Six months ago, my 17-year-old son told me that he was seeing [insert male name]. No biggie. What troubles me: My son and his boyfriend are “furries” and open about it. The boyfriend is 18 and sweet, but he’s clearly the more dominant one. I’m worried that my son may not know how to say no to him. Adding to my concerns: I found a dog collar in the kitchen with an engraved tag with my son’s name on it. Dog collars seem like a heavy activity for a lad, Dan, and today I noticed a bruise on his throat that’s the size of a collar buckle. How do I ensure he is exploring safely without freaking him out?
Why This Fetish?
Go ahead and freak him out, WTF.
Your son is being open with you about his sexuality—openly gay, openly furred, openly collared—and you shouldn’t hesitate to be open about your concerns. You won’t be able to talk him out of his kinks, WTF, if they’re his kinks (and not, say, a teenage affectation), so focus on the issues: power dynamics and sexual safety. Tell him it’s important that he be able to say no to his boyfriend, and let him know that you’re there for him if he has questions or concerns or needs a sounding board. Then ask him about the bruise on his neck. Dog collars are harmless—lots of kids and kinksters wear ’em—but if he and his boyfriend are playing choking games with that collar, and that’s where the bruise came from, that’s a very dangerous activity and it has to stop immediately.
In your shoes, WTF, I would bark at the boyfriend about that bruise, too. Furry, schmurry. It’s erotic asphyxiation that you should be worried about.
A friend of mine came out as asexual this week on his blog. A couple of questions:
1. Part of me wonders if this is a “real” orientation. Is this the result of some sort of trauma or psychological stuff that could potentially be dealt with through a therapist? I realize that sounds close to the whole “ex-gay therapy” thing, and of course I don’t want to go down that path, but I guess it’s just hard for me to understand how someone can’t form a sexual connection with another person and still be 100 percent okay psychologically.
2. How do I react the next time I see this friend? Not sure about the etiquette.
Does LGBT Need An “A”?
1. Asexuality, according to asexuals and the people who love (but don’t fuck) ’em, is a real sexual orientation… or lack thereof. Usually. Because, you see, some asexuals do “experience attraction,” according to Asexuality Visibility Network (www.asexuality.org), “[but] feel no need to act out that attraction sexually.” So it’s an orientation. Or a disorientation. Or something. But whatever it is, it’s for real.
“I’ve been where your friend is,” says David Jay, the founder of Asexuality Visibility Network. “He wouldn’t have come out without spending a lot of time mulling it over, so respect that he’s done a lot more thinking about this than you have. If he identifies as asexual or anything in the big wide spectrum, you should respect that, period.”
First, I agree 100 percent with Jay. Second, it’s entirely possible that your friend isn’t really asexual, just as it’s possible that I’m not really gay and Marcus Bachmann isn’t really straight. Your friend may have decided to identify as asexual because he can’t deal with his sexuality or wants to opt out because he finds the games required exhausting. Or he may actually be asexual. Whichever it is, you’re not the sexual identity police. So long as your friend isn’t externalizing an internal conflict and making other people miserable in the process—à la Marcus Bachmann—your friend doesn’t need to be confronted or rescued. (And for the record: No one is “100 percent okay psychologically,” and not everyone needs sex and/or a romantic relationship to feel content and enjoy life.)
2. “Hey, how’s it going.”
“Good, man, you?”
“Good. Did you see Rise of the Planet of the Apes?”
“Yeah—terrible.”
“And James Franco was never shirtless—what’s up with that?”
“You know, if you need tits with your science fiction, you should check out Misfits on Hulu. It’s like Lost before it went to shit. And it’s got tits—lots and lots of tits.”
“I’ll check it out—and, hey, I saw that blog post about you ID’ing as asexual. If that’s something you want to talk about, I’d love to learn more. But if it’s not something you want to talk about, we can talk about other shit.”
Pedophilia as a disorder is not attraction to underage people, it is attraction to prepubescent children. There is a difference morally if not legally. I’m not saying PORTLAND is a great guy, or that he ought to do what he’s proposed (which he shouldn’t) but let’s condemn people for legitimate reasons and not gut check reactions.
The guy probably does not want to have sexual contact with his son, and probably never has. Maybe he and his wife are hideous (can’t sell themselves), and have hepatitis (can’t sell blood), and own nothing nonessential, and are truly desperate. Maybe they have been turned down for state aid. Oregon’s economy is crap right now, and there really are no jobs.
Even if all of the above is true, he still shouldn’t sell his kid’s underwear. Encouraging a 14yr old to view himself as a sexual commodity is a problem no matter what the motivation. The kid is just forming a sexual self, which is not the best time to introduce money into the situation. No matter how badly you need the money, you are not going to starve to death in this country, so don’t fuck up your kid, ok?
For anyone who reads this far:
I’m active in the furry fandom, and not only are we NOT into bestiality (it’s a fantasy, guys, all in the head), for a lot of us it’s not even a sexual fetish. It’s a fandom, like Trekkies or Star Wars fans. They fan over space ships and aliens, we fan over anthropomorphic animals. So whatevs.
However, being a furry is not an exclusive thing, so you could find furries who are kinky and stuff, just like you can find Christians and Republicans who are kinky.
Dan summed it up really well: Furry is not an issue, autoerotic asphyxiation IS.
Oh, and KF79, I forgot to answer your other question: Some aces identify as a “gay asexual” or a “lesbian asexual” or a “bi asexual” but often they are referring to their romantic orientation – ie who do they fall in love with even if they aren’t sexually attracted.
@34. if only dan had asked you to answer this one for him. you said it perfectly. even sucking dick yourself is better than selling your kid
Don’t buy the asexuality thing as an orientation. The explanation that it’s an orientation because “some aren’t opposed to sex but feel the pursuit is not worth it” and “some get aroused at exposure to sex but insist they aren’t experiencing a sexual fantasy” and “some masturbate but insist it’s merely a massage” all sound a lot more like inexperience, and/or bitterness and/or fear and/or self-esteem issues locking their trains of thought away from the body’s normal sexual urges. Avoidance is a common approach to dealing with a fear of “risk” (which emotionally and physically, is inherent in sexual interactions), and given the frequency with which arousal, masturbation, and “yeah I have sex sometimes but the pursuit it’s not worth it” is the descriptor for what it is, it’s far more likely to be a symptom of low self-esteem and depression, which indeed is markedly higher in those who are “asexual” (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asexuality#…)
All that said, the meaning of someone identifying that way is still deserving of respect. They made their choice, it’s their life, I accept and respect that. “Asexual” – easy to understand what it means. But as an “orientation?” I doubt it. There may be degrees of libido, but at the most extreme ends often lurks untreated mental health issues that contribute to the emergent behavior. You’ll note, for example, that “Nymphosexual” is not on the list of orientations on that wiki page.
@113: In my experiences “asexuals” have generally been rape victims.
That definitely does not count as a “sexual orientation,” either.
Where does Mr. Savage, or society, draw the line between a kink and being a pervert? Is it solely based upon physical proximity? One can fantasize about and/or watch thier partner being ravaged by a stranger with a kinky pleasure, but once they purchase the undergarments of a stranger and fantasize with those, they are a pervert?
@86:
It’s wrong to assume at someone who is a “furry” HAS to be into beastiality. But being a furry doesn’t not ensure that one isn’t also into beastiality and it’s not unreasonable to think that a connection could exist.
You sort of missed my point, though. When it comes down to it, it’s no more a reasonable or unreasonable connection than any other “kind” of person. Being a furry doesn’t ensure a lack of interest in bestiality any more than a person NOT being a furry doesn’t ensure a lack of interest in bestiality. In fact, given the amount of human-on-animal bestiality websites out there vs. the relative lack of bestiality art as represented kink in the furry community, I’d say NOT being a furry is possibly a more likely connection to being interested/involved in bestiality.
You could put any other interest/identity/hobby vs. disturbing kink in those sentences and it’d make for one pretty obviously fallacious argument.
Examples:
“Being a dedicated volunteer at an animal shelter doesn’t ENSURE that one isn’t also into bestiality. Therefore it’s not unreasonable to think that a connection COULD exist.”
“Being a competition horse-drawn carriage driver doesn’t ENSURE that one isn’t also into BDSM-style pony-play. Therefore it’s not unreasonable to think that a connection COULD exist.”
“Being a butcher doesn’t ENSURE that one isn’t also into dismemberment porn/sex. Therefore it’s not unreasonable to think that a connection COULD exist.”
Sorry, but I don’t immediately jump to thinking of the possibility that someone expressing an interest in meat products means they want to dismember people or animals in a sexual manner. It’s not logical to place two items with sort of a superficial similarity together and claim it’s not unreasonable to think of the possibility that SEX OMG.
@117
context, context, context
If you look at what I was trying to say, (and in fairness, I was responding to Erica’s point, not yours if I’m remembering correctly) it’s that people were jumping on this parent as if they were wrong to be concerned. Concern, and curiousity are allowed. They aren’t bad. And making erroneous connections doesn’t make that parent a bad person either, or a bigot, or “furryphobic”. All I was trying to explain is “here are some reasons someone might be concerned, they are not outlandish suspicions to have if you aren’t educated on the subject”. And everyone wants to come down with “well if you actually know about the subject, then THIS”
Well yes, but you’ve missed my point.
We’re all better off if we respond to eachother with open minds. Sometimes people are so rabidly defensive of their kinks they miss oppotunities to educate people who are poised to be tolerant.
I suggested the way a parent who is concerned about the kink might be thinking (and for the record, I see no evidence of the parent being concerned about the kink itself, I believe that was Erica’s fabrication). The tone of the replies was fairly negative/hostile towards any speculation that the kink could be implicated with anything bad. And I get it, people are defensive of their kinks. I just don’t think it’s a productive tone, and not useful for helping concerned parents become supportive parents.
Whatever.
Oh, P.S. I didn’t look at your furry stuff in too much detail (as it’s irrelevant to my point, but I’ll get around to it out of curiousity) but to be clear, the context people were talking about is “furry” being already in the context of a sexual kink.
If you’re talking about furry in nonsexual terms? Then no, I definitely wouldn’t see a beastiality connection. But then you’re linking non-sex to sex and that’s less intuitive than linking sex-with-someone-dressed-as-x and sex-with-x which is less of a mental leap, as you can imagine.
P.S. for the record! As a tween I picked up a lot of drawing style from a website that was all (non-porn) furries. I thought they were super cute. http://yerf.artspots.com/yerfartists but it’s mostly gone now. It used to be pages and pages.
My point isn’t “BOO unconventional/kinky people” my point is “let’s be understanding of the point of view of conventional/nonkinky people” and bridge that gap. Also: singing kumbaya.
@119 – “Erica’s fabrication”???
From the letter: ‘What troubles me: My son and his boyfriend are “furries” and open about it.’
I was providing some reassurance to the parent– hey, in my experience, furries are harmless. (But warn your kid about autoerotic asphyxiation.) Where do you see me being rabidly intolerant of the parent’s concern?
Ohhh lord, here we go with a whole lot of accusations of pedophilia and “I’d call CPS so fast” and all this noise.
First off: Calm down. The 14-year-old is okay with it. There’s nothing sexual about what they’re doing. There IS something sexual going on when it comes to the fetishists purchasing those items, and I’m with Dan when it comes to not actually going through with it, because that 14-year-old shouldn’t have to have his face posted everywhere for old guys to masturbate to… but not because he’s a 14-year-old boy, but because they’re only doing it for the money, and he’s got a lot of years ahead of him, and god forbid those postings land his parents in trouble or end up coming back to haunt him later in life.
They aren’t whoring him out. They’re thinking of selling his used dirty clothing online, and there is a big difference. “Well, what difference is that?” The difference between letting some guy smell your socks and letting him put his dick in your ass is probably a pretty damn big one, I’d say.
So, to reiterate, calm down. There are way bigger fish to fry when it comes to the issue of pedophilia. PORTLAND is not a monster. Save that label for the people who would get a lynch mob together over the *possibility* of him *maybe* selling *some* clothes online.
*It depends on how you read the letter, and where you think the text included after the “:” ends. They way I read it, she seemed more concerned about the D/S nature of the relationship and (again, erroneously) was thinking that it was because of the furry thing. In terms of the tone of responses, I wasn’t as much referring to you as a general intolerance of anyone raising an objection/concern to kink.
Ever. Even in terms of personal preference. Maybe Mr. J, for an example.
Oh well.
*It depends on how you read the letter, and where you think the text included after the “:” ends. They way I read it, she seemed more concerned about the D/S nature of the relationship and (again, erroneously) was thinking that it was because of the furry thing. In terms of the tone of responses, I wasn’t as much referring to you as a general intolerance of anyone raising an objection/concern to kink.
Ever. Even in terms of personal preference. Maybe Mr. J, for an example.
Oh well.
@124, thanks. We had a phrase, back in the early days of kinky online discussion groups: YKIOKIJNMK: “Your kink is ok, it’s just not my kink.” Came in handy in these sorts of discussions, to reassure people that you didn’t think they were bad just because they hit people (consensually) or dressed up as schoolgirls.
twofer! Good trolling!
@122, 125: The kid would only be marginally involved, and it sounds like his name or picture would not be used. So the only reason not to is the legal problems, which is what the LW asked about and Dan answered. Everything else is besides the point.
And as the letter made clear, the reason to use his son’s stuff is that there’s a much bigger market for it.
@113, 114: You’re misinformed about the definition of asexuality. Which is understandable because the name is a little misleading.
Asexuality has nothing to do with sex drive. It has to do with who you’re attracted to. Just like you can be gay or straight with a high or low sex drive, you can be asexual with a high or low sex drive.
Asexuals just aren’t attracted to anyone else. Just like gay and lesbian people aren’t attracted to people of the opposite sex, and straight people aren’t attracted to people of the same sex. It’s just how people are wired.
All your criticisms of asexuality have been made over and over against LGBT folk as well, with equal validity: abused as kids, rape victims, higher rates of mental illness, avoidance, immaturity, inexperience, self-esteem issues, and so forth.
a·sex·u·al [ey-sek-shoo-uhl] Show IPA
adjective
1.
Biology .
a.
having no sex or sexual organs.
b.
independent of sexual processes, especially not involving the union of male and female germ cells.
2.
free from or unaffected by sexuality: an asexual friendship.
@126
Bingo!
I think for my part I’d just want to say that not all people turn their traumatic lemons into kinky lemonade and the idea that someone should be ok with a suggestion of “age play” from a partner, or that it’s somehow bigoted to be put off by it… well, I just don’t think that’s fair. Maybe the person isn’t anti-kink, more just anti-PTSD.
Again, that’s not in reference to you specifically. Jus’ saying.
@Hunter
re: trolling.
Bitter middle-aged man is bitter.
@122 Speaking as a Psych grad and a sex worker: It’s absolutely inappropriate regardless of whether the kid is into it. The kid is unable to give meaningful consent. The power dynamic of this being between parents and a child is what makes this insidious: if he wasn’t into it, could he genuinely say no to mom and dad, believing they might lose their house without his help? Highly debatable. Does he actually understand the ramifications of catering to the desires of people who seek out the soiled clothes of 14 year olds? Probably not.
And yes, they are whoring him out. They’re selling his (or another’s, or a fake teenager’s) sexual image, as someone else pointed out. The clothes are worthless without the impression on the part of the buyer that there is a person under the age of consent involved. Profiting from the sexuality of pedophiles in any way is pretty gross and alarming – profiting by selling the sexualized image of your own kid: yes, I’d call CPS. Even if daddy doesn’t want to fuck him, there are very few ways that conversation could have come about that don’t indicate something being very wrong.
@135 It’s difficult to believe anyone could be so obtuse as to require an explanation here… but you did a marvelous job of it.
@124
I called BS because you want to play intellectual whack-a-mole. You went from spewing a bunch of bigoted opinions about people as some kind of received wisdom that you have right into “I date who I want.” So yeah, that was a bullshit response.
Have you noticed how often you make generalizations about people? You’re saying I’m totally intolerant of all people’s concerns because of my annoyance with you.
I love reading your column so much it’s crazy. You’re a great voice of reason. Kids should never play choking games as the lack of oxygen causes cell damage, which is detrimental to developing minds. I’m so glad you mentioned for the father to talk to his son. You are awesome Dan, love you.
@134: It’s fine to not be into age play or any other kink… but judging people who are into it and saying you wouldn’t want to date them, or saying you’d have a bunch of questions, is very different. After all, just cause someone has a kink doesn’t mean they need to engage in it with you.
I understand what you mean about not wanting to date someone who is not primarily attracted to adult women… but that’s an extreme case and doesn’t include most people into age play. Presumably, these hypothetical people who are into age play and want to date you are very attracted to you, hence the desire to date you.
Age play: it’s a kink. People who are into age play are into other consenting adults*. That’s why it’s age PLAY. Just like BDSM tops don’t actually want to abuse their partners, nor would the vast majority be attracted to a partner who was so broken they would be okay with a real abusive relationship.
Is that really hard to understand? If you’re not into it, don’t do it. If you really suspect your partner might be a pedophile, by all means, run – what we’re trying to tell you is that you’re actually not going to be able to make very accurate decisions using the assumption you’re making about kink. Of course if someone asked me if I’m a top because I secretly want to abuse my partners I would laugh so hard.
*I don’t think it’s a legitimate argument to point out that some very, very small number of them could be real pedos. That’s really the equivalent of responding to a discussion of consensual straight sexuality with, “Yeah but some men are RAPISTS!” Yeah, well, they are, and watch out for them, but that’s not what we’re talking about at all.
“Age play” doesn’t require soiled undies from real 14-year-olds.
@ 142
I agree completely. I forgot in that comment to specify that I was responding to the general argument about age play indicating pedophilia or it being at all appropriate to assume someone who reveals they’re into age play is not actually attracted to adults.
I’ve already made my feeling on PORTLAND clear ala comments 28 and 135. Quick refresher: it’s unequivocally inappropriate (and has nothing to do with age play); there’s something gone really wrong in that family.
@141: Wrong.
Pedophilia, by definition, is an attraction to prepubescents. Most pedophiles are not child molesters, no more than most straight men rape women. Age play, like rape play, is a safe and consensual way for people to deal with attractions or turn-ons, such as pedophilia or being turned on by rape, that would be unethical, illegal, or impossible to practice in real life.
Why is this so hard to understand?
@146: My earlier comment was a slight tangent. But in this case, I don’t see the kid being “pimped out.” His name and picture wouldn’t be used. All that’s going on is that he’s selling some old clothes.
It’s crazy to say there’s anything incestuous about this. It’s just an idea for making money. And I know you said he could pretend that the clothes were his son’s, without actually using his son’s clothes. (I suspect he just wanted to be honest about everything.) But I really don’t see what would be different about that.
How would you feel if he used his son’s clothes without discussing it with him? Better? Would that be very different from him selling/donating the clothes to a thrift shop or something? And if that’s ok, what’s the harm in telling him that people are interested in his used clothes? He’s 14: I doubt sex and porn and fetishes are unknown to him.
I’d just like to point out to the asexual guy’s friend that the papers are full of people who make sexual connections and are 100% not okay psychologically. I came to a similar conclusion myself when I admitted that whenever I was with a guy, I felt like I was impersonating a gay man, and not too happy about it. I love good-looking guys, but I like everyone to keep their penises to themselves.
I need HELP from Savage Love readers!
I’m supposed to do a reading at my son’s wedding.
All the others will be reading poetry about love, every single one. Not kidding.
I wish to counter with something from Dan, something he wrote about love or marriage or toegetherness that I read in the ARCHIVES. It was three or four paragraphs long, one of his longer classics and talked about the lies we tell, the lies we try to believe, the blind eyes we turn. IT WAS GLORIOUS IN ITS TRUTH.
BUT NOW I CAN’T FIND IT AND I CAN’T MAKE IT THROUGH ALL LEVENTEEN HUNDRED ARCHIVE ENTRIES BY TOMORROW NIGHT (when it must be submitted – don’t ask, long story, local government involved).
HELP ME! Anyone remember this answer????
M.
I need HELP from Savage Love readers!
I’m supposed to do a reading at my son’s wedding.
All the others will be reading poetry about love, every single one. Not kidding.
I wish to counter with something from Dan, something he wrote about love or marriage or toegetherness that I read in the ARCHIVES. It was three or four paragraphs long, one of his longer classics and talked about the lies we tell, the lies we try to believe, the blind eyes we turn. IT WAS GLORIOUS IN ITS TRUTH.
BUT NOW I CAN’T FIND IT AND I CAN’T MAKE IT THROUGH ALL LEVENTEEN HUNDRED ARCHIVE ENTRIES BY TOMORROW NIGHT (when it must be submitted – don’t ask, long story, local government involved).
HELP ME! Anyone remember this answer????
M.
Sorry for the double. ‘Puter acting up …
@149 I’m not sure which passage you’re talking about, but I think that you may want to reconsider your desire to tell the couple (in public, at their wedding) that they will undoubtedly lie to each other. Particularly if you have issues about lies with your son’s mother, which some of the people at the wedding will know about or guess.
That said, here is one of Dan’s insights about marriage: “A successful marriage is basically an endless cycle of wrongs committed, apologies offered, and forgiveness granted, all leavened by the occasional orgasm.”
http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/Savag…
You might also find something you want to use at:
http://therumpus.net/2011/08/dear-sugar-…
>> Most people don’t cheat because they’re cheaters. They cheat because they are people. They are driven by hunger or for the experience of someone being hungry once more for them. They find themselves in friendships that take an unintended turn or they seek them out because they’re horny or drunk or damaged from all the stuff they didn’t get when they were kids. There is love. There is lust. There is opportunity. There is alcohol. And youth. And middle age. And twelve-day-long writers’ conferences in rustically genteel settings that give one the impression that the world one left no longer exists. There is loneliness and boredom and sorrow and weakness and self-destruction and idiocy and arrogance and romance and ego and nostalgia and power and need. There is the compelling temptation of intimacies with someone other than the person with whom one is most intimate.
>> Which is a complicated way of saying, it’s a long damn life, Happily Ever After. And people get mucked up in it from time to time. Even the people we marry. Even us. You don’t know what it is you’ll get mucked up in yet, but if you’re lucky, and if you and your fiancé really are right for each other, and if the two of you build a marriage that lasts a lifetime, you’re probably going to get mucked up in a few things along the way. This is scary, but you’ll be okay. Sometimes the thing you fear the most in your relationship turns out to be the thing that brings you and your partner to a deeper place of understanding and intimacy.>>
RE: Asexuality, i haven’t read all 150+ posts here, but i am married to an asexual person. He failed to tell me of his sexual orientation when we were dating, so therefore, a sin of omission. I am highly sexual. He tried to match my sexuality while we were dating, and because we had a long distance relationship, he hid it well. We lived together for half a year before marrying, and what do you know?… as soon as we were married, sex began to fall off… I eventually found myself begging for sex from him. This is a pathetic situation for anyone. I blamed myself for the longest time. Then i came across the website http://www.asexuality.org and realized just what i was dealing with.
My point here is that, had he only been upfront with me about his sexuality, we would have never married. But he realized that, and of course, that’s why he was not upfront. He had to have the arm candy. I am very angry with him for this circumstance in which i find myself. I am now surfing through chat rooms, looking for someone who would like to fuck without commitment, though this is totally contrary to my standards. But i am only human. We had counselling, but to no avail; the counsellor privately told me that he is what’s deemed a “cold fish”.
My husband won’t talk to me about his lack of libido. He gets all uptight if i try to talk about it. I have had an affair, got my heart broken, and am in the midst of a 2nd affair now all because my husband couldn’t be upfront and honest about himself. We have 2 children; one is autistic. We haven’t had sex since 2005. I feel painted into a corner since i am unemployed. I cannot leave without a job, and i cannot look after our autistic child myself…. life really isn’t fair, is it.
I am not a bad person. I just want to love and be loved, which includes (for me) the physical expression of love and all that goes with it.
If only people would just be honest about themselves.
Thank you for listening and for being non-judgemental.
@Blackrose, I think you’ve got it the most right. People trying to argue that there’s no age-play pedophilia link… are confused, I think. I think most people into age play do have a least some pedophilic nature. And again, if they are able to only act on that in terms of fantasy, that’s fine with me, and not something I object to.
But! Because sex is a deeply subjective/personal thing, I don’t understand why people are getting all up in arms about my personal preferences.
Re: your comment towards me specifically… that depends on what you mean by “judging”. I wouldn’t be judging on a moral sense, but rather on a personal-preference sense. And again: I’m allowed to do that.
In reference to dating, I’m pretty strongly monogamous so if someone has a kink that I can’t fufil, I see that as problematic.
In reference to fucking casually? I can be even more carefree about who I choose to reject, so there’s a good chance I’d show a guy the door in that context too.
I’m not saying anyone else should/must/might. All I said was my own preference. I don’t understand why this makes so many people angry (well, I can speculate as to why it makes Mr. J angry).
Especially for the reason I brought up earlier: I’d just want to say that not all people turn their traumatic lemons into kinky lemonade and the idea that someone should be ok with a suggestion of “age play” from a partner, or that it’s somehow bigoted to be put off by it… well, I just don’t think that’s fair.
Considering that for a non-insignificant number of grown women, the simulation of what is essentially a pedophilic interaction might bring back some extremely troubling memories, it’s mind-boggling to me that there apppears to be zero sensitivity to the idea that “age-play” might not be something we can expect from every partner.
Finally… Mr. J
I actually reread over all my posts (boooring) and couldn’t find a single generalization. Unless this is what you meant?
“I’m not talking so much as you in specific, more the tone of a lot of people’s answers to things in general.” Or my fiscal conservative social liberal thing? Yeah that was bitchy, but politics is rarely a civil topic.
I think you were perhaps not reading what I actually wrote closely enough or possibly I was unclear at some point or some combination of both.
If you look at what I actually said about someone requesting “age play” you’ll notice that BlackRose agrees with me!
verbatim: If someone’s into age play, presumably they’re turned on by the fantasy of sex with a young child… that is usually the whole point of age play. Hence, they’d fall under the definition of a pedophile (being attracted to young children). I think we agree on that, and that there’s nothing wrong with consensually expressing the attraction or fantasies through age play.
@144
I disagree with your definition, as do most age players I’m aware of, and I think a very firm line should be drawn between people who would actually fuck children given the societal okay and people who enjoy the power dynamic inherent in age play. I disagree with your definition – because it is incorrect according to modern Psychology, which is the arbiter of the standard definition of all our philas. The diagnostic criteria of the DSM-IV is very clear that one only qualifies for a diagnosis of pedophila if one has sexual urges toward children AND acts on them with a child OR the urges disrupt the person’s ability to function in society. THAT is actually “pedophilia by definition.” And there’s a reason that AND OR clause is included in the definition when it comes to sexual disorders. No age player who functions in society outside of their fetish and has only played with consenting adults is a pedophile. If anyone would actually fuck a child if they could get away with it (if it was practical, moral, and possible) then they have a pretty serious problem on their hands.
I honestly don’t know any age players who are actually attracted to children, but rather to the abstract idea of purity and helplessness. The age play is an expression of the attraction to those concepts, and the turn on would be the same if another fantasy was found that met the same criteria. Perhaps I haven’t met the right people, but in my community expressing the desire to fuck real children even if you would never REALLY do it is a surefire way end up banned.
I don’t think any OTHER lines need to be drawn unless those in the former category (people who are attracted to real children) actually offend against a child. But they are in fact distinct categories IF you want to continue using the real definition of pedophilia.
@150:
http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/Savag…
@154, 155: Some of this is confusion about definitions. evolveevolve is correct to point out that the DSM does require action or marked distress for a diagnosis of “pedophilia.” However, the word is sometimes also used to just mean “attraction to prepubescents.” This isn’t the DSM usage, just another definition (just as “depressed” or “narcissist” have other definitions besides their official diagnoses).
The DSM definition isn’t related to age play, but the “attraction to prepubescents” meaning (which should have a better term, since the word is so often used as an insult and has such negative connotations) certainly is. But we’re not talking about the DSM definition, just people who are attracted to prepubescents but do not meet the DSM diagnosis.
evolveevolve, I believe you that a lot of age players are all about purity, helplessness, power dynamics, and so forth. That’s fine, but age play, as opposed to daddy/daughter play in general, at least sometimes focuses on age as a fetish in particular because people get turned on by it.
Another example is erotic fiction involving underage characters, which is often written because people find it a turn-on; roleplaying such fiction is a form of age play. It’s just not true that age players are never into the age as an attraction, though they may use careful wording when they discuss it because of people who don’t seem to understand. I know of plenty of age players who are turned on by the idea of sex with prepubescents, and for them, that is the whole reason why they engage in age play.
Desire is a complex thing. We can have desires but not really want to carry them out because we know they’re wrong and harmful and don’t want to risk jail time. Do people who have fantasies of raping someone “really” want to rape someone? Well, in a sense, yes, but overall, no, because even though they might have the desire to, it’s more important to them to not go to jail or hurt someone. Or, I might get angry and have an intense desire to punch someone in the face, but I don’t really want to do that for various reasons.
Similarly, someone who roleplays having sex with a six-year-old, say, might find the idea attractive and have the desire to do it, but not actually want to do it for real because it’s illegal and harmful and so forth.
I don’t understand the “firm line” you are trying to draw: there are DSM-diagnosis pedophiles who have molested kids, there are DSM-diagnosis pedophiles who suffer “marked distress” (seems like age play would help reduce that distress), there are non-DSM-pedophiles who engage in age play because they are attracted to prepubescents, and, as you say, there are others who engage in age play but don’t have that attraction and do it for other reasons.
@141: As a furry into age play, I’ve heard the same argument used against both kinks. Yes, I am attracted to canid furries. NO, that doesn’t mean I want to fuck my dog. Ew.
I find it strange that in a world full of GTA players, we actually have to remind folks that people fantasize about a lot of things they would never do in real life.
mydriasis, the reason it bothers me that you’d reject someone for a kink is that no two people ever have exactly the same kinks. If you’re monogamous, there will always be kinks that one or both of you can’t engage in because the other person isn’t interested. That doesn’t seem like a good reason to dump someone. I have a whole lot of kinks and no one is going to be into all of them.
It’s totally cool to be squicked by age play or any other kink. Of course it’s understandable that a lot of people wouldn’t be into it.
But it’s not cool to reject someone because of one of their kinks, if the person is fine with not engaging in that kink. Then there’s no issue of compatibility, and the only reason to reject them is that you think there’s something wrong with the kink. Otherwise, why not just say “that’s cool that you’re into that, but I’m not comfortable with it, so we can just do other kinks”? And you seem to be setting aside age play as a special category, as opposed to any other kink that you’re not into. If someone liked anal once in a while, but you weren’t into it, would you dump him, or would you just say you didn’t want to do it?
@Blackrose
“If you’re monogamous, there will always be kinks that one or both of you can’t engage in because the other person isn’t interested.”
Says who? Not everyone is kinky. Maybe I’ve just been lucky, but I’m personally a non-kinky person. I’m open to most things, though. This means that
a. I will never have to worry about an unfufilled kink
b. it is unlikely that my partner will.
And yes, I do put it in a special category for the reason I listed above.
Dan has shown us multiple cases of people trying to put aside their kinks and it catching up with them later. Why would I want to risk that?
I’m sorry but I’m firmly in the camp that people can turn eachother down for whatever reason they like. If you think it makes me a jerk, then presumably this theoretical person is better off.
@152
Erica:
Thankyou for your help. And for your words. I was going to heavily edit what Dan wrote (the parents of the bride are self-described stereotypical stuffy Brits) so even the slightest mention of sex would have thrown everyone, so maybe I’ll save Dan’s words for the Bach Party.
M.
@160 I’m with mydriasis on this. If a guy isn’t into BDSM, then I’m not compatible sexually with him, not in a long-term sense. And if a woman is squicked by ageplay, or pet play, then she probably shouldn’t date someone who frequently fantasizes about those kinks. Granted, people may have to do without lactation play if that’s not their partner’s kink, but in general it is important to determine early on if you can handle your partner’s kinks.
@162 – sounds like a plan. Also note that Dan posted @156 with a great potential reading choice for a wedding, from the 2003 Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court decision legalizing same-sex marriage.
Portland shouldn’t have custody of a child he’s willing to lead into prostitution. Because let’s be honest, that’s what he’s doing. It may be items of clothing and not actual sex, but it’s the same to that kid’s psyche.
@161: What is the reason you listed above? If you mean wanting someone who is primarily attracted to you, I don’t see how that applies at all. Or do you think everyone into age play is primarily attracted to prepubescents? I see age play as just one of many things that’s fun to try once in a while, not something that’s necessarily a really strong orientation or something that’s a necessary part of someone’s sex life.
“Kinks” may not have been the right word to use. I wasn’t talking about being “kinky.” What I meant is that everyone has lots of little things that turn them on: certain words, articles of clothing, different positions, and so forth, but it’s not a big deal if not all of them are present. I’m not sure what the word for that is. Turn-ons? And those definitely aren’t always going to match up perfectly.
For instance, I think black stretchy pants are kinda hot, but I don’t really think about them that often, they’re just fun to play with once in a while. And it definitely wouldn’t catch up with me later to put it aside.
Anyway, that’s how I see age play, and so it’s kind of confusing that you seem to see it as an all-or-nothing orientation thing, or something that must be frequently fantasized about, like BDSM is for Erica. Not all kinks or turn-ons need to be like that. So I still don’t understand why you would reject someone for having a slight interest in that type of roleplaying. Of course you can turn someone down for any reason you want; I just find it puzzling and wonder if it’s based on inaccurate information.
@166 – see @134, where mydriasis wrote: “not all people turn their traumatic lemons into kinky lemonade and the idea that someone should be ok with a suggestion of “age play” from a partner… maybe the person isn’t anti-kink, more just anti-PTSD.”
That suggests she was abused as a child but doesn’t feel like going into the details. I recommend giving her that space.
@167: mydriasis is free to respond, or not, as she wishes.
I can certainly understand someone who was abused or traumatized being triggered by the mention of different scenes. I’m dating someone who was abused by a single-tail whip and can’t stand the thought or sound of them, for instance. But rejecting or dumping someone just for asking about a certain type of play doesn’t seem reasonable to me. Obviously repeatedly bringing it up or forcing the issue would be a douche move, but punishing someone for asking about something they might possibly be interested in trying seems contrary to the goals of open and honest communication and having a good sex life.
Do we really want people to be afraid they’ll get dumped if they ask about their turn-ons?