Savage Love

Pervs and Prejudice

Comments

1
So, I guess this is the new column format now? A couple of new letters (one of which is an uninteresting letter about a long ago uninteresting letter) and then a letter we already read the week before in the blog. Just checking.
3
Your response to DIS was right on. I had a friend who used to talk about all the dirty things he would do to a mutual friend if she wasn't married. We laughed about it later with our dicks in each others mouths.
4
Dan, I'm going to Xanadu on the 21st! I wish I'd known about this sooner. I'll have to make a donation on my own.

As to @1 (and @2, so awesome when someone points out they're first!):

That’s the whole point of a blog; a blog is not a finished record. The whole point of a blog is to be an informal record of the stuff that’s going to go into the publication.
5
I don't see any reason that a "Letter of the Day" can't make it into the print column. 'Sides, it's the New Year -- cut our Dan some slack!
7
with respect to the last letter, what I just cannot understand is if the gal finds feet just oh-so gross and disgusting, wouldn't it be a turn off to have to put your partner in that position knowing full well they're not enjoying it? Even if they are faking it, the instigator would know.
My husband hates feet, though I work long hours on my feet and could use some TLC on my soles at night, but he is so grossed out by them I don't ask him to rub them but if I do, I get a hum and a sigh and a half assed foot rub that he ends up hating and in turn makes my feet feel absolutely no better.... so I spend his money on getting pedicures... not that I am implying that this guy spend his girlfriends money on hookers with foot fetishes... but there has to be a limit somewhere
8
Huh, about DIS. His best friend doesn't have to be gay. Maybe he's just not all that interested. Just because DIS thinks his friend should be interested in this woman, for sex, for a relationship, for anything else, doesn't mean that he's interested. "I don't want to deal with the marriage drama" is the kind of excuse people give their friends all the time, when they think their friends should shut up about how they REALLY SHOULD BE INTERESTED in someone they're just...not.
9
Huh, about DIS. His best friend doesn't have to be gay. Maybe he's just not all that interested. Just because DIS thinks his friend should be interested in this woman, for sex, for a relationship, for anything else, doesn't mean that he's interested. "I don't want to deal with the marriage drama" is the kind of excuse people give their friends all the time, when they think their friends should shut up about how they REALLY SHOULD BE INTERESTED in someone they're just...not.
10
OK, perhaps I'm new, but what the hell does "I am a queer lady in my 20s. My boyfriend..." mean???

"Queer lady" leads me to believe a girlfriend would be the problem. Not to quibble, but what the hell is that about?

As to the last letter; we are each responsible for what we agree to do. When my wife and I began dating, I once allowed her to slap my ass purple. I hadn't ever been in a spanking situation before; I wanted to be GGG and I was. It has not happened since. She may enjoy spanking play, but I don't. We have plenty of other kinks we enjoy together that some random thing or another that we don't both enjoy isn't that big of a deal to occasionally forgo or indulge if we both end up happy. THAT is the ultimate point...isn't it?
11
@10 - how about bi? Pretty obvious...
12
#11...Then why did she say "queer"? I'm sorry but I just don't find it that obvious and I can't help to be offended when someone in an obviously straight relationship says "I'm really queer except for this..." BS. Bi is bi and fine, just say so.

So, no, really not "pretty obvious" but thanks.
13
@7:

I hear ya loud & clear. If your hubby is _truly_ GGG, then he should pay for your pedicures.

Just sayin'.
14
@12 For a while now, queer has been used to mean "not straight". What if shes into men and transmen, and their respective original plumbing (penis, vagina). Does that still mean shes bi? No, shes not into women. And being into transguy pussies means she's not exactly straight. So what is she? Queer! That's why its such a useful term. (I am not saying this is her situation, its just a hypothetical to help explain the word usage)
15
@12

Queer is a catch all phrase for "not straight." It doesn't necessarily mean "bi." It could mean her attraction to men and women is not split 50/50. It could mean "pansexual," meaning she likes all genders, including female-to-male transsexuals, genderqueers, or male-to-female transsexuals. Maybe she ONLY likes men and female to male transsexals but NOT women or male-to-female transsexuals.

Queer is a lot easier and more polite to say than, "I'm not straight, but my exact preferences are too convoluted for me to bother explaining and it's none of your business anyway."

Queer people in hetero-relationships never default to straight. Being queer is part of their identity, their politics, and their aesthetic. For all you know, this lady looks like a butch dyke with a boyfriend.
16
@14

*high five*
17
Oh, also, the word "bi" generally erroneously assumes that a true gender binary exists.
18
Ha, right back at you superduperficial.
19
@FLAP: Careful with those age-play stories. Child pornography has different definitions in different places. People have been charged with production for writing fic, and possession for reading it. Just sayin' check your local laws, not sayin' I agree with them.

@10: When did 'queer' come to mean 'homosexual'? Wikipedia says "Queer has traditionally meant odd or unusual, though modern use often pertains to LGBT (gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, intersex and non-normative heterosexual) people..."

In short, I've always taken 'queer' to mean 'either fairly kinky in some way or not completely straight'.
20
And I stand (sit) educated. Apparently, I AM new as it comes to the definition and common usage of the word "queer" was not what I understood it to be.

Thank you for the mostly just wanting to educate as opposed to berate responses. I now get it and thank you.
21
So people keep complaining about Savage recycling letters from his blog, using them as part of the weekly column. Think about it. Most people don't read his blog. This advice column has a huge readership throughout the nation, in a variety of publications. If a letter and his response have a message he really needs to get out there, of course he should put it in the column and not just the blog. He isn't being lazy. He is being smart, and reaching out to his large reader base with his important messages, not just the people who check out his blog every day.
22
According to Bill Bryson's research in the book "Made in America," premarital sex was a Puritan virtue (or at least, no big deal) since "bundling" was apparently a less involved affair than they made it in "The Patriot." Essentially, if the couple liked each other after a night, swell, they got married. Likewise if the girl turned up pregnant. Otherwise, no harm no foul. So weird, but "traditional" in the sense that Puritans have shaped so much of America's warped view of sexuality. Let's hear it for traditional premarital sex!
23
"Xanadu is a great (and sexy) musical"

Now that's perverted!
24
olechka: Our posts were so similar it's scary. I posted mine, then saw yours and was kind of stunned. I swear to god, I didn't plagiarize. ;p

<3,
Queer girl writing from personal experience.
25
@7 I think b/c most people don't find feet so horribly gross, so absolutely disgusting, so completely puke inducing that they couldn't touch feet or have their feet touched. I'm sure there's probably someone out there that is so horribly grossed out by nipples that just can't bear to even look at them let alone suck and caress them without bringing up their lunch but those people are very rare. If SFF's girlfriend is one of the rare people who just absolutely can not stomach her feet even being touched without tossing the ol' cookies then they should probably break up.
26
I'm not so sure DIS's roomate is gay either, just cause he wants no part of a woman who's throwing herself at him. What I'm wondering is why a roomate goes to all the trouble of writing about his buddy's potential squeeze? Either he wins the award for Most Devoted Wingman EVER or something's off. If he thinks she's so awesome, why doesn't DIS go for her himself?
27
BTW, Binky @3 for the win!
28
And about the foot girl... as I recall, it wasn't that she thought feet were gross, just that she thought foot worship was repulsive. She's probably very young... think back to when you were first performed a sexual act you were raised to find repulsive. How many loved fellatio first time out? (Dan, will you weigh in on that one?) This is where being giving and game comes in... she needs to commit to one try to please her man. Have a coupla glasses of wine, wear something sexy (preferably shoes). maybe if she wore a blindfold she'd relax more, feel freer to enjoy, and not locked into the bullshit christian values she was probably saddled with. After that, if she hates it, well, damn it, she gave it the old college try, and he should drop it or move on. That's what the third G is all about.
29
@10, that was my reading of it, too. Queer girl, with a BF? The responses were (mostly) helpful and I learned something.

Living 1500 miles from any liberal metropolitian area means a lot of terminology and styles take longer to get here. Alas, civil rights, too.
30
I completely agree w/#26. Why is this guy even writing this letter in the first place??

It reminds me of the old jokes where a guy talks to a shrink, saying "I have a friend who has this problem..." Uh-huh.
31
As a divorced man, I identify with the guy that doesn't want to be with a woman who's married. Having been through the process of leaving, separating, divorcing and recreating my life, I see it as a political statement that I don't have relationships with women who aren't courageous enough to leave their husbands. Of course, I wouldn't rule out a one-night stand, but I wouldn't start an actual relationship with someone that I actually liked unless they were available to me in every way. (Of course, the writer's "roomate" probably isn't thinking in political terms, he's just worried about social conventions.)

Ever notice how its always "my friend/roomate/cousin" that asks the "why are they such a coward" questions? Just like the "other person" who always calls Car Talk with the question about the Plymouth Reliant!
32
Is there something new going down in the world of foot worship these days that I was unaware of?

Honestly, WTF- last time I had a foot fetish BF it was like having my own personal foot masseur who also got off on it...free awesome foot rubs and a get-out-of-BJs-free-card FTW! woot! It's not he's asking her to sick HIS toes...
33
Nyker, quit busting Dan's nuts.
34
@19: Just one more note about queer - queerness and kinkiness are two separate things.

They can certainly overlap, but generally speaking, being queer is simply about having a non-heterosexual, non-heteronormative sexuality. Being kinky has to do more specifically with what sexual acts interest people. There are many queer non-kinky folk and many kinky non-queer folk. Though as a kinky queer person, I certainly wish that more people were both!

@31: Ten points for the Car Talk reference!

35
Amen. As a christian, it drives me nuts when people dress their homophobia up as "christian" or "traditional" values. Are there some legitimate questions about the relationship of the bible to homosexuality? Sure. But most of those catfuckers are just afraid of what they don't understand/refuse to recognize in themselves.
36
"I get a hum and a sigh and a half assed foot rub that he ends up hating and in turn makes my feet feel absolutely no better"

I guess your frequent, enthusiastic blowjobs done regularly were not enough to convince him to rub your feet afterwards or before. Hmm? What is that? You did not give him a BJ for every footrub?

Ahem. Well. I suppose he could just spend your money on sex workers to get them, right? No biggie.
37
Oh, and guys, ease up on any young teen males who may exhibit some homophobia and anxiety about gays. It is a stage for most heterosexual adolescents to ardently reject homosexuality as part of creating their heterosexual sexual identity.

And being straight, seventeen and having some 43 year old gay guy buffoonishly hit on you for the first time is off-putting for guys, just like it is off-putting for straight teen gals who deal with creepy older dudes. Teens are often just grossed out by that experience, and there is no way around it.

Simply explaining (without drama) to young guys they should moderate any innate revulsion at the idea and not get all worked up about it when it happens. Tell them to treat gays much like uninterested teen women should treat creepy males the teen women do not find attractive: politely, firmly, confidently, and without contempt so long as the initial rebuff is accepted by the pursuer with grace and courtesy. If the pursuer takes things even one fraction of an inch past the courtesy line, threaten to go cop on the predatory fucker, gay or straight.

That is for younger guys only. After the mid-twenties, if a guy is still "dirty faggot" this and "homo cocksucker" that or all about "Yahweh's vengence" when the topic of a gay guy comes up, well, methinks the lady doth protest too much.
38
Having played boy and having played daddy, I think FLAP should tell her partner that the whole concept is turning her on. For all we know, the partner may be thinking the same thing.

But that's not the real reason I am posting a comment. I just want to say that the illustration by Joe Newton made my day!
39
@35 quick question for clarification--so, say I'm into MtF crossdressers who are mostly fetishists as opposed to wanting to take hormones and get breast implants--does that make me kinky or queer?

I will say one thing it makes me is lucky! :)
40
@39 It's 2010, can't you be both? ;)
41
@37 The first time I got hit on by a guy I was 14 and found the experience interesting and rather flattering. It's really not OK for them (young straight dudes) to be freaked out or uncomfortable because as you said, it's the same as being hit on by a girl who they aren't interested in.
42
Are there really any sins committed in fantasizing anything? It's only when crossing that sick fantasy over into reality that it becomes sick and wrong.

I guess the public perception is that if people fantasize something or someone or some act, they really want that thing, that person, that act to actually happen. And in some cases maybe he or she does. But if he/she doesn't follow it through to fruition, the only thing that person may be guilty of, then, is possibly being a Triple-A creep.

On another note, happy new year to you and yours, Dan!
43
Are there really any sins committed in fantasizing anything? It's only when crossing that sick fantasy over into reality that it becomes sick and wrong.

I guess the public perception is that if people fantasize something or someone or some act, they really want that thing, that person, that act to actually happen. And in some cases maybe he or she does. But if he/she doesn't follow it through to fruition, the only thing that person may be guilty of, then, is possibly being a Triple-A creep.

On another note, happy new year to you and yours, Dan!
44
Are there really any sins committed in fantasizing anything? It's only when crossing that sick fantasy over into reality that it becomes sick and wrong.

I guess the public perception is that if people fantasize something or someone or some act, they really want that thing, that person, that act to actually happen. And in some cases maybe he or she does. But if he/she doesn't follow it through to fruition, the only thing that person may be guilty of, then, is possibly being a Triple-A creep.

On another note, happy new year to you and yours, Dan!
45
Server issue today? Pardonnez-moi for the triple post!
46
"People have been charged with production [of child pornography] for writing fic, and possession for reading it."

In the United States? I find it unlikely that survived an attorney's first mention of the First Amendment. Hell, the Supreme Court even protects the production and possession of sexual depictions of children that are made digitally, so long as no actual children were involved in the production. The one thing you CAN'T do is to either offer or ask for real child porn (this is considered pandering and is not constitutionally protected), even if what you end up giving or being given is the computer-generated fake stuff.
47
Re: the foot fetish guy, it wasn't that his desire to worship her feet outweighed her desire to not have it done. It was that she refused to try it, & the status quo was that her preferences were the *only* deciding factor. That's not a compromise.
48
I stand by the right of anyone to self-identify as "queer" for almost any reason, as long as they do so with the understanding that at present, most people consider it a synonym for "bi or gay".

What I was actually more curious about is why this was mentioned at all in such a short letter, given that it didn't really have any bearing on the question.

For example, starting the question like:
"I am a married lady in my 20s." would imply that Dan ought to consider the fact that she's married and the duration of the marriage when answering the question.

But stating that you're queer in this context would be like stating your Judiasm while asking for advice on interpreting the New Testament - irrelevent at best, but more likely unnecessarily confusing.
49
Bauhaus I, The Stranger is now using a third-party company for its reader comments feature. If your comment doesn't show up right away, don't re-post it. Chances are, if you refresh the comments page after a couple of minutes, your comment will be there.
50
#37, defining heterosexuality as "rejecting homosexuality" is just as problematic as defining masculinity as "rejecting femininity." Straight teenage boys shouldn't be given a free pass to behave hatefully towards gays just because they're creating their own identity. Teenagers of all genders and sexualities need to learn to build themselves up without tearing other people down.
51
@49 - Thanks!

But when I would try to post, it would time out and I'd get the message "internal server error - please try again later." So, I did. Apologies!
52
Yeah, that server error pops up more often than it used to, Bauhaus. It's usually a false alarm, though. Ah, the mysteries of the Internet!
53
Re: the foot fetishist:

The thing about uneven sexual urges between couples is that things tend to default on the LOWER side: i.e. if one person wants sex all the time and the other rarely wants it, the couple will RARELY have sex. If one person wants foot worship and the other doesn't, the couple just won't incorporate footplay into their sex life.

So basically, the more prudish/less sexual person gets everything THEY want while the other person goes unfulfilled. And how is that fair? Plus, the original letter made it sound as though this girl flat-out REFUSED to even try to indulge her boy. No reason, no discussion, just "Yeah...I know this act is an integral part of sex for you, but you'll have to do without it."

And for those people who say "Well, he needs to grow up and put his silly fetish aside for the sake of his great relationship": 1) you clearly have no fetishes and have NO idea what it's like. For me - and many others - kink is an integral part of sex. Imagine finding a partner who's emotionally compatible with you and will do any sex act you want EXCEPT KISSING ON THE MOUTH. That's right: no kissing, ever. Sound a little unfulfilling? Maybe a bit of an intimacy-killer? Now you know how I feel when some boy railroads me into being vanilla. 2) Is it a "great" relationship when your partner won't even TRY to give you what you need?
54
...and why do so many people think that being an adult inherently means giving up all the things you like, anyway? That's just...sad.

Yeah, growing up means being responsible, keeping your promises, etc. It should NOT mean putting aside fundamental parts of your personality. It should NOT mean "settling down" with someone who doesn't fulfill you just because society says everyone is supposed to settle down. Dammit.
55
@46: I can't comment on the position in the US, as I'm down in Australia. We have laws against "actual or simulated representations" of children in a sexualized context. When the law came in, a number of lawyers opined publicly that written representation was a matter of interpretation of the law, and it will be up to test cases over whether you could be thrown in jail for writing/reading it. AFAIK the law hasn't been tested to that extent. I believe, even when it comes to images, we have some kind of line between "art/reporting/just-a-photo" and "sexualized", so Lolita is fine, but something written primary to titillate may fall foul of the law.

This whole issue came up big-time in the LiveJournal community some time ago, and people dug up examples in some parts of the world of people being charged and found guilty of writing about under-age sex.

Dan's mentioned before that his letters don't come exclusively from the US. Thus, "check your local laws".

Regarding queer, maybe it's a geographic/community thing, but I've definitely heard the BDSM community referred to as 'queer'. I understand that the LGBT community has "re-claimed" the term, and people may assume that usage, particularly in a sexual context.
56
While we are on the subject of kink... is there a word for someone whose fetish is fetishes?
I don't have any kinks of my own, and I can find vanilla sex perfectly fun and enjoyable, but nothing turns me on more than a guy I am with saying, "Hey, I know this is crazy, but would you mind...?" I just like kinky guys, and it really doesn't matter what the kink is. Is this common?
57
Tangential question: why does LW #2 care so much who his friend dates or doesn't, that he actually writes to Savage Love about it? Dude, get a life.
58
Um, Dan, news flash: for 20- to 30-somethings in relatively liberal urban areas (like Seattle), "traditional values" means "waiting more than three dates for sex," or more generally, "not having sex with anyone you're not in a committed (monogamous) relationship with." Most of my friends are married or engaged, and all of them cohabited before getting engaged. I consider this normal, and I wouldn't want to get married to a woman I hadn't lived with for at least a few months (and had sex with, obviously) - but I wouldn't touch a married woman either, or one who was still technically in any kind of relationship. This doesn't make me gay, it's simply "conservative" (meaning "cautious", not "right-wing nutjob"), and, for me at least, it's just common sense - I create enough stupid drama for myself already without getting involved in other couples' messy personal lives.
59
One thing nobody has mentioned --

Personally, I have no problem with foot fetishes and don't find them gross, and I enjoy rubbing my SO's feet. Unfortunately, my own feet are so ticklish that any extended touching of them makes me hyperventilate. A partner tried to suck my toes one time and, um, I involuntarily kicked her in the face. >_> I'm not proud of that.

So there are totally valid reasons for being unwilling to play along with a foot fetish. Of course, if the guy just wanted to buy me sexy shoes and parade me around in them, I'd be totally okay with that. :D
60
Dan, you're kind of a dick sometimes who writes things more for entertainment value and your own personal vendettas than for trying to help people out. Ok. All the time.
61
Yeah, what #26 said.
DIS is so concerned about this situation that has zero to do with him that he wrote to Dan?

And I also agree that it is possible that his friend (assuming there is such a friend) simply isn't all that into women who can't quite finish one relationship before chasing down the next one. It's not the overwhelming response from most males, but yes, there are guys out there who find that unappealing.
62
What is "not too much to ask" for one person is entirely too much to ask for another. And I personally know a small handful of people out of my circle of friends who find the mere concept of anyone doing anything with their feet revolting, and is right next to being asked to fuck a dead deer carcass. I think Dan forgets that just because it's common and/or benign sounding doesn't mean that it's not disgusting to just as many people. Respect for wanting to do X and respect for not wanting to do X should be equal.
63
I would like to fuck married women exclusively. I have traditional values...married women fuck the best!

Pamela River--quit plugging your shitty blog!
64
@62: Fair point about equal respect for wanting to vs NOT wanting to. The problem is that often a person doesn't "REALLY NOT want to do X", they just don't really want to do X because it's effort with little reward as they see it. X doesn't disgust them, but it doesn't do it for them either, and so the person is acting selfishly by refusing (assuming their partner isn't similarly selfish, in which case they deserve each other).

Let's divide it into three:
1. Likes the idea of X
2. Doesn't particularly like or dislike X
3. Is repelled by X

1 and 3 deserve equal 'respect'. People sitting at 2 who pretend to be 3 to get out of making the effort for their lover deserve DTMFA status.

Commence wild speculation:
I suspect Dan leans towards assuming 2 over 3 because he sees so much HONEST not-making-the-effort ("I'm a 3 on this one but I still won't do it for you") that he thinks it's a safe assumption that there's also lots of DISHONEST not-making-the-effort.
65
I vote for premarital sex being a traditional value.

Long story, but I was a good girl and I was going to stay a good girl until I got married.
Almost made it too. Did it with him a month before we were married. We had been engaged for five month, big wedding in final plans.
Too late for him to back out.

I wish he had.

Now I'm a single mom, and my oldest is 14.

I don't want her to be a virgin on her wedding night. When she's an adult, I want her to have premarital sex.
I want her to marry for love.
I don't want her to get married to a guy who will marry her because he can't get into her pants any other way.
66
Queer means that I don't need to identify. Labels are only useful if they are soft and absorbant and don't clog the plumbing. Queer is an un-label: a means of establishing solidarity without having to exactly where you stand on the slot and tab issues that are so interesting to straights (homos and hetros included..).
67
"without having to SAY exactly"...oops..
68
@39, 55, 66 - the core point I wanted to make about "queer" in response to a much earlier comment is that people who identify as queer and people who identify as kinky both DO and DON'T overlap. Folks who identify as queer should not be assumed to be into non-vanilla sex; folks who identify as kinky should not be assumed to be non-straight. I generally use queer the way 66 does.

@39, I could say you're queer because of your interests in people with a non-heteronormative gender expression, and I could say you're kinky because their gender expression difference presents as a fetish as opposed to an identity. But at the end of the day, you alone have the right to label or NOT label yourself how you see fit, and as for me, I would indeed just call you lucky. :)
69
DIS's friend doesn't seem gay. I would run for the hills, too, if a married co-worker reveals they haven't had sex for a year. Nothing worse than a horny co-worker that likes to share that information. And doesn't mind this information being shared with the universe.

This woman is doing the pursuing. Most woman don't do that kind of thing. Unless this DIS is very wealthy.

This is improbable but maybe DIS is being 'played'. Maybe she's got her 'soon to be ex-husband's' permission to start a relationship so they can take his money.

I've heard of this type of thing happening. Not saying this is what's going on with DIS but it would be wise of him to be on his guard.
70
I just listened to the last podcast (before today) and had to comment on the reply to the question about guys "adjusting" themselves. It has NOTHING to do with underwear type or size of the apendage! It has to do with the macho "I've got a penis, too!" attitude. If you will notice, this behavior seems to be a lot more prevalent in the hip-hop crowd. It's like they have to constantly reassure themselves that it's still there, especially when in a group of other men. I am a gay man, I'm generously endowed and I wear tight-whitey's, and I rarely need to "adjust". It seems me that it has become more of a habit than anything to a lot of guys. It's really gross, too, I must agree.
71
Letter 1: Are we really sure "queer lady" is female? Plenty of effeminate gay males refer to themselves and others as ladies. No rule that only women can fantasize about underage girls with older men.

Letter 2: I don't give a rip about self-described "traditional values" or the dangers of rebounds. Adults can label themselves any way they want and choose whether or not to take emotional risks. But as to getting involved with someone in the "process of separating," as a divorce lawyer I can say with some authority that when either party to a divorce gets involved with someone else prior to BOTH spouses being completely emotionally separated, it often makes the divorce much more difficult, expensive and stressful to everybody, including the spouses, their friends, family and lovers. Also, people going through the divorce process, until they have dealt with all the associated emotional issues, are prone to make dubious personal decisions that effect themselves and others.
72
Letter 1: Are we really sure "queer lady" is female? Plenty of effeminate gay males refer to themselves and others as ladies. No rule that only women can fantasize about underage girls with older men.

Letter 2: I don't give a rip about self-described "traditional values" or the dangers of rebounds. Adults can label themselves any way they want and choose whether or not to take emotional risks. But as to getting involved with someone in the "process of separating," as a divorce lawyer I can say with some authority that when either party to a divorce gets involved with someone else prior to BOTH spouses being completely emotionally separated, it often makes the divorce much more difficult, expensive and stressful to everybody, including the spouses, their friends, family and lovers. Also, people going through the divorce process, until they have dealt with all the associated emotional issues, are prone to make dubious personal decisions that effect themselves and others.
73
Letter 1: Are we really sure "queer lady" is female? Plenty of effeminate gay males refer to themselves and others as ladies. No rule that only women can fantasize about underage girls with older men.

Letter 2: I don't give a rip about self-described "traditional values" or the dangers of rebounds. Adults can label themselves any way they want and choose whether or not to take emotional risks. But as to getting involved with someone in the "process of separating," as a divorce lawyer I can say with some authority that when either party to a divorce gets involved with someone else prior to BOTH spouses being completely emotionally separated, it often makes the divorce much more difficult, expensive and stressful to everybody, including the spouses, their friends, family and lovers. Also, people going through the divorce process, until they have dealt with all the associated emotional issues, are prone to make dubious personal decisions that effect themselves and others.
74
AAARRRG!
I have no idea why my comment just posted 3x. Sorry. Hope someone can delete a couple of them.
75
Has an arbiter been appointed who gets to decide what "traditional" means? Whose traditions will that person canonize? The traditions of the LGBT community? The traditions of the Vatican? The traditions of the Inuits?
76
@ #46 -- in Canada that would definitely be considered obscenity.
77
Regarding 46's "the Supreme Court even protects the production and possession of sexual depictions of children that are made digitally, so long as no actual children were involved in the production" from an Australian perspective:

Australia bans any simulated images of children in a sexual context (treating it identically under the law to actual child pornography), arguing that the simulated stuff will lead some people to produce actual stuff for the more hard-core consumers (and various similar arguments), thus leading to child abuse. The flip side is that the simulated stuff may help to satisfy some of the demand, meaning there is LESS demand for the actual stuff and thus, fewer children abused.

On the face of it (to me), both arguments have their merits, and I leave it to those with more information than me to be the arbiters. I guess the US's arbiters disagreed with Australia's, or else they agreed but that double-edged constitution over-ruled them.
78
@70:

I agree. And I'm sick of women who flaunt their boobs all the time, with plunging decolletages. Especially on FOXNoise!
79
PGofHSM protection of free speech continues to remain in flux in the United States when it comes to depictions of child pronography, even when it comes to those that don't involve actual children (exempli gratia, literature, drawings or renders using Poser, Make Human or any of a number of other rendering engines for creating figure art). While the US Supreme Court dismissed the CPPA of 1996, this led to a surge of child porn photography digitally rendered to appear as artwork and US Congress responded by adding restrictions to the PROTECT Act of 2003.

Sadly, this led to the persecution of aficionados of extreme art, including Christopher Handley, a manga enthusiast of whose massive collection a small percentage was hentai, and of that segment, a small percentage was lolicon (for which there is a huge market in, and output from Japan). The court case was highly politicized and thanks in some part to some poor procedural maneuverings and despite efforts from the Comic Book Legal Defense Fund, Handley is serving fifteen years for the art in his collection.

This has set a precedent that possession of any depiction of underage sex, including a scene in Neil Gaiman's Sandman sequence Doll's House and the entirety of Lost Girls by Allan Moore may be subject to jail time. More recent news seems to imply things are getting worse.
80
Crap. I hit the wrong button.

Pornography. Pronogaphy is something else, but I don't know what.
81
@79, or whomever - if the erotica in question depicts AGE PLAY (which is what FLAP was reading), not child pornography, how could it possibly be illegal? there is an enormous difference between scenes of adults being treated like children or teens and actual scenes featuring children or teens, is there not? age play porn is not child pornography.
82
whateverwhatever, the fiction to which FLAP was referring featured, diegetically, underage girls with older men which constitutes literary porn that involves minors. you're right about this being out of the jurisdiction of the PROTECT Act of 2003.

I do know that through the late '90s literary porn featuring minors could not be published. But this doesn't prevent it from being written and distributed freely (and rampantly) over the internet. I also don't know that this has changed or was even addressed by ACLU v. Ashcroft, 2002

But my previous post was addressing PGofHSM's comments about digital creations being protected as free speech. They should be but aren't.

As an occasional age-player, myself I agree with you that there's a vast difference between those who roleplay pedophilic situations and those who seek to sexually assault children. I'd also go as far as differentiating:

~ pedophilia vs. ephebophilia (the latter being an interest in post-pubescent minors i.e. breedable teens, and not regarded as a paraphilia)
~ child fetishism (i.e. lolicon consumption) vs. clinical pedophilia as defined by the DSM IV vs. child sexual abuse.
~ art that should be protected by free speech, vs. media the production of which involves the abuse of minors.

Many segments of our society, including the media and the law, sometimes have difficulty telling these things apart.

And I tend to jump onto soapboxes about it.
83
#53, perverse cowgirl, what's your kink? Oh, please tell me!
84
#70,

Saying comfort has NOTHING to do with it is a pretty big assumption for one man to make simply because he doesn't do it and has a seems to have a hard-on, figuratively speaking, for hating the behavior.

I wear boxers and am averagely sized, my buddy wears boxer briefs and is a tripod. We both occasionally have to adjust for similar reasons. Sometimes, when getting an erection at watching that cute redheaded girl in the mall, or thinking about that cute redheaded girl, or because your body is bored and just felt like it, things get a little tight and a bit of pants-Tetris needs to be done to shunt the little (or medium, or big) bugger down one side or the other of those infernal bifurcated leg coverings mainstream society still wants us men to wear (Ah sarongs...fashionable and comfy...).

Another reason is when I wear a particularly loose set of boxers, or should my friends third leg try to occupy the same sleeve of his boxer-briefs as one of his more standard limbs, the skin of the penis can kind of stick to the skin of the inner thigh, and that just feels kind of weird. You just have to separate them like two rowdy kids on a playground.

There see? Possibilities beyond hip-hop inspired machismo do exist. Fantastic!
85
I really love your responses to this week's questions. I 100% agree with what you said to #1 and #2.
86
@65 : agreed, only... I vote for premarital mind-blowing sex.

Girls need to know that dull sex is not the only kind of sex available, and that they don't have to settle with mediocrity. Young males are seldom good lovers, and some have no interest in learning how to pleasure their partner - as long as they get laid.

I had premarital sex all right, with several boyfriends. Then I married. And for 10 years, I was a wife "with a low sex-drive". I felt very guilty. He would initiate sex and I would have no envy whatsoever, but I would do it at least once a month to keep him happy. He complained that I didn't seem to enjoy it, so it was less fun for him. He told me I was frigid. He cheated on me, then we divorced.

Then I met a man whom I thought would just be a fling. The first sexual encounter, he touched me and licked me all over and I had the first orgasm of my life at 35 - without penetration. Guess what, with a good partner, I too do get an orgasm !

Of course, the jerk of an ex would never go down on me (woman genitals, yuck), it was always down to his routine of "No preliminaries, I penetrate, I pound, I ejaculate, did you like it ? You must be frigid, I loved it !"

Now I'm having loads of fire-hot sex with my beloved rebound (thanks for showing us some love Dan), including oral each and every time, for both - and it's been going on for more than a year.

I really pity the poor girl that now beds the jerk.
87
Getting REAL annoying. Are you getting, Dan, that no one wants to wait all week for your new column only to find out that 1/3 of it is old news? It seems you are getting lazy and taking the easy way out, and frankly it's insulting to your dedicated, regular fans. You are punishing loyalty and rewarding the occasional asshole that stumbles across your column but has never read your blog before. If you think your readers love you so much that they won't turn fickle, think again... better put some effort in.
88
Getting REAL annoying. Are you getting, Dan, that no one wants to wait all week for your new column only to find out that 1/3 of it is old news? It seems you are getting lazy and taking the easy way out, and frankly it's insulting to your dedicated, regular fans. You are punishing loyalty and rewarding the occasional asshole that stumbles across your column but has never read your blog before. If you think your readers love you so much that they won't turn fickle, think again... better put some effort in.
89
In fact... just realized I didn't even finish this one. As soon as I hit the repeat, I jumped down here to express my extreme annoyance. Now I'm off to watch a movie and drink a beer.
90
@21: Wrong. Smart would be adding a FOURTH letter to the end with a teaser about his blog, saying it came from there. What he's doing is just plain fucking irritating.
91
86/sissoucat: I had premarital sex all right, with several boyfriends. Then I married. And for 10 years, I was a wife "with a low sex-drive". . . He told me I was frigid. He cheated on me, then we divorced.

Of course, the jerk of an ex would never go down on me (woman genitals, yuck), it was always down to his routine of "No preliminaries, I penetrate, I pound, I ejaculate, did you like it ? You must be frigid, I loved it !"


I'm glad you're no longer with your ex and are now with a guy who loves to please you but, out of curiosity, why did you marry this guy in the first place when he sounds so sexually selfish? You said that you had premarital sex with several boyfriends...was he not one of them?

92
I wish those of you who don't care for how Dan recycles letters would write directly to him about it, instead of boring the rest of us repeatedly in the comments section. Dan reads his e-mail regularly. These comments, not so much, if at all.
93
@92: If you're bored, no one is putting a gun to your head and making you read them. And if you listened to his podcasts you'd know that he does read the comment section.
94
@56 Fannerz- I don't know the name for a "fetish fetish", but I have it too! I mean, I have a few favorites I like to try out regulary, but my biggest fetish is other fetishists. One thing I cant stand is a partner with no fetish of their own (good thing my husband is kinky, yes?). I love those magic words of "well, don't laugh, but would you be willing to...?" Someone should come up with a name for us...
About DIS- there could be tons of reasons both of them aren't into this chick. Maybe DIS isn't chasing down the girl for himself is 1) She's only into his friend, not him 2) DIS is married, partnered, etc (I don't think it stated that the letter writer was single- just that the friend was) or ever 3) the letter writer (DIS) isn't interested in women, but the friend is. His friend might be gay (Dan and his wishfull thinking... *grin*), or he might be trying to avoid drama. Or he might be using the drama as an easy to explain reason when she's realy just not his type. Or he thinks she's too agressive. Or he doesn't date coworkers. Or hes after someone else already. Or he saw her with something gross in her teeth once and now he can't get the image out of his head..... could be anything. *grin*
95
Yech- bad typo day. Sorry all- hard to type with a kitten on my lap...
96
If the 'co-worker with traditional values' sounds like a blind, I notice that Dan saw through it, did not give a whatever, and answered it well and added a bit of his own POV on larger issues of sexual honesty. I thought he aced it and made excellent use of it as received.

And we have lots of fiction in our lives. Some of us publish it, some do not, some sign it with their real names, some make up 'good friends' to do their living for them. That's human diversity.

http://www.darkroastpress.com

97
Dan----as always, I live for your column!

All the best in your ERW fund raiser at the Paramount!
98
Reading the comments here about foot fetishes gives me hope. Everyone is supportive and nonchalant about it. I can see how one might be repulsed by foot worship, but fuck it - I just have to accept me for who I am. A guy who likes women's feet.
99
@91 : Yes, I had 2 years of premarital sex with my husband, and it felt just like it did with the previous boyfriends : quite dull and boring. So why not marry him ? He wasn't any more "sexually selfish" (as you rightly put it) than the other ones.

What I meant is, girls deserve pleasure in sex, they need to be educated into getting pleasure or ditching the guy.

Because most of the friends' husbands I've been told of *are* that sexually selfish. And both husbands and wives find it quite normal : men want sex, women are bored by sex. Maybe there was some foreplay in the first years of marriage, one or two orgasms, but it's been a long time ago, and nowadays it's down to only penetration and ejaculation.

The only thing I knew about what was sex was from friends (contraception was told in school, thankfully) : I was expected to feel pleasure out of penetration, and if I really loved the guy I was to give him a blowjob, and end up with semen in my mouth, which wouldn't taste good, and he would really love that.

Since I had not felt more than a light pleasure from my several experiences of premarital sex, that were always penetration and ejaculation without foreplay, I surmised I was the defective one. No reason not to get married, right ? As long as the other party knew about it and wasn't deterred by my "defect".

And I actually felt thankfull for the jerk, who had accepted to live with an asexual woman like me, and make an honest married woman out of me.

I had heard of receiving a cunilingus as something even more degrading for a woman, than having to give a blowjob to a man. Thanks, prudes ! The old saying "a woman who enjoys sex is a whore" is not that far away in my country : France. Yep, you read it well.

So thanks Dan ! You made my sexual life happen !
100
@91 : I felt of "lower sexual quality" than my female friends because they had experienced at least some orgasms in premarital sex, while I had not, ever.
101
@98 : my first orgasm was from having my toes sucked. Feet fetishists rule !
102
Anyone who would refer to herself as "a queer lady" is no lady.