Savage Love

Cold Feet


Good advice again as per usual.

Sorta boring, vanilla questions though... but I guess not every week can be all poo eaters and dog fuckers.
Maybe he'll make up for it next week with a poo-eating dog-fucker.
Tiger is a CPOS, which would be only his and Elin's business had he not pimped his wholesome image for tens of millions.
I know this isn't going to be popular, but what if SFF's girlfriend is truly, fully turned off by having someone sucking on her feet and making them an object of desire? What if it is completely nauseating to her, if it makes her feel trapped, ill and violated? They have a great relationship, she's a great woman and they have great sex - except for this one thing, which admittedly, is important to SFF. Why is it that just because someone has a strong urge FOR something, that it's not ok for the other partner to have an equally strong urge AGAINST it? My partner and I explore all kinds of kinks and ideas - but only those that are mutually agreeable. I will sometimes try something that I'm more than ambivalent about to please my partner, but I would be hurt and pissed if my partner pushed me hard for something that made me feel demeaned or violated - if she/he made it a make or break in our relationship. SFF needs to decide if the foot fetish is worth losing the "great" woman over - but if they've had a healthy conversation about his desires, and she simply can't accomodate for a strongly held reason - she's not the bad guy here. GGG is all good. But we don't force those we love to undergo experiences that take something from them emotionally or physically. It's a two way street in getting needs met.
I need a Christian side-hug right about

OK, Dan I took the pledge. Not one more fucking dime until the DNC honors their commitments. I'll still vote for them though. As I told my right wing Republican mother," I'd rather my tax dollars go to support some welfare mom pumping out kids than manufacturing bullets to kill someone overseas.

BTW AHND I cheated on every girlfriend I ever had until I got a bisexual one. It was like the heavens opened up and I could finally be honest about my non monogamous ways. I'm now married to a woman who likes woman as much as I do.
Wow, my grammar is sucking. I guess that's what I get for drinking a double vodka tonic and commenting.
People shouldn't make commitments that they are unlikely to keep! Of course, no one is perfect and we all have our own bit of "transgressions" to contend with, but Tiger is a horn dog with women falling out of the wood work. Although, I don't agree that we are all wired to cheat,Tiger clearly is, and probably knew that about himself before he ever got married.
it's not that it's not ok for her to feel that way, it's just not ok for her to feel that way and still expect him to be his whole self in a relationship. it's not ok for him to stay in a relationship that isn't right for him. and it IS shitty of her to not even try, or at least explain what you said above "hey, i've tried it, it's horrible for me and you need to know that i can't ever do that with you. if that means we can't be together, then i'm sorry but it just won't work." they each owe each other that.

incidentally, it's funny this one came up today because i was just thinking earlier today about how i should indulge my partner's anal fetishes more, regardless of my personal distaste for anal. after all, it is his enthusiasm for it that makes it worthwhile and even enjoyable for me.
Why can't SFF go to the girlfriend and say this, "You know I like this one thing (foot fetish), and I know you don't. However, it's really starting to bother me that I don't get to indulge in it. Here's are the options: 1) You let me indulge my fetish once a month/quarter/week/whatever, and I will pay for monthly pedicures for you. Or 2) I get to indulge my fetish by going to someone else (no intercourse involved. It really needs to be one or the other for me because I can't keep on going never having this need met. What can we do about it?" And then the ball is in her court. I would let my husband indulge his foot fetish if it involved a pedicure as often as he gets to indulge. That might be what pushes her "go" button. Try it. I really think it's better than the "my way or highway" approach Dan advised above.
As a woman, I'd like to think this whole "men are scum for cheating" thing is karmic payback for the thousands of years women have been forced to endure being divorced, publicly shamed, or even killed for cheating on their husbands when they were allowed to keep several concubines. Shame on those men for thinking of and treating their wives as property. Karma's a bitch, isn't it?
Come on people, I thought we were all past this stupid "first?" crap. It's lame and just taking up space. If you don't have something relevant to say, don't post!
I'm w/#5. How far does one have to go to be GGG? A foot fetish seems harmless to me but what about, say, a threesome. They're fairly common these days and my BF would probably cry tears of joy if I agreed to one but there's just no fucking way. The idea does less than nothing for me and it would make me feel like complete shit. I just don't have it in me. Otherwise we have lots of great sex and I don't ask him to blow another guy or anything. Is it really fair for someone to ask you to do something repulsive (to you) and you're the bitch if you won't do it?
I'm SO SICK of Tiger Woods! If I want to hear about some creepy sleaze ball's sordid sex life, I'll read Savage Love (which I do, religiously). It's on the news, though! Last Wednesday, on the 11:00 network news, the Tiger Woods nonsense was the LEAD story and occupied the first 7 mins of the broadcast, complete with street interviews and “expert” opinions. The night before's devastating failure of the gay marriage bill in the NYS senate occupied less than 1 min, 15 mins into the broadcast. Obama's decision to send 30,000 more troops into danger in Afghanistan wasn’t even mentioned at all. THIS is why I usually get my news from NPR. Walter Cronkite is turning over in his grave.
Ugh, I can't even watch the news anymore. It's all turned into crap like the Insider. At least the Insider doesn't pretend to be "hard-hitting" and unbiased. Who the hell cares about Tiger Woods? He isn't a religious conservative Republican spouting off anti-gay, pro-family values crap. He cheated on his wife (with several women) and got caught. She flipped out when she found out and went after him with a golf club. Why is that news we need to know about? He didn't smack her or kill and dismember his wife. Why do we need to know if he cheated?
I have to agree with comment 5 above, and I do so not only from imagined sympathy for the hypothetical girl who is turned off by foot-play, but from my own experience as a real live woman. While I am more than happy to indulge my partner if I can, I am completely, utterly, and 100% repulsed by toe-sucking, toes in private places, heel-licking, you name it. My memories of a previous boyfriend's attempts at this behavior still sicken me (not that I think there is anything wrong with it, on the contrary, I think it's absolutely harmless, but it's just not my thing). While I am perfectly comfortable with clean, well manicured, non-stinky feet in an ordinary context (I even give great foot-rubs), feet completely gross me out in a sexual context. If my boyfriend of several years made his foot-fetish a make-it-or-break it issue, I'm afraid it would break it for me because I couldn't stomach it.

Honestly, from what SFF wrote, I believe that the real question is whether SFF wants to remain with his girlfriend, foot-fetish or no. I mean, he is only 23, and he's already been with her for a few years, which means that he was very young when they got together. That doesn't mean that a life partnership is out of the question, of course, but it does make it a lot less unlikely. It's very likely that he feels compelled to sow his wild oats, and if he feels that way, then he should probably do it before he grows bored and resentful. And while his foot-fetish may be very important to him, it may also be a convenient excuse to leave his current relationship. If so, he shouldn't feel bad about it because most people aren't ready to marry the person they started dating at age 20, but he should do what he can to spare his girlfriend's feelings, e.g., tell her he wants to break up because he's not ready to settle down, vs. blaming it on her unwillingness to suck nauseating his toe jam down her throat.

17 - I have to agree with you. There isn't anything that could make the idea of my husband's foot/toe/heel/whatever in my mouth sexy. Kudos for those who like it, and I hope you find people to satisfy your harmless kink, but it's just not for me.

However, it sounds as though his thing is sucking on her toes. Maybe if she had a little incentive (see my previous comment about pedicures above), she might be enticed into trying it. If, however, she is completely repelled by it, perhaps he needs to find fulfillment elsewhere.
I really find it difficult to accept the argument that "monogamy is not natural" and people are simply "wired" to cheat. You've mentioned this quite a bit in your column, and I'm just curious if you are faithful to your own partner and co-Daddy, Dan?
PS - by "you", I was talking about the fetishists, not you-Regina.
re: Tiger Woods. If it's true he only married for publicity reasons, AND if his wife knew and went along with it, then can he really be said to have cheated on her? Then again, if she knew it was fake I guess she'd have no reason to go after him with a golf club? if he fake-married her without her knowing, then he's an even bigger jerk than the typical serial cheater.
19, read the back columns. It's evolutionary science for one -- virtually no animal in monogamus, and humans certainly aren't meant to be.
I bet Dan's faithful in a Savage Love way -- in that he is perfectly honest and GGG with his partner. But really, it ought not matter, because it's his own business.
@4 Actually, I think the violence that apparently entered into their relationship for at least one night is more the reason why this is our business. It's sad that people in 2009 still have the mindset of "if no one wants to press charges, then it's none of our business"

Domestic violence is our business, no matter who is the aggressor.
@5-- There's nothing fundamentally wrong with someone for not wanting her feet played with. What it comes down to in the end is that he wants to be in a relationship that includes X, and she wants to be in a relationship that includes at least as much Not-X. If one or the other isn't going to give, then they're simply incompatible.

Neither of them is a better or worse person for it, but sometimes people aren't right for each other and sometimes it's because of stuff far less important than a fetish. It is possible for two people to decide that a relationship is going to work out without one of them necessarily being 'the bad guy.'
#5, #17, et al...
I actually think that's kind of the point. There is nothing wrong with her absolutely refusing to indulge him in that kink. But she has to acknowledge that, in doing so in the context of a monogamous, heading-towards-marriage relationship, she is basically telling him to accept a lifetime of sexual denial.
And please, no fake-out allusions to what else is on offer, sexually. If he is as sexually connected to feet as he himself states, then citing the all the great head she'll give him is purely diversionary.
In short, if that is her line in the sand (and she has every right to draw one), than they will probably have to just admit they are not going to work out in the long haul. Sad, but better now than in ten years when she catches him beating off with someone else's foot in his mouth.
19 - This column is not about Dan. If it was, it wouldn't be as successful as it is. This isn't "Sex and the City" bull-shit, so he's not going to talk about what he and his husband do, particularly since Terry has told Dan he doesn't like it.
Monogamy *is* natural for some people. Same as being gay, or being poly, or being straight is natural for some people. We're not meant to be all the same. Saying monogamy isn't natural is very judgmental to those of us for whom it comes naturally, and is also just incorrect.
It's like saying because most people are straight, being gay isn't natural. Because most humans are brown, being white isn't natural. Because most human beings have dark eyes, light eyes are unnatural.
Why isn't it simply ok to be wired the way you're wired, an it harm none?
Which goes for both sides of that argument, btw - the non-monogamous can stop smugly telling use how more evolved and truer to their nature they are, and the monogamous can STFU about other people's adult, consensual, honest choices, ffs.
(Can you tell I'm sick of people assuming their way is the "natural" or "best" way for everybody else?)
@5 and similar,

I recall Dan saying some time ago how blowjobs are no longer kinky (were they ever?) and someone refusing a BJ is way outside the norm and sorta strange (and therefore dump-worthy without having to feel shitty for dumping someone for a kink).

Foot fetishism is boring and vanilla. He's not asking her to eat his poo or fuck his dog. It's a foot. It's boring. She can't bring herself to do something as boring as a foot-job every now and then?

She's not evil or mean or anything, but she is refusing to do something that's really barely kinky. Unlike eating poo or fucking a dog, there are a million other chicks out there who would likley be identical to this chick but with the advantage of also being willing to do feet too.

Evolution of sex can be a bitch for those unwilling to change.
I love the discussions about monogamy. It doesn't work for me! :) One of my favorite jokes about the tools I sell (sextoys!) is that it's a safe and cheap way to have that threesome you've been pining for! It's funny to me that some people will are even jealous of TOYS, let alone people in their partner's boudoir. Hell, I have more extra PEOPLE than some people have TOYS!

I just adore having my feet touched. (Note to self, next boytoy will have to love feet.) I only worry about someone wanting to kiss my feet if they're not completely clean. (and no, I don't want to kiss them afterwards!) But if they're clean, they're just another part of me! People can be such germaphobes!
I hate it when you say monogamy is unnatural, Dan. It's probably not the most common orientation, but I'm sure some people out there do not have any interest in sex with someone other than their partner. Your dismissal makes it sound like there is something wrong with these people, and it reminds me of right-wing nuts jobs screaming that homosexuality is unnatural. I wouldn't be surprised if 8% of the population didn't have make an effort to stay monogamous.
She'll break up with the honest foot fetishist and end up marrying the closeted necrophiliac.
@22: "It's evolutionary science for one"

If you look at most higher animals, the inherent urge is to monopolize several partners. The ideal for any one person is the harem, not the free love free-for-all. Unfortunately, every member of my harem has to want to be in a very lopsided relationship, and there's a real shortage of people into that side of things.

Which is what makes monogamy so popular. As awesome as it sounds to have multiple partners, most people are less than happy seeing their partner do the same. It's not for no reason that poly types are seen as manipulative and controlling unicorn hunters, after all.
@22: Funny how "evolutionary science" is used to prop up pretty much any argument these days. It seems to me that all that sexual honesty is really just the new fidelity. Oh, but wait - doesn't "evolutionary science" also tell us that people are hardwired to lie?! Back to square one.
@5, 17, 18--I don't get to experience sorrow, empathy, disgust, or pity the way the vast majority of you primates do. I understand complex human emotions much in the same way a color blind artist must understand color. 'Oh, that particular gray must be blue,' he must think.

The best way I can describe the disquiet I feel realizing that there are people to whom indulgence of such a safe little kink would be a deal-breaker is very similar to the feeling I get when someone gets up to get a beer and I ask them, 'hey, since you're up, would you mind getting one for me?' and they say, 'get it yourself.'

I don't know what you'd call that feeling. But it's not a good feeling.
Tiger Woods was abused. His infidelity is trivial, and a money whore like Elin should have expected it. The real story is spousal abuse. She committed grievous bodily assault on Tiger and is getting away with it. Far from being sent to prison, she is extracting hush money. And the media talks about nothing but Tiger's indiscretions this, Tiger's infidelity that. It's a travesty.
Tiger Woods was abused. His infidelity is trivial, and a money whore like Elin should have expected it. The real story is spousal abuse. She committed grievous bodily assault on Tiger and is getting away with it. Far from being sent to prison, she is extracting hush money. And the media talks about nothing but Tiger's indiscretions this, Tiger's infidelity that. It's a travesty.
To number 5 above.Nobody said she was the bad guy.If she doesn`t like having her feet sucked she should go find a new boy friend who doesn`t want to suck her feet.No one is bad,they are just not a good match.His feeling of being denied and her guilt for denying him will never go away..Why do so mant people waiste their life with the wrong person?
Oops sorry double post.
I won't let my doctor look at my feet. I've never had a pedicure- just the thought makes me queasy. I like anal, oral, you name it but if I had a partner who wanted to worship my feet, I'd be on my way out the door.
I agree with #5 and others. They may be fundamentally incompatible, but it's awfully damn judgmental to decide she's "selfish" without hearing her side of the story. Like, perhaps, the times she'd tried it with other men and it grossed her out.

On the other hand, the guy might be immature and unrealistic. No partner is perfect. It's deciding what imperfections you can live with. If she's wondeful in every way except for her distaste for this one fetish he admits he hasn't explored (and may not survive), he might be throwing out the baby with the proverbial toe-jam annointed water.

@25 - funny you should say that people who aren't willing to put up with their feet being fondled are behind the times. I'm poly, I'm somewhat kinky (yes, real ropes and real floggers), and the idea of someone sucking on any part of my feet skeeves me no end. I'm happy to do it to someone else, funnily enough, but being on the receiving end would be like kissing a 13 year old boy with a wet fish tongue and enough drool to fill a bucket.


So, yeah, let's just stop wildly generalising - sometimes disliking activity X simply means you dislike activity X, not that you have no sexual flexibility or aren't keeping up with the times. (Such a ridiculous assertion, that)
Is it just Dan in here, or did anybody else read the column this week?

All he advised -- in fact, all he ever advises -- is that people discuss their desires in mature, honest language and come to an agreement (even if it's to disagree; i.e., split up, secret mister/ress, etc.).

He didn't hand SFF some magic power club to beat his girlfriend with, obligating her to be a foot freak.

All Dan did was point out the obvious: if it's important to you in bed, you should find someone who loves you enough to respect that, and take it from there. Step #2 is up to you.

Is that too subtle or something? From the comments, you'd think Dan told the kid to do the can-can on his girlfriend's face!
And, by the way, SFF's GF IS selfish for refusing to try it, apparently without explanation. She's also incredibly unimaginative. If they have a chat about sexual fetishes and boundaries, and power dynamics and so on, who knows? She may have a few things she wants to try, too, but has never given any time to thinking about.

That's what makes this comment thread so distressing: most people seem to see thoughtful discussions of sex as threatening or borderline-abusive ("she said no. No means no! Maybe she has tried it before...!"). I mean, project much?

It would be a shame if two young people wasted years of their primes because they couldn't do that fundamental human activity that is: fast, easy, free: talk to one another. That's all Dan advised, BTW.
Thank you, #27. Some people ARE naturally monogamous, and Dan's assertions to the contrary have bugged me for years (although I love his column and agree with him on most things).

When I am with someone, and I am happy (as I have been with my husband for the past 10 years), I feel no desire to go after anyone else. I might notice that someone else is attractive, but that doesn't mean I am motivated or compelled to have sex with them.

Let's face it: for some people, getting together with someone requires a lot of effort, and if you have someone at home that you are happy with, why bother? Bird in the hand and all that. (If you are unhappy or unfullfilled, that's a different story, of course.) And that's why monogamy works for a lot of people -- it's a comfortable combination of love and laziness.
I think the first two letters were written by spoiled brats who need to STFU & count their blessings. The foot fetishist claims his gf is an AMAZING person and they have AMAZING sex, so what is he kvetching about? If his stupid fetish is so freakin important, he should stop wasting her time & look for a woman who's willing to put up w/this nonsense. She deserves better.

The guy who wrote the second letter says he's partnered, a fact that seems to get lost in the actual body of the letter, for heaven's sake. If he's in a relationship, why is even online with others? Does he even spend time w/his so-called partner?

Needless to say, I completely disagree with Dan's advice to both parties. Oh, and btw, #19? Dan said at a book signing that he & Terry have an agreement that they don't have to be faithful when they're not in the same town. This may explain his writing so many books and subsequently going on lengthy book tours.
"blah-de-nine-iron-blah" = genius
I totally agree with 5. If someone isn't interested in doing something, they shouldn't have it forced on them. And threatening to break up unless they do something that makes them feel uncomfortable? That's pretty much emotional blackmail right there.
I really think the people going on and on about how pissed they are that Dan would dare to assert that "monogamy isn't natural" are being a little too sensitive. Monogamy is an act, a decision. Some people are great at it and refrain from fucking other people the entire time they are in relationships. However, there are many more people out there who are not good at it.

Dan has said in his podcasts that they've done studies on animals that have been thought for decades to be monogamous ("hey look everybody, if a bird can do it, it should be easy for people!"). They found little birdy spunk from many different birdies in that little birdy body. That proves that while the birds are not together, they are getting busy with lots of other birds. They just come back to the same nest together.

Like some commenters above said, some people are just so good at being monogamous, that it comes "naturally" to them. That isn't the same thing as saying monogamy is natural for some people. If you ask older couples that have been together for many, many years and they answer honestly, I'd bet there were some indiscretions that happened in their past. Very few relationships are completely untouched by infidelity. It all depends on how well the "unfaithful" one can hide it.
Hey, what about allowing him to worship other people's feet, if she is so against it? There doesn't have to be intercourse. So long as he's only touching/kissing/rubbing/worshipping her feet, I think she can talk herself out of considering it cheating and then they can stay together without her having to be the one whose feet he wants to worship. I mentioned this earlier, but it seems to have been glossed over. There isn't any reason he can't do this one thing (and I highly doubt this is the ONLY thing she won't do with him) with someone else if she is so opposed to it.
btw, what is a "Christian side hug" anyway?
Regarding the "monogamy isn't natural" nonsense, here are three things that also aren't "natural": driving a car, flying an airplane, taking penicillin. Should we stop doing those things because they're "unnatural"? Monogamy in a relationship comes down to simple adult responsibility. If you don't agree, don't waste your partner's time if he/she's into monogamy & you're not.

And since Hanukkah's this week, I wish everyone a Jewish side hug!
Not everybody is "good at being monogamous". Some people just don't particularly want to fuck other people and one does it for them.

You can cry bullshit all you want, but then you can't get angry at all the monogamous couples crying bullshit at happy threesomes.

I guess my point is: different things work for different people, and if you expect the monogamous people to not ridicule non-monogamous people or insist that what they do is unnatural or against their nature then you should perhaps extend the same courtesy to everyone else.

I love savage love, but im kinda sick seeing my (monogamous) lifestyle disparaged while almost every kink under the sun gets the "if it makes you happy" card. For some people, monogamy is their kink and that should be respected, even if its not yours.
I'm shocked @5 and everyone who's expressed agreement! A foot fetish is so easy to negotiate and needn't include toe-sucking or foot-licking if that skeeves the girlfriend out. How much to you want to bet that she's had a pedicure? I bet her foot-fetishist boyfriend could paint her toenails or give her a foot massage while she reads a magazine and it would be fulfilling his fetish. We should ALL be so lucky.
Having my feet admired verbally, while I wear high heels makes me feel gorgeous, which is a good start to some great sex; having my toes licked or sucked does nothing for me, but it seems to make my boyfriend happy, and that makes me happy, both emotionally and a bit later, sexually. It's a fairly easy desire to accommodate. And now it's beginning to be more erotic for me because the associations of the overall context of the sex that specific act occurs in have been so pleasurable. But it wasn't easy for me to initially go with it. I didn't feel repulsed so much as self-conscious and foolish. But it meant something important to my bf, so I tried it for his sake. If I had absolutely hated it, after giving it a shot, I would have told him, and I like to think we would have tried a compromise--but I don't hate it.

If it isn't absolutely horrifying to you, I think you should try to please your partner, and at at least see if you can get satisfaction from knowing that you are turning him/her on.

Since Hanukkah's coming up, here's wishing everyone a Jewish side hug!
to Nikki in MN:…

I get to fly back to MN this afternoon. Wish me luck.
i can't help wondering how SFF has approached this with his GF. How you talk to someone and persuade someone to try something like this has a big influence on how you feel about trying something, and if you decide to be GGG, how you feel about the act itself. Case in point with me and anal. my first BF was mad to try it, but his method of persuading me ( telling me that women inporn mags did it leading up to what amounted to bribary/blackmail in the end with no real consideration of making it sensuous for me, orgetting me over the inherant, it's dirty, painful, i'm not that kind of girl issues) left alot to be desired, and when I eventually gave in it was a painful,upsetting and degrading experience which I swore never to repeat. Until the guy i'm with now came along.. he made it sexy and put no pressure on me, starting just stroking down there when going down on me, then on to fingers, mutual fantasies, alot of reassurance, patience, and when we actually tried it, when i was totally ready, alot of lube.. ;0) and you know what, i love it now (and would love to bump into BF no.1 and rub that in his face - it didn't end well.. ;0) ) so I guess, the message is, with a little patience, maturity (they're both young by the sounds of it and the confidence to try new things may come with age) and by approaching it very slowly and carefully with definitely no pressure minds can be changed and if you can make it sexy for her in anyway rather than just begging then she might come to love a little foot worship :0)
@7: "BTW AHND I cheated on every girlfriend I ever had until I got a bisexual one. It was like the heavens opened up and I could finally be honest about my non monogamous ways. I'm now married to a woman who likes woman as much as I do."

Huh. I guess I didn't get the memo, because I didn't know bisexuality automatically equates non-monogamy. I'm pretty sure there are a fair number of bisexuals out there who like having one partner at a time too. I'm also fairly certain that a lot of straight/gay couples are happily openly fucking pieces on the side.

Good job on implicitly blaming your cheating ways on your girlfriends though. "God, she only likes to fuck men! That means I can't talk to her or have an open relationship. Must ... LIE!"

Thank God you're married. Now no other woman has to deal with your asshole ways.
Yes, people are "wired" to sleep with more than one person. We are also "wired" to pee when our bladders get full, no matter the time or place, but we can learn to hold it. I fear that this non-monogamous movement is just an excuse for people to declare themselves hopelessly horny and try to make people who want commitment look like controlling bitches. Monogamy isn't easy, but it's possible. And sex, even anonymous drunken bar sex, fosters intimacy. Some people feel that that sort of intimacy should be reserved for one's partner. Fantasize all you want, face away from (or the back of) your partner, squeeze your eyes shut, and do your damnedest to imagine someone else. Collect a wide variety of sex toys and name them after your favorite stage and screen stars, or even that hotty at work. But maybe you could try to demonstrate your commitment by NOT actually going out and hooking up. It's not THAT hard. Even the non-monogamous spend 99% of their time NOT having sex with other people, just skip it that last 1% of the time too.

But even if you choose an open relationship, or non-monogamy, or peeing on furniture or whatever, don't try to make the monogamous folks out here, or the house trained ones, look like crap for "denying" who they really are.
Thanks for the vid, zenbeatnik. Good luck getting here with no delays! Gotta love winter in MN - it's the best 7 months of the year.

That's so dumb! I, personally, have hugged many, many people and have never touched crotch areas with any of them. You can hug without "accidentally touching crotches," for Pete's sake! That's just so silly. A hug, to me and many others, is not a sexual thing.

The only time a "side hug" is not completely silly is when you're posing for a picture.
It is amusing to read the various versions of the following:

"I have the Thrusting Reeses Monkeys circus show and thong-clad muscle boys in every seven-way I participate in at my uncle's house, but you monogamy people, you guys are really delusional about how unnatural your professed sexual preferences."
and what about a "side hug" makes it inherently Christian? The person giving the hug? A really stupid "rap" video done by a bunch of wannabe thuggin' white boys? Lord help me, I really hope this crap doesn't catch on. I'm with the girl in the video link; if someone came up to me and tried giving me a "side hug", I'd be a little weirded out and wonder, dude, what the hell?

Ah, the internet just gives people more ways to show the world just how dumb they really are.
59 - I may be mistaken, but I don't think that's the argument the "monogamy isn't natural" people are trying to present.

It isn't about denying who you are and whatnot. For me, it is about acknowledging that monogamy is a choice, not an inherent feature of being human. Monogamy is about refraining from sleeping with other people. People in monogamous relationships refrain from cheating in deference to their partner's feelings. Some people are great at it, and I applaud those who are and to whom it comes easily. To others, it is a struggle to keep from acting on their impulses to sleep with any easy piece of ass offered up to them.

If it comes easily for you, great! Just don't get all uppity when others aren't as great as staying on the monogamy wagon as you are. We're not saying you're "denying who you are" by being monogamous (I happen to be successfully monogamous myself, in point of fact), only that you're better at sticking to you choice to be monogamous than some others.
I think it really sucks that people go on Craigs List and make posts with no intention of following through with them. I always support and agree with Dans advice but totally disagree with him telling CAHCF its ok to waste other peoples time for your own personal amusement. Its bullshit. I realize there will always be creepy trollers and pic collecters out there, but I think encouraging it is just stupid.
On feet: I am kinky in many ways, but I totally don't "get" the foot thing. The idea of licking someone else's toes or boots is very nasty to me, as I'm hearing a lot of other people say here, but my experience in the kink community is that *most* people who identify as foot fetishists are the ones who want to be on the giving end, not the recieving end. This guy seems to be the same - he says he wants to do his GF's feet, not the other way around. Maybe recieving a toe licking would be too gross for some, but that's not the only option. What kind of person says no to a foot massage? I wish I had a foot fetishist in my life so I could get a happy foot massage every day. Somehow, this seems to fall into the category often pronounced by non-GGG partners: "X would be fine if only you weren't TURNED ON by it. EEeewww!"

On monogamy: Saying monogamy isn't natural isn't the same as saying it's wrong or inferior. A desire to perform toe licking isn't natural either, but there's nothing wrong with it. When Dan says monogamy isn't natural, he's not saying it's bad to be monogamous if that's what you want to do. He's saying it's bad to assume monogamy to apply to all until proven otherwise, because that is not what our natural instincts and biology suggest. Maybe there is a small percentage of the population that truly wants to be monogamous and finds it easy, but that does not mean that they are instinctually, naturally monogamous. I have yet to meet a person for whom biological drives are non-existant. The desire to be monogamous, and the ease with which one practices monogamy, probably have more to do with social conditioning, upbringing and individual personality than what is natural to our instincts. Monogamous people might want to stay with one partner and be faithful, and some of them may find it comes easily. But if a monogamous person ever finds themselves dreaming or fantasizing about someone else, or feeling attracted to someone else, that's their natural instinct coming it. They may find it easy to say no to that instinct, but if it exists, that's telling you what's natural. Your body and your biology occassionally crave a piece on the side, even if your higher mind finds the idea laughable.

But regardless of whether you agree with the above statements, the bottom line is that even if monogamy isn't the norm in the Savage Love column, it's still the norm in society, and monogamous folks bitching that this column picks on them too much strike me much the same as Christians who whine about being a persecuted minority.

#52: 'We are also "wired" to pee when our bladders get full, no matter the time or place, but we can learn to hold it.'

Have to disagree there. There are many, many animals that don't just "let it go" whenever and wherever, but will hold it to do it in a particular spot. Even hamsters will pee in the same corner of their cage every time. Are humans less capable than that?
@58 - I took your impression about @7's comment ("BTW AHND I cheated on every girlfriend I ever had until I got a bisexual one. It was like the heavens opened up and I could finally be honest about my non monogamous ways. I'm now married to a woman who likes woman as much as I do.") the same way you did at first.

But then I considered that maybe he just didn't elaborate enough, and perhaps he meant that they do 3-ways? Or perhaps she, too, wants the opportunity to have 2-ways with other women?

But yes, your point is well taken: just because someone is bi doesn't mean that they can't be monogamous. Just like if a guy likes red heads and brunettes, he'll automatically be driven to cheat if he can't marry both.
I'm monoamorous (one "relationship" partner) but polygamous (many sex partners).

This is much more "natural," if anyone wants to talk evolutionary biology.
@12: In response to your statement that we men inherit bad karma from our ancestors' actions:

I offer, with the most sincere affection, a raised middle finger on behalf of black men everywhere.

My grandfather's sins aren't mine, and you gleefully propose that I should suffer for them. Yet I don't ask you to suffer for your great-great-grandparents who owned slaves. I don't ask you to grovel in apology for the fact that your grandparents called mine the N-word, wouldn't let them drink from the white folks' fountain, or whatever they did. And you KNOW they did something.

So you should be very, very careful what you wish for. There's no way you haven't reaped the benefits of someone else's suffering and injustice. That's fine, we all have. Social justice comes from being aware of that and acting on it.

But getting off on the hate-fantasy of making other human beings grovel, people who haven't done anything wrong, just because they're the wrong gender? And then running your mouth off about that fantasy in public? That's got nothing to do with social justice...and it's some SERIOUSLY bad karma.
Christian side hugs...…

Wow, now that is some kinky shit.
Tiger appears to be a sex addict... not a run of the mill human who may find it tricky to not be attracted to someone else everyone once in a while... but someone whose ego and self esteem lend itself to hurtful, destructive behavior.
It never ceases to amaze me the large percentage of the public who are idiotic enough to make athletes their role-models. And quite frankly, I would question if Tiger Woods is an athlete in the true sense of the word - the man hits little balls with a stick :-/

Can someone please explain that to me? You are going to put men and women, who are successful simply for having innate (and later honed) physical prowess, as role models for yourselves and children? Why? They aren’t spiritually, morally or intellectually superior in any way shape of form. They just happen to be physically gifted. And while I fully recognize that I can’t do what they do, I would never think to put them on a pedestal for mere physical prowess. It doesn’t make any sense.

I mean take a look at ancient history. Who do we remember? Aristotle, Plato, Tolstoy etc. They are revered for displays of some combination of spiritual, moral or intellectual ability, are they not? Perhaps I am less well educated than I think myself to be, but do we hold any athletes from ancient history in such high regard? I would love to get some information on that, as I am not aware of any.

Tiger Woods doesn’t owe anyone but his family and friends, a bloody thing. Tiger Woods didn’t earn his fortune and fame because of YOU. He earned it because he is gifted at golf. Corporate entities decided to capital on this gift, they presented an image of him to best capitalize on said gift, and now YOU think he owes you anything? The hubris. YOU buy into a corporate manufactured image and then cry foul when all is not what it seems to be? The idiocy.

It won’t happen, but I so hope Tiger Woods would come out and say “Screw you lot, this is my problem; I’ll deal with as I see fit, and the rest of you can plain bugger off”. Bottom line, it is highly unlikely Elin will leave him and even if she did, she signed an iron-clad prenuptial agreement (as declared in the NYT). Infidelity is not the end of the world, and this American pastime of pretending it is, is oh so very childish. Grow up!


Sex addiction is a myth created by our sex-negative culture to pathologize people who won't allow their libidos to be controlled by social proscription. Tiger is a very wealthy and famous man who receives frequent offers for sex from extremely attractive women. He is neither a role model nor a morally bankrupt lecher.... he's just bad at covering his tracks.

Most importantly, he's a fallible person who made some mistakes and is doing his penance on a public stage. He's having a bad month, and the idiots who are uninvolved in his life yet still care about this will find some other shiny object to look at soon enough.
Hey @15 -- what makes you think NPR is any better? Last year I happened to have lunch with one of their reporters (whom I won't name here) and told him I stopped going to them for news when they were all over the story about Anna Nicole Smith's overdose and failed to even mention the introduction of a bill in the House of Reps. to impeach Dick Cheney. He gave me some lame excuse about that story "not having legs" and the public not being interested. That, while polls showed that a majority of the US public supported impeachment if it could be shown that Bush & Cheney lied about the decision to invade Iraq. But hey, why should the public be interested in things NPR won't tell us about?
It seems a fairly unenlightened attitude, from an evolutionary psychology POV, to suggest that men and women basically cheat for the same reasons.
@66: Good point. Maybe I owe Hybrid Vigor an apology. I guess we'll only find out if he clarifies.
Aloha y'all,

Take another dare, and google "no to stupak petition." Sign the petition saying you protect and respect women's legal right to choice, and no health care policy has the right to change that choice!

@66: Although, I gotta say, his comment still rubs me the wrong way in how he says that he couldn't be honest with any of the straight women he dated (he could only "finally be honest" with his bisexual girlfriend).

He could have been honest ... with himself. A straight woman doesn't want you fucking other women? She doesn't want to be in three-ways with you? Dump her. Don't stick around and cheat on her. And he did this at least twice ("every girlfriend I ever had").
I'm pretty sure Dan's use of the term "natural" was not to imply that monogamy is unnatural, or that it doesn't occur, but that it's fallacious to assume that monogamy is the natural state of being for all humans.

Which is true. But god you monogamous people are touchy, maybe you need to get laid.
@72, sex addiction is real, but it's not what people seem to think it is. I was a sex addict for many years and it wasn't about having fun or getting off. Sex was, back in the day, about conquest and power, not about physical sensations, and sometimes the mind reverts the same way you can smell your dead grandma's perfume and for a moment feel like a little kid again. Sex was about seeing if I could get that guy who was out of my league to do me, if I could get the happily married and monogamous guy to cheat with me, if I could score the dude my hotter and skinnier friend was after. It was a way to feel like I was sexy and attractive. Like when normal people collect free drinks or phone numbers, only it somehow didn't work unless there was sex. I think Tiger is in constant need of having his ego stroked, rather than his dick. face it, the dude looks like a human version of Peanut, the Jeff Dunham puppet. ANd his father trained him like a pet monkey until he got rich and bought him a house. He's a great golfer but he's a fugly guy. But, he married a model and now seems to need hot young girls to do him constantly. It's not about natural urges or variety but about needing to be told, and shown, that he's hot and worthy. He's the school nerd trying to get the prom queen, but he has to do it every time he sees a prom queen.
I gotta agree with #5. That's a very reasonable approach. I think we're missing the girl's side of this discussion, and that before we present her a forced choice... do it or else I'll break off the relationship... we should hear exactly what it is that he wants done, and what it means to her to indulge him. For example, does he just want to massage her feet? What the problem?
Or is he demanding that she walk nude except for high heels on his chest while they pose in the front window, and this will replace all the close cuddling sensual activities that SHE prefers... There's a matter of degree here!
chi_type@14-you obviously haven't been reading Dan for very long. I have never heard or read him saying that allowing an extra person into your relationship is required to be GGG. In fact, I know he has said that threesomes or openness are above and beyond the call of duty for a GGG partner, along with poo play (and other stuff I can't remember.)

So many people seem to be getting their panties in a wad over the monogamy statement. I know in many places Dan has said that monogamy is possible, though it's not easy. For those few of you who find it "easy", you're lucky. Many people find it difficult, even when they achieve it.

In evolutionary terms, women are "hard wired" to be more selective, since the consequences for her were much more lasting than for the male. The last half-century or so of effective birth control are not nearly enough to undo the millennia of hard-wiring.

So perhaps it is "easier" for women to be monogamous. That doesn't mean women don't cheat, only that they may find it "easier" to be monogamous than men do because of how we are wired.
People are wired to do all sorts of things. Doesn't mean we should do them.
Hmm, Mr. Savage. Perhaps you've become tainted in your profession, this happens. The entire human population is not wired to cheat. Your extreme generalization is pathetic; but, I realize many humans are also pathetic. And ... your podcast exists for this reason. Cheers.
dear #5 (Fairness goes both ways):

I believe what you're describing is called "Irreconcilable differences." Or, that's what it WILL be called when they hit divorce court.

You know, I haven't had my toes sucked in a long time (because they're stuck in shoes all day... the prep time alone, sheeesh!) but it feels pretty awesome. I think if this young girl made a decision to really give it a try, and not bring all the "if I do this, I'm demeaned" Gloria Allred crap into bed with them, she'd like it. How bout starting in the tub? He could scrub em up, foot massage, oil up her feet and then... foot job? Sounds fine to me.

Oh, and by the way, 57, UK Girlie? That was friggin HOT! I think you should email it to boyfriend #1. But I have a question... how DO you deal with the smell of anal? Anyone?
@82, sure, we shouldn't necessarily do everything we're wired to do. But to either A)deny that we're wired certain ways, or B) pretend it's easy to ignore said wiring are both futile and ignorant.
Aww man. Don't make me google Christian Side Hugs on my work computer...
@87 - here you go- Chrisian Side Hug

According to Stuff Christians Like, there’s no “exact scripture reference” banning normal hugging. But the Side-Hug does significantly lower the “risk of two crotches touching,” which has got to be in the Bible somewhere. Here’s how you do it:

Instead of face to face, you go side to side, putting your arm around the person and your hip against their’s. Still having a hard time mastering it? Pretend you’re taking a photo and you’re both looking at the camera together. The side hug, or A frame as it is also called, is safe for the whole family, friendly and above all holy
Thank you Kevin for your more nuanced response. So for Gloria I'll clarify. I'm 40 years old now and have been a serial monogamist my whole life. I liked being in a relationship but I also liked strange. So yes, I was not honest with my relationships and yes I was an asshole but we're also talking about my 20's. Once I found a bisexual girlfriend WHO DIDN'T MIND SHARING ME, the heavens opened up. I realized that here was a whole different way of approaching a relationship. One in which I could be honest with my significant other and not have to cheat. Completely changed my life and now I'm married to an incredible woman who I can be honest with. BTW I thought it went without saying that just because you're bisexual doesn't mean you're non-monogomous. My bad.
It's not about being "good" at being monogamous, whatever that means. It's about that being my natural state. Why does mentioning that make some people infer some sort of butthurtedness on my part?
My only butthurtedness in this comes from people trying to tell other people what is natural for them is not natural - self-righteous monos spouting off at polys, undeservedly smug polys spouting off at monos - why? It's stupid.
If it's natural for you, if it's what feels right, if it is what comes naturally for you, if it's not hurting anyone, what's not natural about it? Just because someone finds they're not naturally monogamous doesn't mean we don't exist. That's a rather ignorant assumption.
I have to roll my eyes at the overly reactive who assume someone being calmly, but firmly, what they are has anything to do with being overly sensitive. Stop projecting.
I'm pleased and happy for my poly or non-monogamous friends when they find happiness, and I expect the same care from them. *shrugs* For me, when I'm in love, I am not interested in actually having sex with anyone else - or forming the same romantic bond with anyone else - but my partner. It's just not there for me. Why would someone assume that I would only get irritated by people telling me I'm unnatural if I was too sensitive, vs just wanting people to extend to me the same respect I extend to them?
Yep, as a bi woman, I got tired of being told I didn't exist, and I feel the same as a naturally monogamous human. What's wrong with speaking up about other people's strident ignorance?
good (vanilla) discussion!

dan, would love to read your guide to monogomy/ non-monogomy -- say in book form -- with advice for every kink (and successfully mixing every combination of monogomy/non-monogomy tendencies). we need a sensitive how-to guide us these days. potential massive seller and good happy holiday read i say...
With all the tolerance flying around for every motherfucking thing under the sun, why so little tolerance for those who are most happy being monogamous? Do you really not think they're out there because you haven't personally encountered them? I absolutely agree that an awful lot of people aren't happy being monogamous and so should never make commitments to be so; but some people really really are. And I'm tired of the old "we are hardwired to do it" rationale for everything from war to rape to imperialism to horndoginess. We're hardwired to shit in the backyard, but most of us aren't comfortable doing it unless it's our inalienable fetish. Sexuality is a product of culture, the eggheads are saying these days, and monogamy's not being sold by anyone cool. But that doesn't mean it doesn't feel good, and natural, to lots of people
I thought the Christian Side Hug(TM) was to avoid breast-to-chest contact between non-married men and women? My pastor does the side hug with women, not men (he's male).

There was a guy who was a full-frontal hugger, and it made me really uncomfortable, like a type of frottage or something. Kind of like Jim Gaffigan's joke about it being wrong to hug your mother-in-law and say "OOOOoo, that feels SOOO right!"
With everyone commenting about how they'd be disgusted to be on the recieving end of a full-on foot fetish...let me say that I'm in a LTR and I'm a female. I would KILL to be the object of a man's foot fetish. My current guy just isn't into feet-and it sucks. I'll ask him to rub my feet and he'll do it for a little bit, but it never turns sexual. I was with a guy that would suck my toes and it drives me wild. If I could be w/ a guy that was turned on by my feet-and wanted me to get pedis-wow...that would be amazing. It feels SO good. But I agree w/ another poster...the only time it would make me uncomfortable is if my feet weren't squeaky clean. But I'm GGG so if he (or she) was into it, then I am too!
Also, I should've never clicked on the video about Christian side hugs. Now that IS some silly shit. And even worse, its stuck in my head. RRRRRRR (LOL)
Dan's observations on the unnaturalness of monogamy have grown tiresome with time but not nearly as tiresome as the huge emphasis on the Massive Importance of sexsexsex. Or more specifically, the apparent Manifest Destiny of all human beings to have hot perfect sex all the timetimetime.

I'm no prude. I've gone through very kinky phases, fairly slutty phases, monogamous phases, honestly non-monogamous phases and even CPOS phases. I've been in a masturbation "phase" since I was 12. Currently sex with others is not that important to me. It' just sex for god's sake.

On another note... I think the twin conceits of "natural" and "unnatural" are not particularly applicable to beings that have transcended, EVOLVED, as far as humans have beyond the basic life model of stay-alive-and-reproduce. We have that whole existential dilemma to consider:

Philosophy. Philanthropy. Ambition. Integrity. Morality. Ambiguity. Cruelty. Rationality. The ability to produce plastic from natural materials. Awareness of impending doom (death). Hatred. Love. Ennui and so on....

What's natural/unnatural got to do, got to do with it?

My feet are pretty gross right now, so you could persuade me with a pedicure. Good idea, #11!

Maybe she thinks her feet/feet in general are gross. The thought worshiping makes her uncomfortable/confuses her But maybe she should try it, JUST ONCE.

It doesn't matter if foot worshiping is vanilla or kinky. That isn't the point. There could be a myriad of reasons why she isn't into it. So what, you have to feel comfortable doing all things "vanilla"? (what is vanilla, anyway, really?)

But yes. Try it. Let him do it. Once. You may like it :)
I absolutely fucking loathe when people say "monogamy isn't natural". Fuck you. If it weren't natural we wouldn't be doing it and neither would any of the other species of animals who mate for life. Just because some people can't keep their legs crossed doesn't mean it's natural to cheat; it means that they can't keep their dick in their drawers. If people want to be poly or swingers, that's fine, don't care, not my life. But saying that my desire to be with one person forever is unnatural is frankly downright insulting.
Charlie at #59, I'd much rather have my partner go out and fuck other women (and we're happily non-mono, so he does) than go to such great lengths not to focus on the fact that, when he's fucking me, he's fucking ME. Fantasy can be fun, but when you "face away from (or the back of) your partner, squeeze your eyes shut, and do your damnedest to imagine someone else," that doesn't do shit-all to demonstrate your emotional intimacy or your commitment.
Yawgmoth, very few animals actually mate for life, and a lot of the species that we used to think were monogamous actually turn out to be very much not. Cheating is rampant in the animal kingdom and is natural.

Besides, why do you care so much if monogamy is natural or not? Natural doesn't mean good, or moral, or what-not - plenty of bad things are natural, and plenty of good things aren't. If you like monogamy, find a willing partner and go for it.
@96 Racing Turtle, that's about the sexiest thing I've heard in a very long time...