Great column Dan.

PS - MLBs "It Gets Better" campaign is a definite hit in my book. Hell, it's the best thing the Chicago Cubs have done in years!!! Keep spreading hope and faith!!!

For FBBS: birth control pills can make the cervix more delicate, so that it bleeds more easily.

Great column as always Dan. I tend to agree with NIS. Sometimes the kink cards are better left in one's deck than on the table.

As an aside, LOVE to see the "It Gets Better" message being spread through pro sports. Hell, it's the best thing the Chicago Cubs have done in years!

Dan I absolutely love your advice. For Gay pride week we are selling "Gay Cupcake" at cupcake Royale where I work. 50% of the proceeds are going to the "It gets Better Project" I've had the opportunity to educate a lot of people about this project when they come into the store. Keep doing what you are doing and know that you have so many people behind you and more than willing to give support, from both the gay and gay alliance communities.

Uhhh, Hunter78 @6, why exactly are you insulting EricaP in that fashion?

Really dickish move there.

@7
Asked and answered there '40.

@ NIS: LW's husband invited her along to view because he thinks that's what's expected of him, as opposed to what he really wants to do. He's just being his submissive self. It took him 14 whole years to tell LW about his spanking desire; that's a long lead-up time. He's rehearsed it a long time in his head, the wrong way. LW needs to calm him down and set things right by assuring him it's ok to go without her.

Aww, they've been married for 19 years and sensible advice like Dan's was harder to come by back then (when dinosaurs walked the earth with no Internet). This dumbass, inconsiderate old spank-wanker probably thought he was supposed to lie about his kink back when he got married. He can have (a little) sympathy from me as long as he starts shaping up now.

The young couples stupidly withholding their kinks from partners in 2011 have fewer excuses.

(Still, while people are responsible for correcting their ignorance, it's tough when there's cultural barriers and I can't always fault their stupidity. That's why it's great that Dan does what he does -- his world-changing work is needed.)

sometimes the people who write you sound so wholesome and lovable that i like humanity just a little bit better.

BINDME, I'd ask your boyfriend if he's got problems with bondage in general, or with the idea of YOU being tied down and toyed with.
Since you guys are so madly in love, there's always that possibility that he's SO sweet on you that he feels uncomfortable inflicting discomfort on you, even if it's fun discomfort. You can be lying there giving him the go-ahead through your gag, and he'll still feel like he's doing something wrong or bad.
If that's the case, he just needs some time, like Dan says.

@11 - She didn't say it hurt or was unenjoyable, only that she was freaked out due to the bleeding and horror stories.

This week's column: perfect.

It was so exciting to see you in the NYC Pride March this year, Dan. But, to my amazement and by complete chance, I spotted you again the same day, exiting the box office of The Normal Heart! Did you get the chance to see the show?

@14: read the cervix-bashed woman's letter more carefully. Specifically this part:

...there's stuff I don't like much but I know he loves and I can put up with. One of these things is having his dick hit my cervix when we're fucking: He loves it because it hurts [me]...

There might not be any pro-doms in Alaska, but I have heard that there is a kink scene up there. Maybe NIS's husband should look for a dominant there.

@11 & 17 I'm not sure how much that matters in a BDSM relationship, though. She said "there's stuff I don't like much but I know he loves and I can put up with." We have no idea what he is or isn't doing for her that he can describe in the same way. Also, we can't assume that the reason she doesn't much like it is because it hurts, because for all we know, she's into intense needle play or caning or something else that's very painful but not painful in the same way as getting hit in the cervix with a dick. I think she honestly wanted to know whether it was dangerous because that IS a major concern in BDSM, whereas pain is often kind of the point...

Dan, I'm surprised you didn't call bullshit on NIS' claims that they can't find a dominatrix in their area. I mean, it's not like it's got a huge population crammed in together like sardine cans, but surely it can't all be vanilla couples and singles. They don't necessarily have to make an appointment with a dungeon; I'm sure some careful sweeps of the personal ads will turn up a discreet dominatrix near them -- or at least someone willing to spank the husband for the sheer hell of it.

Also, while it's a bit much for him to ask her to come along to watch him get spanked every time, it might not be a bad idea for her to come along and watch the first session just to make sure for her own satisfaction that he's safe and that any boundaries aren't going to be crossed.

@19: if someone says they don't like something and that it hurts, that matters whether they're in a D/s relationship or not. Not every masochist enjoys all types of pain and not every sub will feel fulfilled by an (otherwise undesirable) act solely because it pleases their dom.

I would tend to agree with #11 that this woman is hoping for an excuse not to get cervix-bashed anymore.

@17... you are adding the (me) to her statement. Are you sure that she didn't mean that her boyfriend likes it because it hurts HIM when he bumps up against her cervix?

If she doesn't want to do it because it hurts or she's not comfortable with the risk, she shouldn't have to do it. However, it didn't sound like that was necessarily the case. It COULD be, but it's unclear to me when I read the letter. It sounds just as likely that she's worried because of the bleeding and horror stories, but otherwise willing, and checking in with Dan to see if her fears are unfounded. If not, then she needs to clearly communicate to her boyfriend that this is a hard limit for her, rather than making vague excuses due to potential health hazards. Communicate what you do and don't want clearly and relationships will work better all the way around.

FBBS isn't in a "BDSM" relationship. She is in an abusive relationship. She needs to tell the creep she married that enough is enough and that it is time to stop.
There is something distinctly horrific about men who claim to be "BDSM" but are actually just male abusers.
FBBS has allowed herself to be manipulated into being abused. It is up to her to stop it or not.

For BINDME,
Although I have no direct evidence that dom women for sub men are scarce, it makes sense. However, it is well accepted in my area (Virginia), and I have plenty of evidence, that sub gay men far outnumber dom gay men.
Recon certainly is interesting, and there are some highly advanced kinksters there, but I find much more kinky action on Adam4Adam (include "Misc. Fetishes" in your search), and gay.com (include BDSM in your search).
I am lucky in that my vanilla BF is totally cool with my exploring kink with other guys.

I love the vanilla people chiming in with "She shouldn't have to do it if she doesn't like it." She may not like it, but she knows he loves it, so she indulges him on occasion. That's part of GGG. You indulge your lovers' little quirks that you may not be FOND of, but you certainly don't hate, and your partner will, in turn, do the same for you. Quid Pro Quo...

I'd just like to add, if it's too painful for her to have her cervix tapped, she could always pop in an menstrual sponge in beforehand.

It´s interesting to see how many people have jumped to the `she is being manipulated´ and ´leave the creep!´ conclusions based on FBBS´s letter. Funny, I also saw the concern she has with the blood flow, and I certainly would want her to make sure everything is OK there -- but am I really the only one who saw the ´I've been in a BDSM relationship for two years with an awesome top who respects my limits´ and the ´there's stuff I don't like much but I know he loves and I can put up with´, which suggests this isn´t an abusive relationship, but actually one with communication?

People are too quick to draw their guns and shoot, it seems. As far as I can tell, she may indeed want some excuse to escape the cervix pounding which she says she doesn't enjoy, but it does also seem to me that, if she can find this good argument, it will indeed stop. Why jump to the abuse conclusion?

I don't quite understand why "outsource your kink" is the immediate answer when BIND ME asks for some "ideas about how to make it more fun" for boyfriend. How about, you know, some ideas that actually pertain to the boyfriend, rather than leaping to an ultimatum of exploring the kink with or without the boyfriend's involvement?

One thing he might try is to let boyfriend know that, for the moment, he's going to drop the requests for the kink to be performed. In the meantime, though, he'd like to talk about his fantasies sometime when they're having "vanilla" sex. While they're doing something that's comfortable and pleasant for the boyfriend, maybe he can describe the ideas or images that excite him. Emphasis on how the boyfriend is the sexy object of desire in this fantasy might not hurt. In other words, this is merely another way of enjoying being with the boyfriend that's exciting--it doesn't suggest that the boyfriend isn't meeting some need, or is painted in any negative light. It also helps to put a little humor into the situation--keeping it light, or finding a way to joke about it, takes the pressure off.

A few other ideas for later on might be:
--find a video or representation of what you want to do that is on the milder side, and let boyfriend watch, as you describe what it is about this scene that you like, or how you'd rather envision the boyfriend doing this.
--try doing something milder with the boyfriend as the recipient, so he can find out what it feels like for you. Maybe just tying his hands together gently, in a way he could get out of if he wanted to, and then doing something you'd usually do together that he likes?

If the relationship is good, it seems worthwhile to invest the time and patience in exploring things together. If people want to go outside the relationship, that's another story, but why push that option now? Otherwise the boyfriend will feel even more like he's a "problem" for disappointing his lover, which isn't a good recipe for happiness. He's started down the road towards experimenting--maybe he just needs a little time and gentleness.

I don't see what NIS's husband did to "screw up", or to deserve being called an ingrate or douche. Is it so surprising that he'd want his wife of many years, to whom he's finally been able to disclose some previously hidden desires, to be part of the activity? I know this may seem shocking, but he might feel worried about betraying her if he goes to someone else alone, so it seems right to include her. This could be even more true if his wife is normally the one to whom he wants to be submissive. In short, the man apparently loves being with his wife--so why is he a douche for being reluctant to strike out in sexual activities on his own, without her?

@24:
If the man is the top in a D/s relationship, he *does* like the cervix-pounding because it *does* hurt HER. First of all, I can't say this with full certainty, not being the possessor of a penis, but I don't think it would hurt a man to crash up against a cervix. But being the owner of a vagina and attendant cervix which has been pounded, it can certainly hurt the cervix-owner.

Part of the appeal to this man is that he's making the woman do things she wouldn't necessarily choose to do of her own volition.
Part of what he enjoys is that it causes her pain and she submits anyway.

She doesn't classify the cervix-pounding as off-limits (she says he respects her limits), but as something she doesn't "like much" but will do because he "loves" it--and one of the reasons he loves it is that it hurts her. Basic BDSM.

She just wants reassurance that she's not being seriously injured. It's freaky when a sex act routinely causes you to bleed.

She doesn't suggest at all that this is an abusive relationship, and I got the feeling that if she put cervix pounding on the "restricted" list, he'd respect that. She just wants some information.

@31: Good point. Sharing your kink with a spouse is an attempt to bring you closer together; being told to fulfill it elsewhere, while more tolerant than many responses, isn't the response he was hoping for. It is very easy to become emotionally attached to the person who provides you sexual satisfaction, and maybe NIS's husband has an inkling that may happen.

Why does BINDME's boyfriend say that thinking about his boyfriend in "kinky gear" makes him "anxious?"
What is he anxious about?

@25: Where are you getting abuse from this? Here's the first line: "I've been in a BDSM relationship for two years with an awesome top who respects my limits." [emphasis added] Does that sound abusive? She's worried about the bleeding (which makes sense to me), not the pain.

@29: That was my reading; I see no indications of abuse in the letter (quite the opposite, as you point out).

I live in Alaska and wouldn't recommend going to anything/ anyone up here anyway, the community even in Anchorage is so small that eventually someone would know someone who talked and before you know it everyone would know.
To show you how small it is my grandfather slept with the woman who later became aunt's my father-in-law's wife.

@ 35: #25 is projecting. The relationship FBBS describes sounds like a pretty healthy one; I'd like to know what #25 thinks a healthy BDSM relationship would look like - or if she believes it's even possible to have one.

I don't see abuse in the cervix chick's letter at all. I do see a woman who's so eager to please that she's doing something that hurts her solely because her partner likes it. The fact that they're in a dom/sub relationship is incidental.

My understanding of GGG, though, is that it means doing things you're not specifically into, not things that are painful or distasteful to you. There's a difference between being a sport and being a martyr, and this chick is the latter.

There's a good possibility she's subconsciously feeling bitter toward her partner for not backing off after making her bleed; I get the definite feeling she's writing to Dan because she wants someone to go "Holy fuck he's pounding you until you bleed? You shouldn't put up with that!" - or, yeah, at the very least "this could cause a medical problem." Kind of an official second opinion to back her up because she's too shy to tell him outright "I don't like this and I don't want to do it anymore."

It's not (necessarily) anything to do with the guy. He might be great. I think this woman just got her own head tied in knots re: not wanting to say no to her partner. A lot of women (maybe men, too? I have no idea) have done this. I've done it.

FBBS - I too have a lover who loves to pound my cervix (although I love it too) and because of a benign polyp (harmless and not uncommon), this sometimes gets a bit bloody. Just a bit of reassurance

"But let him know, post-vacation, that while you're willing to be patient (you are being patient), you're ultimately going to explore your kinks with him—your preferred option—or you're going to need his permission to explore your kinks without him. But you're not going to not explore your kinks."

Is that a piece of general advice, or is it meant specifically for a LW whose kinks don't seem that extreme?

And, given that BINDME said it isn't necessarily a deal-breaker, why so stern that the kinks trump the relationship if the two can't coexist? It's nice that kinks aren't shameful secrets guiltily hidden away any more, but it sometimes seems as if things might have swung a bit far the other way. Also, while I suppose relationships in which the GGG is all from one direction can succeed, but it would be encouraging to see a bit of reciprocity now and again.

One of my favourite non-compliments was once telling someone that he never seemed to have an unexpressed thought. Of course, the recipient of this remark was immensely pleased, taking it as incredibly complimentary, which gave considerable amusement to those in the know. Never having an unexplored kink doesn't strike me as quite that bad, but it does seem to be in a similar line.

For me, having my cervix hit during intercourse doesn't just cause pain, it also causes nausea. Putting up with a little pain for my top's pleasure is fine; putting up with nausea is a different kettle of fish. It's awfully hard to eroticize nausea (at least, it is for me. Dan probably knows of a website devoted to the eroticization of nausea.) :-)

@38 (perversecowgirl):
I don't think the fact that the letter writer characterized this relationship as D/s is incidental. She's not talking about merely being GGG; she is in a relationship wherein she submits to her partner. Pain doesn't *have* to be a part of every D/s relationship, of course, but it often is. This isn't sport vs. martyr at all.

@42: I don't think the fact that the letter writer characterized this relationship as D/s is incidental. She's not talking about merely being GGG; she is in a relationship wherein she submits to her partner. Pain doesn't *have* to be a part of every D/s relationship, of course, but it often is.

Right, but as I said earlier, this isn't "good pain", otherwise she'd say she enjoyed it, not that she "puts up with it". And it's not fulfilling to her in the "I don't like the activity itself but I totally get off on pleasing my dom and pushing my limits" kind of way...otherwise she'd say she enjoyed it, not that she "puts up with it".

What we have here is a woman who is doing something she actively dislikes, simply because her boyfriend does like it. She has made it very clear (to us) that she dislikes it; yet she doesn't tell her partner to stop doing it. If that's not a martyr complex, I'm not sure what is.

If she wasn't in a D/s relationship, how would that change her letter for you, nocutename? Would your advice to her be different if she were vanilla? Why?

@43: Interesting question, perversecowgirl.
I suspect that we all project our own issues, autobiographies, and concerns onto letters, particularly where there is a dearth of detail.
But in this case, the letter writer identified herself as a submissive in a BDSM relationship, so I am taking her at her word. And that kind of relationship has built into it the fact that the sub often submits to acts he or she find painful.

Perversecowgirl, I submit to acts I find painful and don't enjoy, not because I'm a woman who has been socialized to accommodate her man, but because part of the thrill I get comes from being able to take something I am scared of--and because the very dynamic turns me on.
I am assuming that FBBS has a similar reaction, but, of course, I am projecting my own responses on to her.

I've enjoyed your columns for years and admire your efforts with "It Gets Better." Any chance you could provide some honest feedback about this video, created by a comedian I know:

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

Whattayathink?

Dan, I've enjoyed your columns for years and admire your efforts with "Its Gets Better." I'm hoping you and your readers will provide some honest feedback about this video, created by a comedian I know. He calls it a VERY Gay PSA:

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

If it makes you laugh, please share it with your friends and fans!

She might have a retroverted cervix, which is not a problem health-wise, but would make it (much) more painful to have sex in certain positions and more prone to bleeding. A simple vaginal check would be able to show this.

@perversecowgirl (#43), but my understanding of BDSM relationships is that they often involve pain, and that the dominant partner in such relationships does enjoy giving the pain, and the submissive enjoys receiving it. I suppose pain plays a positive role in the relationship in general. In this case, pain has a different weight in the GGG equation than it would have in vanilla relationships. Submissives are often willing to put up with things (including pain) that they don't especially enjoy for the sake of their dominants -- in fact, to some submissives, doing that is... an indirect turn-on.

If they are in a healthy BDSM relationship, I'd imagine there are other kinds of pain (say, spanking?) that FBBS willingly enjoys. Maybe even things more painvul than cervix pain? So pain, per se, may not be the problem. She seems more concerned with the blood flow than with the pain.

As nocutename above pointed out, it doesn't seem that there is any big reason for concern in this relationship. FBBS is worried about the blood flow and wonders if this means she shouldn't be indulging her partner. Maybe this is so (though the advice given by the specialist Dan contacted suggests the opposite). In which case, as nocutename above suggested, she can probably mention it to her partner, and if the relationship is as she describes he will respect this new limit.

Oh, I see nocutename already gave the response I gave, and in a more concise way. Bravo!

Nocutename, I've also been a submissive in a BDSM relationship (not anymore, alas), and I have likewise submitted to acts that were painful to me and that I didn't like in themselves for precisely the same reasons you mean: because my (female) dominant partner enjoyed them, and because the fear and the dynamic were in a strange way a turn-on. (Isn't it funny when something is a turn-on precisely because it is a turn-off yet your dominant demands it of you? Sounds weird, but somehow it does work.)

Which is why I agree with your advice to FBBS. Of course, we shouldn't jump to conclusions; there's a lot FBBS didn't say about her relationship, and we're assuming certain things -- the opposite of what perversecowgirl is assuming. Either we, or perversecowgirl, might be wrong.

Anyway, perversecowgirl has made me think about the interesting possibility that it might be more difficult to notice abuse in a BDSM relationship -- especially if you're the sub, since you'd have to differentiate between sexy-abuse and non-sexy, real abuse. Abuse abuse, as it were. I once read a book about one such relationship that was abusive to the submissive: Matthew Styranka's The Endless Knot: A Spiritual Odyssey Through Sadomasochism. The main character took a long time to realize he was being really abused by his dominant lady, and it wasn't easy.

Thanks for another spot on column, Dan!!

@ 21 - Yay, Dupont Circle! I too would have gawked a little. ;) (DC area slogger)

@ 41 - oh sure, what is it, rule 34 of the Internet?

For BINDME, I agree w/ whoever it is above who said outsourcing right away is a leap. Maybe they could go to a how-to rope play 101 @ a local munch. If the BF stays anxious, after being made to see that it's no big deal & how much his partner wants it - yeah, sure, negotiate that. But were I in those shoes, I'd let the vacation be fun & vanilla, wait a decent amount of time to unpack & recharge on heading home, & then look around for a nice local group that can y'know, show you the ropes. Just because they're gay guys & they HAVE likely more options, doesn't mean they shouldn't try harder to involve each other in play, first, IMO..

@51: Yeah, if you look at anti-BDSM blogs, you'll find a lot of debates between people who argue that BDSM is often just a cover for abuse, and people who say that BDSM is by definition consensual and non-abusive. I tend to think that the emphasis on communication and boundaries helps reduce abuse in BDSM relationships, but abuse can exist anywhere and it is definitely possible to take advantage of and abuse the power dynamics.

Re: abuse and BDSM

You need to be honest with yourself. You are the only judge of what turns you on and whether you feel the situation is wrong for you. Do you feel fulfilled by whatever complicated dynamic you have going on? This probably sounds simplistic but for others to pass judgement on your sex life is completely absurd. The LW would have to provide us with a novel to get at all the complexities and shifting emotions. Better that we stick to advice on whether bleeding is a medical problem or is your husband really gay or should I send a cock shot.

Mr. J, thanks for reminding us to stick with the letters as written. It's far too easy (and sometimes fun) to start addressing concerns that aren't voiced. But it does lead to some interesting discussions!

@Mr. I (#55), that was Styranka's conclusion as well. I suppose it's always possible for a sub to tell the difference: has your life gotten better, or worse, on account of your BDSM relationship? Do you feel better, more energetic, more capable of addressing the challenges of life, or less so? Do you feel that you're growing, or not?

I suppose in principle it's possible to know when you're being satisfied and when you aren't. But I realize that abuse masquerading as relationship ('co-dependency', 'enabling', etc.) abounds even in vanilla relationships were people are in principle supposed to be equals... the risk of falling into the trap of sacrificing too much for one's dominant may be higher, and more difficult to avoid. At least a priori it would seem so.

Which is why I feel like asking any subs reading SLOG here: have you ever had any problems with dominants who asked too much, actually used or abused you in ways that s/he shouldn't have? Was there evil intent, or was it 'just a mistake', or something in between?

Speaking for myself -- I have little experience; only once was I in a BDSM relationship, and my experience was that the dominant was extra-careful to make sure everything had been OK after playing. I've heard similar things from other dominants online: the pleasurable reaction in the sub is such a turn-on, they want to make sure the sub is having fun, or else it doesn't work for them, either. (I wasn't ever part of the 'BDSM scene', so I only have my own personal experience to draw from.)

Have other subs had the same experience? Or a significantly different one?

Sexy-abuse vs. *abuse* abuse . . . food for thought.
Ankylosaur, I know exactly what you mean back in the second paragraph of #51.

@57 (ankylosaur):
I have only been in two lightly BDSM relationships, and avoid "scenes" like the plague (I really hate jargon), so I don't feel like I have too much experience to draw from. But my current bf is a dom (not exclusively--just one of the gimmicks in our bag of tricks--but frequently), and he checks in to make sure I can take what he's about to give. I feel very confident that should I need or really want something to stop, he'd stop instantly.

@56 nocutename
"But it does lead to some interesting discussions!"

Oh, yes! I just think some things are too complicated to answer. Those discussions (like this one, as people have repeatedly mentioned above) then become all about the baggage of commentors. That's fun to talk about and to read about, but it's not a basis for telling someone else that their sex life is right or wrong. It's better to provide the LW with questions to ask themselves rather than make pronouncements about what "the answer" is. It's okay to not have all the answers.

There's a very simple way to determine whether your BDSM relationship is abusive or not: use your safeword.

If your top does not immediately stop and give you aftercare, or they stop but then say or do things to try to make you feel bad about using your safeword, then they're being abusive.

Ankylosaur and nocutename:

I'm aware that subs will sometimes do things they don't enjoy per se simply because the submission itself is a turn-on or a thrill - as a woman who's been out as dominant for twenty years and regularly reads books and blogs on the subject of BDSM, I have a good handle on the nuances.

What I'm saying (for the third time now...) is that the letter-writer describes the cervix-bashing portion of her bedroom activities as a GGG act rather than a submissive act, and as "something she puts up with," rather than a thrill/a turn-on/etc. (even an indirect one) - and this definitely leaves room for interpretations other than "She's a sub so all of this is totally fine."

Obviously the letter doesn't give enough detail for us to definitively conclude anything, but it kinda makes my spider-sense tingle - and I don't think that's unreasonable.

@62 perversecowgirl

Yes, that's reasonable. I wonder if you are using the same definition of GGG that others are. Sometimes that's why we go in circles.

@55 because people are so honest with themselves...

Just as people can be in h ealthy or nonhealthy vanilla relationships, so can people be in healthy or nonhealthy BDSM relationships. And yes, the trappings of BDSM can make this more difficult to spot.

The ultimate determinator is whether or not you're getting off (albeit indirectly) on the interactions, or if you think they're something you deserve. But you have to be honest with yourself -- and a lot of people aren't, or don't know what a healthy expression of sexuality is.

Complex, to be sure.

@61 indeed -- and if your response is "what's a safeword," then get out. Or stop, do your homework, and think about it. Agh.

The problem of kinky men seeking kinky women is multiplied several hundred times over when it's kinky women seeking kinky men because even those who are looking for a kinky woman somehow think that our kinkiness makes us some kind of a dreg of humanity... Hey guys, open your eyes to those of us who would LOVE to comply. Please leave your prejudice in your desk ...

@62 (perversecowgirl),

yes, of course it's OK if your spider sense goes off. That relationship may be bad -- though the initial sentence of the letter, if taken at face value, suggests it isn't. Maybe what she's talking about is just like when I ask my wife to put up with science-fiction movies, which she doesn't really enjoy, just because I like it -- call it being GGG in your relationship, not only in your sex life. She does often comply (and sometimes even got pleasure from it, when the movie had other non-sci-fi elements she could relate to).

Being GGG means indulging your partner when you think you can do it -- OK, you feel nothing for it, it's at best boring, but you'll try it for him/her (and who knows, maybe you'll enjoy it -- see past discussion of "poor darling" GGG vs. "adventurous" GGG).

This may be all that's going on in FBBS' relationship.

But then again maybe it isn't -- and that's where your spider sense went off. Maybe because you've seen something weird in her letter. Or maybe because we tend to interpret a situation in which the man is hurting the woman as 'traditional abuse' and so we need an extra-double serving of 'she is enjoying it' before we decide it's OK -- what with the history of our civilization and so on.

So -- it's OK for your spider sense to go off. But it's also OK that mine doesn't. We're historical beings. :-)

Or, perversecowgirl, to put it succinctly: the fact that the LW described the cervix pain as a GGG act from her perspective may mean that that's exactly what it is -- a GGG act, no abuse. (Unless you think anyone who GGG-ly indulges a partner is being a little bit abused?)

I think the point is that, in a vanilla relationship, inflicting pain on a parter is a huge red flag. If it happens, everything should stop and the partners in question just ask each other, what the hell was that? What is going on? -- before things can continue.

Not so in a BDSM relationship. Inflicting pain doesn't have the same... meaning. The same red-flag-ishness, if you will.

BEG: " But you have to be honest with yourself -- and a lot of people aren't, or don't know what a healthy expression of sexuality is."

Pre-CISE-ly.

You see, since being 'abused' is a turn-on in a BDSM relationship, even abuse abuse can feel, well, a little sexy. It's bad and you're suffering and you know it, and yet there still is 'something good' that keeps you thinking maybe it isn't really a big problem, maybe everything is A-OK, it's just you're going through a phase, or... or... (Styranka had some such problems in the book I mentioned.)

So it may be difficult to be honest with oneself. I've always thought that the real measure of man (or woman :-) is whether or not s/he can really be honest with him/herself. How many of us can, really? How many of us deceive ourselves by adding just enough fantasy to reality to make it palatable?...

Chase: "use your safeword. If your top does not immediately stop and give you aftercare, or they stop but then say or do things to try to make you feel bad about using your safeword, then they're being abusive."

Indeed, that's good advice. And yet it's not entirely true, because danger is part of the attraction of BDSM... Remember movies like "9 1/2 weeks", and "Last Tango in Paris"? There are BDSM equivalents, I'll bet.

Mr. J: " I just think some things are too complicated to answer. Those discussions (like this one, as people have repeatedly mentioned above) then become all about the baggage of commentors. That's fun to talk about and to read about, but it's not a basis for telling someone else that their sex life is right or wrong."

Indeed, and that's a very sobering statement, Mr. J. Ultimately we're all alone, so you yourself have to 'know' whether your sex life is right or wrong. We as outsiders can give our impressions (based on whatever information you choose to disclose), but ultimately you're the one who has to 'know' it.

I've seen apparently legit descriptions of BDSM couples in their own blogs about doing things I would never see myself doing -- and yet the subs seemed to be thriving on it.

That's the magic of BDSM, isn't it? Things have to 'look bad' in order to feel good. So, with a game of mirrors, it's easy to feel confused and not know if what looks bad is really good, or really bad, or something in-between -- you lose your sense of proportion, your frame of reference. Like those little optical illusions that are visual paradoxes, you don't know if what you're seeing is what you're seeing.

@60: That needs to be written at the top of every Savage Love comment thread in large letters.

@69 (BlackRose): Indeed. Let's not cast the first stone.

It's indeed OK not to have all the answers. Perhaps that's part of what makes life interesting! :-)

Somebody, PLEASE tell me what FBBS stands for. I've tried google, urban dictionary, etc. I still have no idea what the hell this means. Please help!

ankylosaur @57, my experience is:
one (4 year) relationship that was too wimpy for my taste (he was always checking nervously if I was happy);
one (six month, on and off) relationship that seemed too abusive (he often pushed past my expressed limits);
one (two day) interaction, where he assaulted me, and I figured that out the following day; and
one marriage that is going on 18 years and is close to just right. Our D/s styles aren't perfectly aligned, but we get by. It helps that I'm now allowed to get delightful thuddy beatings from other people.

I do agree with what you wrote about safewords @67 - some people choose to use straightforward language, not safewords. And some interactions bring the sub to the point of not being able to safeword or even say no. Sometimes that's the point. If both people are happy afterward, I don't think it's abuse.

@72 - FBBS means "Freaked By Bloody Sex" -- it's the signature of the second letter writer this week.

Hunter78, you may be right, and you may not be (re-read the first sentence of FBBS letter). I hope you aren't, but you may be.

Take care.

Another reason to not trust people who live in Alaska...

"There are more kinky men than kinky women"

FAIL.

If you truly believe that, try BEING a domme, and trying to find a sub male. And to everyone who is doubtful of the inability to find one, there aren't that many pro dommes anymore. REAL pro dommes have been replaced by tiny little girls hired by escort services to PRETEND to domme. This has led to an uprising of superficial, self-absorbed, top-from-the-bottom subbies. The standard of "beauty" nowadays isn't exactly meant to appeal to sub men. Lord knows who it WOULD appeal to, other than latent pedophiles.

@77: What gives is that Dan is basically anti-monogamy, despite the occasional protests to the contrary.

@79 iDomme

Back in the day I noticed a high multiple of sub males to Dommes on alt dot com. At munches the Dommes were some seriously large ladies so the tiny girl thing doesn't match up. I would have loved to find a Domme to submit to (I'm lookin' at you perversecowgirl!). I'm a switch. For real. Are you going to make the same argument against switches that people make against bisexuals? I'm that too.

@80 Suzy

He's not "anti" he's just highly skeptical. Certainly he's correct that there are loads of people who are not cut out for it yet think it's "The Only Way." Monogamy can work but it really shouldn't be the default. It should be viewed as advanced sexuality, appropriate only for those few who can manage it.

@ Mr. l. Emphasis on 'BACK IN THE DAY'.

@#81 Mrl

First of all, it doesn't make any sense to make assumptions about how I feel about bisexual people and/or people who identify as "switch" based on my comment that, in the PROFESSIONAL industry, it seems that escort services are using the same tired old social restrictions to do the job, rather than using the type of woman to whom sub males tend to be attracted, as you yourself mentioned.

Also, Many of the profiles on those sites are fake, owned by pro subs, or owned by people who are in relationships. The pool may look large to you, but it isn't, once you start talking to people.

But again, my comment referred to pro dommes, not the average dominant woman you might find at the average fet party. I will say that most fet parties, at least here in Canada, are not very receptive of female dominants.

I'm not a chronically inflexible, judgemental human being because I prefer smacking boys around to doing what I'm told, Mr. I. In fact I'm annoyed with the professional norm on behalf of sub males who have paid for an experience and been cheated out of it.

iDomme, this is just the slightest of quibbles, but it *is* bothering me, so what the heck, I'll voice it: His name is Mr. J, not Mr. I.

@84 iDomme

The bi comment was in reference to an ongoing discussion around here as to the existence of bisexuals. It was tongue-in-cheek. The joke is that I'm doubly non-existent.

Yes, I am out of date and I was talking about amateurs. I agree about fake profiles and useless profiles of people who are spoken for. That's one reason why I left that scene. Please understand that what attracts me is a powerful woman. If she's built like the Michelin Man that's a secondary consideration. Strength worthy of submitting to is in the mind.

I haven't been to Canada but that sounds like a terrible waste. How do you account for that attitude?

As for fake girly dommes and fake subs bossing from the bottom, they deserve each other. It's unfortunate that you have to wade through all that to find the real thing. I wish you well.

(My name is J as in Jacob. Thanks.)

Thank you, clashfan. You beat me there. Hmm. Is that a straight line I'm feeding you?

Mr. J and iDomme, you make me feel almost good that I never actually participated in 'the scene'. I spent too long hiding, and whenever I found a play partner (alas, too infrequently) it was sheer luck.

Not that I have in principle anything against 'the scene', but the effect of residual (or not so residual) shame at my own kinks plus the fear of meeting the wrong people made me stay away from BDSM sites and fet parties. I never even tried to find information on them for real.

@88 - is it too late for you? An easy way to dip your toes in the water is to find out if there is a "munch" near you. That's a regular meeting at a local restaurant, for anyone who is curious about BDSM. No play, just conversation and getting to know some of the people involved.

The advice leaves a married woman, alone in a hotel bar, sipping a martini waiting for her husband to finish up with his professionally administered sexual spanking. A very sad image.

Couldn't finish the column -- way too intense for my tastes, which are firmly in the sex = love camp.

@90: Why is that sad? It sounds hot to me.

@79: I don't know anything about you other than what you posted. But based on your posts, I'm guessing the reason you're having problems finding subs is that you expect them to fit your desires exactly, rather than communicate, what with language like "pretend to domme," "superficial, self-absorbed, top-from-the-bottom subbies," "latent pedophiles," and the old fake-profile excuse. Just because a sub has preferences and boundaries, or likes a certain type of person, doesn't mean he/she deserves your insults or chastisement. And you don't get to say who is a "real" dom or sub.

@80: Yet in just this one column, Dan is inexplicably hostile towards a man who doesn't feel like going outside for sex without his wife present, and then immediately recommends that the other guy go outside his relationship, which is not what the guy was even asking for, advice-wise. Maybe monogamy is "advanced" for many people, but for a couple married 19 years? Or a guy who directly states that failure to satisfy one of his kinks is not a dealbreaker for the relationship? The advice in these cases is all about basic hostility towards, or lack of understanding of, monogamy.

@93 Suzy

Now you are adding some nuance to your argument. Thank you. These are complex issues and I was reacting to your simplistic characterization @80. Calling Dan a hypocrite who pays a bit of lip service to monogamy is just wrong. Can we say that you are basically hostile to non-monogamy? If so, is the only alternative to your belief hostility to monogamy? I respect both ways depending on the people. What I have a problem with is individuals who combat their inner makeup based on societal expectations.

Mr. J (@94): Hear, hear!

@84/92 iDomme and Hunter

Good lord, what is this world coming to when I agree with Hunter! (Not the freudian shit)

As a 'tiny' girl who is very young looking I find it kind of offensive that you think the only men who are attracted to me are 'latent pedophiles'.

In short: stop being a hater.

I can understand that you're annoyed that clientelle (evidently like Mr. J) who would prefer you are ending up with 'fake dommes' who aren't to their taste, but that's no reason to go around insulting other sex workers for their build or appearance.

Aaaand re: monogamy. I think monogamy is challenging (lots of rewarding things are challenging) and people who don't REALLY want to engage in it shouldn't have to pretend they do. I think people should be willing to 'come out' as nonmonogamous and that's great. BUT I think another significant impediment to monogamy that isn't so cool is huuuge entitlement and selfishness. As in, I want a woman who is faithful to me but I don't want to have to be faithful to her.

Being mongamous with a partner? Great.
Being honest with a partner that you can't be monogamous and working it out from there? Also great.
Lying so that you can have your cake and eat it to? Not good.

@97 mydriasis

That's a great comment. Can I just clarify that I don't prefer iDomme's body type over yours. My point was that body type is secondary to gravitas. Tiny girls like you are hot.

Again, it's too bad the "furry play handcuff" set are such a nuisance to pro Dommes. But with the internet cataloging pretty much anyone who wants to be found I don't get how that couldn't be sorted out.

The woman who doesn't want to see her husband spanked could do as I do when I need to "watch" my children in one of their various and sundry summer classes. Just sit there and read a magazine, but look up every once in a while and say, "Great job, honey" or "Woo-hoo!" Everyone's happy.

jill
http://inbedwithmarriedwomen.blogspot.co…

@100

You can try but they always find out. More importantly, you don't feel good about what you're doing. Have you told him that from your perspective your previous talks produced only "excuses" from him? Ask him what constructive thing you should be doing about your sex life.

@100 - it is possible, assuming that you guys have been married quite a few years, that he is just a little bored with your sex together. It's good sex, but lacks that spark of excitement from the early years. If so, then telling him that you think about other men, even that you've started chatting with other men -- that might bring the excitement back to your sex life with your husband. Can you start small, by telling him that you're thinking about going to chat rooms, and seeing how he reacts? (Not just what he says, but also how his dick reacts to your "fantasy"...)

@102
I've gotten a lot of that too. I know it's a lot of backlash and defensiveness against the prejudice against overweight people but two wrongs don't make a right. I'm sure you're girlfriend's a babe. Thanks for sharing. :)

Ankylosaur:

Or, perversecowgirl, to put it succinctly: the fact that the LW described the cervix pain as a GGG act from her perspective may mean that that's exactly what it is -- a GGG act, no abuse.

I don't see abuse in the letter...never did. My assertion is that it seems likely that the letter-writer is a martyr who can't bring herself to say "I don't like this and don't want to do it anymore" and is instead looking for outside confirmation that it's okay to say "stop".

To me the letter reads like this:

"I'm in a BDSM relationship with an amazing top who respects my limits. He likes to pound my cervix because it hurts me, and actually I really don't like it but I want to be a good sub so I've never said anything about it. However, it hurts like a motherfucker and I've actually bled from it. Amazingly, my dom still wants to pound my cervix despite all the bleeding, although in fairness I never did tell him that I hate it...anyway, Dan, I'd love it if you gave me some medical reason why I shouldn't get cervix-bashed. That way I can tell my dom 'no' without feeling like I'm being selfish or mean."

The things that trigger my spider-sense in this regard are:

1) She specifically mentions she's being GGG. The fact that she doesn't like the cervix bashing isn't technically relevant to her question; she could just as easily have said "I'm in a BDSM relationship and sometimes we have rough cervix-bashing sex. Is that going to injure me?" But she specifically mentioned that she's doing it for her partner's sake. So the self-sacrifice aspect is clearly on her mind.

2) "...I've heard stories of women having their cervixes ruptured during sex. He assures me that won't happen, but on at least two occasions I've bled so much that I thought my period had started." ...This sounds to me like she's hinted to her dom that she wants the cervix-bashing to stop (by saying she's afraid of rupturing) and he glossed right over her concerns. It also sounds like she feels her fear and pain aren't valid reasons to stop in and of themselves, so she makes a point of mentioning the bleeding as kind of a defensive measure...something to let Dan and his audience know that she's not just being paranoid.

Now, it's possible that her partner is manipulative and abusive and that's why she's unable to straight-up tell him "no". But it's equally possible that she got tangled up inside her own head without any outside help at all. Most women are socialized to put the needs of others before their own, and she's a sub on top of that, so...yeah.

(Unless you think anyone who GGG-ly indulges a partner is being a little bit abused?)

Not at all - but I believe Dan defines GGG as doing things you're indifferent about for your partner's sake, not doing things you actually hate. "Not into it" plus "hurts" plus "makes me afraid that my insides will rupture" seems pretty far beyond indifferent, to me.

p.s. Personally, one little knock in the cervix hurts so much that I cry, immediately and profusely, and usually I'm still sore the day after. I don't know how anyone could get pounded until they bled without passing out or throwing up. This chick must be made of steel.

I would have loved to find a Domme to submit to (I'm lookin' at you perversecowgirl!).

Well hellooooo, Mr.J. How YOU doin'? :D

re: availability of male subs vs. female dommes: I don't know the actual statistics; maybe there are more subs than dommes out there, maybe not. I do know that a lot of guys who identify as submissive are conflicted about their desires and chicken out before I've gotten to play with them. Many more seem to want to play immediately, with no preamble, and when I've said that I wanted to go for coffee and discuss our wants/needs/limits first, they were like "fuck this, that's too much work" so we never met in person. Still other purported "subs" are not so much submissives as sexual tourists wanting to "do kinky stuff" so they can feel all cool and experienced. I've played with several of these in the past. It was unsatisfying.

A lot of my problems in this regard come from me being kind of a cougar - I'm sure older guys are more likely to have their shit together, know what they want, and understand the value of upfront negotiation. Nonetheless, in BDSM as in dating, I don't think anyone ever has an easy time of it. Finding a compatible partner is just...hard.

@105: You're biased by your own attitude towards cervical stimulation. It's really painful for some women, really pleasurable for others, and a whole range in between. It's really really painful for you, but it's possibly only mildly painful, or a good kind of pain, for her: all she says is "he loves it because it hurts."