Savage Love

Secrets and Lies

Comments

104
@103, oh, right, of course. Thanks!!
105
Why make apologies for asshole behaviours just because this guy has a kink ? Does it seem to anyone else that this behavior would be seen for what it is if he weren't kinky ? Or conversely what if he doesn't find her attractive, personify wise or physically ? What if he only married her because she accepted his kinks ? Is that a good reason to marry ?
107
So the full disclosure is because he was so deceitful when we were dating. I had tried to ask about his kinks and what he wanted but he claimed he was always happy with what we did which was basically nothing. I knew he was a very kinky guy so that's why I offered to pay for a domme, because he didn't seem to be comfortable talking about his kinks to me let alone doing them with me. I was at his apartment and went to use his computer which I had permission to do, it was on his email which by the subject lines I could tell they were incriminating. I did snoop then, and I found out he had been talking to and trying to see multiple people including non-pros. I also found out he had seen a pro even though he told me it was wrong when I had offered to buy him some sessions. I also finally learned more about who he was and what he wanted. Look. It wasn't a good place to be in to find out he didn't trust me enough to tell me these things or he just didn't want to do them with me. I had a hard time with it. I felt betrayed. Now, I don't care if he talks to people, I am naughty online too! I'm even ok with him seeing someone else in the future as long as I'm in on whats going on. I don't feel that's unreasonable. He has my passwords, I tell him what disgusting porn I watched or what pictures I've sent. I would like it if he did the same. If he's lying and being sneaky I think something else is up. To me there is no reason to be sneaky about it. Although I'm hoping it's that he likes being sneaky AND we can incorporate it into our play. I loved the suggestion of tying him up and getting it out of him!
108
Also he doesn't have to tell me every single time he chats with someone. He does it A LOT. But if I go to use his camera phone because I have an old POS phone and I see pictures on there and ask him about it, I don't feel we're in a good place when he looks straight at me and lies! I hope this is all making sense...
109
@hitme

Honey, don't let people put you on the defensive for standing up and asking for the bare bones minimum level of respect in a relationship.
111
Hitme, you don't have to answer, but I'm curious what you thought of avast's question @96. Suppose he did tell you everything he did, everyone he sent pictures to -- how would that benefit you?

And if he continues to avoid telling you things, how does that affect you, concretely?

Do you trust him not to bring back STDs to you? (That is, do you trust that the lies are only about what he does online, and aren't about seeing people in person?)

Can you see the whole situation as him wanting privacy for these actions?

(I ask these questions because I'm also struggling to find answers in my own life...)
112
@ 110 - that was my takeaway from the letter, too. He sounds like a complete dirtbag. Untrustworthy and certainly not SO material. I can't fathom how this dynamic could be remotely healthy for HITME.
113
What do I gain.... nothing really. I mean ultimately I just want the lines of communication open. I want to know what he's fantasizing about and vice versa. If he's being sneaky, again I'm thinking we are taking big steps backwards and/or is there other reasons why he's being sneaking ie cheating.

Do I think he would cheat? No. Before the only person he had met with was a professional domme. Which I'm very comfortable with, I just didn't like that he did it behind my back.

Could he cheat? Yeah I guess. I mean he's in chastity belt quite a lot so it would be difficult, to be honest. But that aside, no, I trust him, which is why something so stupid as those pictures pissed me off. The pictures are a who really gives a shit, thing. I was worried it could mean a bigger problem.

I've seen many men cheat over my lifetime, from all walks of life kinky to vanilla. I don't think I'm more at risk to STDs than any other person.

We did a year of premarital counseling. I'm very happy with my marriage and life overall.
114
@Erica

"And if he continues to avoid telling you things, how does that affect you, concretely?"

And if he calls you fat and ugly - how does that affect you, concretely?

Some people want respect from their partners.
115
I thought of the 'sneaky' kink, as well. She needs to have a sit-down with her husband and tell him that if he's worried about the shaming, she won't do that, but honesty and transparency are dealbreakers. If it's the 'sneaky' kink, they can work something out, and Dan and others have made fine suggestions on how to play that out.

The last thing to tell him is that those are the only two reasonable reasons for sneaking around when she's already told him that kinky is OK, and lying is not. If there's something she hasn't thought of, he needs to tell her now. If this continues and they don't work it out, she will be forced to assume he is a LPOS (possibly CPOS) and strongly consider whether to DTMFA.
116
@114 - If someone lies to me about something that doesn't directly affect me (what they fantasize about, or whether they had a drink with lunch, or whether they talked with women online, or masturbated today...), that's not really the same as a direct insult, is it?

Please don't think I'm being flip here. I'm just considering that people may have varying needs for privacy. Maybe the liars should figure out a way to say "That's private; I'm not going to tell you," instead of out-and-out lying about it. To me, that would be a reasonable middle ground.

If that's unacceptable to you, that's fine. But would you walk from a teenage kid who lied repeatedly to you? Or would you try to find a way to make things work, despite the lies?
117
hitme @113 - How about if he said he wouldn't lie anymore, but he also wouldn't tell you when he chatted or sent photos or webcammed with people online? And if you asked directly, he would sometimes refuse to answer on the grounds that it's his personal life.

Would that be unacceptable to you?

118
HITME - the minute you really no longer care what he does online, the thrill will be gone for him.

I suspect its the lying and sneaking and thrill of doing something "wrong" that is putting the wind in his sails.

You have 2 options: just ignore the online play and get over it or retire his cock cage and collar and tell him you don't play with lying, sneaky, manipulative slaves; if you want to add salt to the wound, find yourself another boy toy, and make him watch.
119
"Please don't think I'm being flip here. I'm just considering that people may have varying needs for privacy. Maybe the liars should figure out a way to say "That's private; I'm not going to tell you," instead of out-and-out lying about it. To me, that would be a reasonable middle ground."

I think you are 100% correct about this, and I want to amend,extend and amen(!) it:

It's not just a reasonable middle ground, but an important indication of both respect for the partner and self-respect. It is OK to have personal boundaries (self-respect), and it's really disrespectful to your partner to not be honest about them. He needs to learn to say "no, I'm not going to disclose every encounter" if he's not willing to follow through on it.

Given HITME's follow-up about this, it also sounds like this guy is just starting to explore and learn about his own kink and maybe is a little self-loathing and closeted?
120
@Erica

If you don't think there's a fundimental difference between a mother-child relationship and a husband-wife (or wife-wife, or husband-husband) relationship then I can't help you.

And if the person insults you behind your back? Is that more like a lie? Or a direct insult?

Lying to someone is incredibly disrespectful - especially when it's systemic. In a sense it's more of a problem then a direct insult. When a SO is open about their disrespect for you, at least you can do something about it. If they're lying to you and you don't find out, you could spend years with a person who isn't treating you correctly. Which is unfortunate.
121
@ 119, AFinch: To quote you:

"Given HITME's follow-up about this, it also sounds like this guy is just starting to explore and learn about his own kink and maybe is a little self-loathing and closeted?"

The self-loathing and closeted thing: *that's why* people get upset with this sort of thing: it begins to effect *everyone* around you; coping with sensing and feeling that someone cannot face and accept themselves...and the release of that spills over into glib, delightful secrecy, a stubborn desire to not confide in anyone directly effected by his troubles... Interpersonal troubles, like smiles, can be infectious..

*Everyone* has known of a troubled soul who has been a closet case, or, maybe, still is...

Hell, I too have been closeted: I gave that shit up at 27 years old (I'm 42 now) because *the fear, pressure and the self-loathing got so unbearable and, finally, unacceptable to me that I bit the fucking bullet and just came out already. Honesty is honesty: no matter what your truth. No one gives a shit about what someone is into or isn't into if there is no layer of bullshit, fear, trepidation or sticking to an old, worn-out backstory as a security blanket. A blanket with so many worn holes in it, that people can still see, sense and feel the painful-to-watch ambivalence of someone not at ease within their own skin, and actual soul..

Some people *do* get off on the thrill of being secretive, withholding, glib, perversely-cruel as well as generally-unmoved by actual, human sentiment, or concern.

I have spent so many years trying to connect with someone in a predicament similar to HITME.

Sometimes, it just isn't meant to be.
Try telling that to someone stupid like me, who tried to connect and love someone for over sixteen years, and it still hasn't happened yet.

Why I ever tried? Who the fuck knows. Probably because I have actually a scant, healthy romantic history (no surprise I'm sure to some of you casually familiar with my previous ranting and raving).

I'm a perfect example of what happens to someone when you give out, continue to believe in and keep trying to feel and see the good side in someone who just ultimately isn't right for you at the end of the day: someone who just doesn't fully connect to you the way you need to... Trying for over sixteen years... I've long known I'm a bit crazy, but even reading those very words makes me feel even sadder: no matter what, what happened to me wound up being unrequited on my end.

Sneakiness, a need for secrecy and/or game-playing, manipulative bullshit is only bound to come soon after... Hence why, as horribly-difficult as it is to accept, I've chosen to end what has never began or ever really gelled with me: that other guy. Thanks for reading, or pretending that you did. Peace.
122
It occurrs to me that maybe HITME's hubby is sub-consciously (pardon the pun) trying to piss her off as a means to generating more authentic punishment. Maybe he wants to escalate her "acting" mad to "being" mad.
123
@120 what if I told you that he didn't lie to me for the first sixteen years we were together? It feels like a phase he's going through, like adolescence is a phase. We'll see.
124
@ 122, Clicker:

"It occurrs to me that maybe HITME's hubby is sub-consciously (pardon the pun) trying to piss her off as a means to generating more authentic punishment. Maybe he wants to escalate her "acting" mad to "being" mad."

Of course! The same kind of personality that talks a big game, and is nothing but a pussy underneath all the bragging and bluster. The wife should peg him with a strap-on: hard.

Narcissistic, insatiable-for-admiration, bullshit attention-seeking behavior that gets really old and draining.

Incidentally, I'd like to say a collective hello to all of the names in here that are invariably one in the same person. Sixteen (oh, ok: four-plus years of that) years of that is enough for anyone.

@ 123, EricaP:

"@120 (or @ 121) "what if I told you that he didn't lie to me for the first sixteen years we were together? It feels like a phase he's going through, like adolescence is a phase. We'll see."

I'd say you're lucky, EricaP. I'm still being lied to (and ignored), and it's been sixteen years.

Bob? Fuck off. Go and suck Dan Savage off in Seattle, you evil, game-playing, heartless bastard.
125
Fuck ALL Of You!
126
@pigeon park -- do you have someone in your life you can talk to? You seem to be having a hard time. I hope you will reach out to a friend or counselor or mentor and let them know if you could use some help. Life is hard, but letting people help us can sometimes make it a little easier. Best wishes...
127
I'm sorry for letting it all out in here on one hand, EricaP.

I don't think I can find what I need in here...
(I know I can't.) Thank you for the compassionate words, Erica. I need to go now. Thank you.
128
Totally relate to NICE. I like a man who's a good dominant top in certain sexual scenarios, but is still a completely equal, loving partner everywhere else. It's really hard to find. Gay personals sites like recon will get you all those "I want a slave 24/7!" doms that just end up turning me off to the whole thing!
129
@ 127, continued...

...and I shouldn't have to find what, or whom, I'm looking for *in here*.

The scenario: A very attractive, well-built (very muscular), well-off, mercurial-in-his-humor and presence prominent figure in his town. Charitable behind the scenes with organizations, but as cruel and abusively-ignorant when it comes to anyone who begins to feel, or demonstrate, genuine concern or care for him.

It makes him retreat, act in a contradictory way (to save "face") and then continue on to pretend to be someone like HITME, or about any of the other pseudonyms used in here daily.

Anyway, this well-off, very successful in a life's hand sort of way man lives to piss people off to cater to his conflicting desire to be treated as a submissive, with all of the hateful energy he longs for you to unleash on him, for your own consternation and misery is his fetish: he gets off on pissing you off and *then* wants to be a little, dominated bitch; tied up wrists to ankles, and then tickled in his HOMO-cringing asshole with a multi-colored feather until his asshole puckers in desire...

Then, because he loves to be a cuckolding freak, I'd leave him tied up there and film the action as a parade of people come in and have their ways with him (jerk off to this like you do anything else I write you that involves me having to be pissed off at you Bob, for *your* pleasure to jerk your pud to your own fucked-up imagination..

A man who appears *so manly and tall*, yet in reality is the most-pussy-whipped, disingenuous, freaky, unreliable, passive-aggressive, self-pitying, issues-laden, ungrateful pathetic fucking asshole as you'd ever never hope to have to deal with in real life (something a fucker like Bi-Bi Bob just can never get a handle on. He gets a great handle on Dan and Terry's shafts and ball-sacs well though...)

Bob? You deserve to be embarrassed in your own playground. I could never seriously indulge your penchant for domination in the sack. It makes me wanna vomit, knowing how much of true freak you are.

That, and I now count my blessings you have remained afar as you have. The more I know of you, the more I grow sickened and resentful.

Over to any of you, one in the same.

p.s.: Counselors are just as sick as their patients, mentors cannot be found within these parts and who used to pretend to be a friend, no longer is to me. So thanks, but no thanks.

Your ultimate lameness is what killed it for me, Bob. You treat me the way you want me to treat you: like an insignificant piece of shit.

Fuck you, your money, your connections, your mental problems and your HGH-shrunken balls: you will never be good enough for me. You never have been, you never will. You play games and hurt people. You fake, soulless piece of shit! 2-3-12: Smoochie's Birthday, and you can go to hell! Smooch my unwiped backside, Bi-Bi Bob... As soon as you're done blowing Dan Savage and the rest of the world, that is.
130
@ 127, continued...

...and I shouldn't have to find what, or whom, I'm looking for *in here*.

The scenario: A very attractive, well-built (very muscular), well-off, mercurial-in-his-humor and presence prominent figure in his town. Charitable behind the scenes with organizations, but as cruel and abusively-ignorant when it comes to anyone who begins to feel, or demonstrate, genuine concern or care for him.

It makes him retreat, act in a contradictory way (to save "face") and then continue on to pretend to be someone like HITME, or about any of the other pseudonyms used in here daily.

Anyway, this well-off, very successful in a life's hand sort of way man lives to piss people off to cater to his conflicting desire to be treated as a submissive, with all of the hateful energy he longs for you to unleash on him, for your own consternation and misery is his fetish: he gets off on pissing you off and *then* wants to be a little, dominated bitch; tied up wrists to ankles, and then tickled in his HOMO-cringing asshole with a multi-colored feather until his asshole puckers in desire...

Then, because he loves to be a cuckolding freak, I'd leave him tied up there and film the action as a parade of people come in and have their ways with him (jerk off to this like you do anything else I write you that involves me having to be pissed off at you Bob, for *your* pleasure to jerk your pud to your own fucked-up imagination..

A man who appears *so manly and tall*, yet in reality is the most-pussy-whipped, disingenuous, freaky, unreliable, passive-aggressive, self-pitying, issues-laden, ungrateful pathetic fucking asshole as you'd ever never hope to have to deal with in real life (something a fucker like Bi-Bi Bob just can never get a handle on. He gets a great handle on Dan and Terry's shafts and ball-sacs well though...)

Bob? You deserve to be embarrassed in your own playground. I could never seriously indulge your penchant for domination in the sack. It makes me wanna vomit, knowing how much of true freak you are.

That, and I now count my blessings you have remained afar as you have. The more I know of you, the more I grow sickened and resentful.

Over to any of you, one in the same.

p.s.: Counselors are just as sick as their patients, mentors cannot be found within these parts and who used to pretend to be a friend, no longer is to me. So thanks, but no thanks.

Your ultimate lameness is what killed it for me, Bob. You treat me the way you want me to treat you: like an insignificant piece of shit.

Fuck you, your money, your connections, your mental problems and your HGH-shrunken balls: you will never be good enough for me. You never have been, you never will. You play games and hurt people. You fake, soulless piece of shit! 2-3-12: Smoochie's Birthday, and you can go to hell! Smooch my unwiped backside, Bi-Bi Bob... As soon as you're done blowing Dan Savage and the rest of the world, that is.
131
No matter what Bob, it's already too late.
Nothing will *ever* happen.
You're the only fool left now, Bob.
Thanks for nothing, at the end of the day.
Going, going, gone.
132
@ 128: Someone would have to try treating someone else like that, if they wanna be treated like that: "a man who's a good dominant top in certain sexual scenarios, but is still a completely equal, loving partner everywhere else."

Good luck finding anyone who will *honestly and bravely reciprocate* what it is you're willing to offer. I've been there..
133
133: nothing, you see. Jesus can't save you, 'cos he doesn't give a shit to help liars.
So, there you go then. Rejoice in your own shitstorm, Bob. Douchebag.
135
"What am I missing?"

Everything, pal.
136
@123 EricaP
It's a phase. It will sort out eventually. Hang in there.
137
@123, EricaP,

We never know. My bet (like Mr J's) is that it's a phase. But what if it isn't?

I may be wrong -- please disregard me if I am -- but I'm getting the feeling that you'd be shattered if your husband's phase weren't a phase. I hope I'm wrong? Because, after all, you (like everybody) are more than the sum of your relationships.

Life is not perfect. Someday our partners will leave us, even if it is because they (or we) will die. I try to live understanding the moment (what's going on? why did s/he do that?) but without obsessing about it (oh, I don't know; well, sooner or later it will affect me, if it's really important, and then I can decide what to do).

In some sense, as was said in American Beauty, there is beauty everywhere, if you look at it. Languages (for me), mountains (for my wife), cool cats (for my daughter), love for oneself (I like who I am, no matter what happens to me now -- whether or not I'm being lied to, whether or not I'll be successful in my work and career, in my love life, etc.).

If we remember that, then no matter what problem we have with something -- lies from a partner, something hidden under the bed of our child that shouldn't have been there, problems at work, whatever -- it is put in perspective. We try to solve them, we give it our best shot. If it works, hooray. If it doesn't, we move on. :-)
138
@137 ankylosaur
What's wrong with being shattered over an enormous loss? To try to head that off is to prevent feeling the thing in the first place. Life is not full without substantial risk taking.
139
@hitme
Wow. So many lies. I think they are too many and too soon.
141
@137/138, thanks for your concern, but, no, I don't think I'll be shattered regardless of how this turns out. It's a spectrum: I want to share as much time and honesty and laughs with my husband as possible before we die. I do understand that it can't be ALL our time, ALL our honesty, and ALL our laughs. But I'm still going to work on maximizing all of the above to the best of my ability.
142
@123

Your life is your life.

I'm just uncomfortable with that comparison, tbh. Especially since it's exceedingly common for unhealthy relationships to include one partner 'parenting' the other.

My reaction was personal. If my relationship with anyone were anything like my relationship with my parents (when I was a teenager or otherwise) I would end that relationship.

When I was a teenager I liked to do drugs. I sure as hell lied about that to my parents. But never to my friends (and I had several friends who did not approve of the types of drugs I was doing and the degree I was doing them to). My reasoning was that if I had to lie about doing something, I probably shouldn't be doing it and if I was truly okay with what I was doing I should be comfortable admitting it. Plus I feel like lying delegitimizes a relationship, bit by bit.

Again, that's me. My ethics aren't always conventional, but I try to stick to the ones I have as best I can. And honesty is a big deal to me.

If you have decided it's not a big deal to you, that's your decision, I guess I'm just troubled when it seems like you're implying HITME should choose to give up something that is important to her - and completely valid.

Or let me put it this way: lying is disrespectful. Teenagers get a free pass on being disrespectful to their parents for a while (it's part of the package of a one-way-consent relationship)... I don't believe is the same thing of two somewhat equal people entering a relationship together.
143
@142, lots of things are disrespectful that end up being necessary. I don't like lying either -- I like to say I have a fetish for the truth. But if life has taught me something, it is that there's no rule that it's always best to adhere to, and nature seems to have a cruel pleasure with throwing situations our way that show us that following our own moral rules would force us to make the 'wrong' decision.

If HITME feels that honesty is a must, if it's a deal-breaker to her -- then by all means she has the right to insist on it. But it's like all deal-breakers: other people might not insist so much on it, and in their lives they may have found happiness precisely because it wasn't a deal-breaker for them. (To you, for instance, lying implies lack of respect. This is not a necessary or scientific connection, although it is one that is certainly true for you in your life, and you are fully entitled to live by it.)

(Deal-breakers are funny things. They both increase and decrease our chances of being happy. They make sure we won't be staying in situations/relationships in which our level of comfort or happiness just wouldn't be satisfactory. At the same time, they prevent us from experimenting with said levels of comfort and happiness -- thus not allowing us to [sometimes] find out that things were not exactly as we thought.)

Yes, there's something odd with HITME and her relationship. Yes, judging by what she wrote, she's just trying to get from her partner the same level of openness and honesty -- of respect, if she sees it as you do -- that she herself is voluntarily giving him. There's nothing wrong in principle with that, she's fully entitled to wanting this, and she may even be right -- at least right in the sense that that's what would work for her, for her life, for her happiness; and perhaps even right beyond that.

Still, to me (and I stress: to me), when all's said and done, the most important question is: which option maximizes happiness, really? Will HITME eventually be happier if she strikes a less-than-perfect-honesty deal with her partner, or will she not?
144
@143

Rules have exceptions, yes. But that's why I put my emphasis on the fact that the lying is systemic (it's one thing to lie to someone on the rare obscure occasion, it's another to make a habit out of lying to someone on the regular despite their protests) and she specifically told him that honesty was exceedingly important to her.

Some people prefer to be lied to (and will admit this). Sometimes one might INFER their partner might prefer to be lied to in the situation at hand. I personally am disgusted by nearly all lying but I can see how the liar in those cases might be making the decision he or she thinks is the most ethical option.

I get that.

I just don't think it applies here. Here she has repeatedly asked, pleaded for honesty and he has repeatedly denied it. I think that is pretty objectively disrespectful. Either he outright doesn't care what she wants if it conflicts with what he wants, or somehow thinks he knows better than her what's best for her despite the past that this behaviour has upset her apparently every time he's done it.

For other people lying might not be objectively disrespectful but in her case I believe it is - and that's what I was getting at.

As for dealbreakers (matters of ethics), I don't go back on them. But in terms of less strict rules I have experimented with them... every time it reconfirmed that my original plan works best for me. I trust myself.
145
@144 "he outright doesn't care what she wants if it conflicts with what he wants,"

Couldn't that be rephrased as "she outright doesn't care what he wants [private chat], if it conflicts with what she wants [honesty]"?

She wants honesty, but isn't promising to be hugely enthusiastic about his online chats - just to "be okay with it."

He seems to want some privacy, but hasn't figured out how to stick up for what he wants. (Or else he likes the "getting-caught" dynamic, and again, isn't able to put that into words.)

You seem to think the incompatibility means she should walk away. And if she comes to that decision, good for her. I just want to make sure she knows that she has other options. I wonder what her husband would say if he read this thread...
146
@145 While that maybe the case, HITME said that this was a problem they had already had and confronted early in their relationship. If it was a need or a kink like most people are suggesting he SHOULD have laid his kink cards/demands on the table then. And if it's a new personal development then why couldn't he discuss it with her if the previous confrontation was as big a turning point in their relationship as HITME suggests.

I just really don't see how this can be a legitimate way of communicating your needs to a partner. Or how this can be interperted as a symptom of a fault on her part, at least not with the information provided.

Anyways, by the tone of her letter and posts she seems dead set on sticking with it and doing what she can to reach some kind of understanding.

Best of luck HITME!
147
"interperted as a symptom of a fault on her part"
Didn't mean to suggest she was at fault! Just trying to help show why it might not be easy for him to be honest, if he worries she'll react with sadness or irritation rather than enthusiasm.

He's at fault, definitely, for not being honest either about his actions or about his desire for privacy (or his desire to get "caught"), or whatever is going on.

But I don't see him as an asshole, just someone who should reflect on what he really wants out of life, and what path is best suited to get him there. Unfortunately, she can't do that work for him, and if he refuses to do it, she has hard decisions to make.
148
@mydriasis, indeed. I also used to think that my own deal-breakers (or even less strict rules) were the best for me. I never consciously experimented with them (with one exception, not really relevant), but life did throw at me a couple of situations that forced me to reconsider a couple of them. Others have indeed withstood the test of time, but because of those experiences, I don't assume they necessarily will forever. Only thus far.

I'm glad that your experiences have reconfirmed your own choices, and I'm equally glad that you're adamant about them. You seem pretty satisfied with your life, so I really have nothing to criticize you about. Only allow me the belief that there is perhaps a little bit of good luck involved in the fact that your rules were reconfirmed every time by your experiments. I hope this will go on being the case for the rest of your life.

As for HITME and her partner, yes indeed, he is behaving in a way that, for someone to whom honesty is a dealbreaker, does suggest disrespect. Or at least, as EricaP above suggests, cluelessness, denial, avoidance, or some other more-or-less pathological behavior. He should indeed think about what he's doing, and whether or not he wants to change it, because, if he doesn't, his partner being who she is, things will become difficult for their relationship.

Again as EricaP said, my personal wish is simply that they think about this in terms of what options they have, and that the simple equation pattern-of-disrespect -> DTMFA isn't the only one. But as far as I can see you don't think that way either, so maybe the difference between us is only how likely (and under what circumstances) you think it is that HITME and her partner will reach some sort of agreement? It seems you think that's possible only if he stops the pattern HITME and you see as disrespectful. I think there may be other alternatives (though stopping the pattern is the most obvious and probably the most likely to succeed).
149
@147 My bad, that's kind of the implied under current I felt was in your back and forth with mydriasis. I actually sincerely hope you or Dan are right about this situation. I'm sorry if my past post came out as disrespectful.
150
I am furious with the vindictive girl who outed BDSM's older brother. She could have ruined permanently many relationships he has with family, with friends, with work colleagues. He could have lost his job. The law could have gotten involved. He could have been so mortified that it would drive him to suicide. She deserves to suffer greatly for the horrible dangerous stunt she pulled.
151
@149

I felt that too.
And you know, I'm sure that's not what she meant, I think all of us just take certain things a certain way.
On the plus side, I've found most people here are pretty tolerant and understanding of that, which is quite nice.
152
@1, @4, and @7: LOL!!!
...and not even SCRUBBING will take it out!

@6: Trickle-down Santorum might form a putrid, brown puddle before drying up inside Newt's elephant-sized butt-crack, but both will be good riddance!! OBAMA 2012!!!
153
@149/151 it's always helpful to be pushed to clarify -- the great thing about Slog is the endless time & space we have to work through an issue, maybe not always to the point of agreement, but to the point where everyone feels they got to explain their perspective as clearly as possible. The bell doesn't ring at the end of class to signal the end of a conversation that was just getting started... instead we go to bed, eager to see what ankylosaur will have to say in the morning :-)
154
I saw this TED talk by Elizabeth Pisani about HIV prevention (called Sex, Drugs, and HIV) and thought you and the ARY might enjoy it if you haven't seen it already. http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/elizabe… (or you can just go to TED.com and search her name)

Enjoy! Cheers.
155
Ms Erica, Mr Ank is as reliable as Sandy Stranger. We already have quite a good idea of what he's likely to say. If Mr Ank were a Wife of Henry VIII, he would be Catharine of Aragon - submissive but full of rectitude.
156
@155, I tend to identify with Catharine the great (who, despite not having been a wife of Henry the VIII, would certainly have known how to handle him). :-)
157
Mr Ank - Not doubting the identification - I had just been casting the Wives as a result of being asked a question along those lines by a friend and deciding that I should be Katherine Parr - fond of clocks, given to instructing those in power more than is good for me, and never ending up with a contemporary but always a partner either older or younger than myself.

As a result, I thought it might be fun to see if I could cast all the Wives - and I was reasonably successful, I think.

I'll post the remainder of the cast later in the day. The most interesting question is what to make of Henry himself - how the particularities of his situation affect whether he falls more towards the Savage or the Gingrich side of non-monogamy.

158
@ 140, Hunter78: I now know that.

I need to say something right and conciliatory before I turn the floor back over to any of you.

Thank you.

I apologize for being a douchebag to this site.

This is why I flipped out: I correspond in a very peculiar way with someone who frequents in here. I e-mail this person directly, and to my now-a-bit embarrassed awareness, too much so.

I am not e-mailed back: he writes and communicates in here, and it's a very long (as Hunter78 would say, not very interesting) story, but there's a strong connection: not always harmonious or easily understood, but a strong connection.

Since I was such an asshole last week, and having shut up, read, absorbed and listened over the weekend, I had to realize that I can't fight City Hall anymore: if you can't beat 'em, join 'em? Either that, and resolve to let it go and move on.

I freak out about lies and honesty because -even though I know now that, given how I've been, *this* is as comfortable and as far as you're willing to go to reach out to me. Here, and that other place (sorry, folks: I'll be done in a second. Thank you).

I'll be the first to admit when I am wrong, or am acting like a fool.

I have.

I learned a lot and faced a lot over this weekend that I probably haven't had the guts myself to realize: I have overdone it, I am cramping your style and I now accept that not only do I need to get my shit together upstairs, but also that at least I get to read you here..

We both need space from one another. I will read, learn and get to know you through here in the meantime. Going with the flow for now.

I'm sorry again, everyone. I'm in the wrong and I just wanted to say so, shaddup and go do what needs to be done. Thank you, have a good morning and Peace.

Pigeon: Terminally-Uninteresting;).
159
It's difficult to absorb that I've been a total idiot, but I will. It just confounded me and kinda hurt me for the longest time that I would approach you privately and directly, but in turn, I would find you here..

It still takes getting used to for me, and that's my problem I need to contend with. I don't want to make any more problems for anyone (seriously). I just wanted answers, and I have found a few in here. One day at a time.. I do imagine I will leap over or swim underneath the wave of all thing's Valentine's Day. I know how I can be. It's time for me to back off and give us both space. I need it now just as much as you always have. I just didn't know it enough, and I'm sorry for that.

It's unusual, and I think I need to either accept it and work with what is, or decide to call it a day. Right now, a sensible break in the action sounds healthy right about now.

I apologize for not having more adventurous tales under my arm, but I have cared and have had feelings for a very long time about ... him.

I'm learning to accept what is with you as well as my myself, for real. It *felt* like a lie to me to approach you directly, and then have you respond in a totally different place.. It's not about wanting to know everything you do. I don't: no more than you ever wanted to know every little mundane thing I do (I get it, B.).

I blitzkrieged you with what I did as an angry response to you never writing me back like I write you.

Been there, done that, got the t-shirt, as someone in here with a name like that could say.

It is different now, a growth period. I will back off considerably and take it from there.

What I share with this person is complex, and sometimes it's just very difficult to succesfully-navigate through..

I also do believe you're bi. You did marry your chosen domme, you know;) .

I never though I would ever be one to say this, but even I need space from me.

Thank you, sorry for the melodrama, + peace.

Bore 'Em At The Forum, Pigeon;).

It still takes getting used to for me, and that's my problem.

160
I know I'm not ready to be poly, or go there. But then, that's me right now... Lots to think about and lots of time needed to get there.. Peace.
161
No More Pigeon Park: It's Going To Be Bulldozed & Paved Over. Finito. And the room collectively breathes a sigh and says good riddance.
162
@ 161 Good. No one gives a shit to read to watch you go psycho on us. A kindness it is for us all.

163
There's another possibility... When Mr KH and I were polyfuckus, I just wanted to know who he was screwing. This was merely to avoid awkward social situations. Likewise, I let him know who I was screwing for similar reasons. However.... I hid it like a furious thief whenever the deed went down. I had an extremely sort of visceral reaction to the idea of Mr KH getting off on anything about me and my other person. That was private between me and the side dish see and none of his business. It felt like having him in the bedroom as a tag along for a threesome and it felt gross. Mr Cock Cage may be feeling something similar. I also hated the idea of him "knowing" about it because that to me felt like "permission" and at that point in my life I wanted no one's opinion on who I shared my pussy with besides my own (yeah this was around when I was starting to feel really uncomfortable in my long term role as a sub too...and working out in my own head how I felt about being submissive and the concept of BDSM in general... take that as one may...).
164
Goodbye... (A long, slow goodbye.)
165
@ 164: Please stop. Go and write yourself that shit. There's no place for it here. Thank you very much. Have a good day. :-)
166
Heck - I'd be in heaven with a gal like HITME!

Are there any more out there?
167
Why is he telling HITME how unlikely his husband
is to find a kinky partner, while telling NICE
that he's bound to find a dominant partner.
She's certainly GGG, but not one in a million. There are plenty of kinky women. Check the Lust Lab.
168
@166 my advice is to fall in love with a woman who is kinky and open-minded. Treat her well, build trust together, and be just as GGG (ie, eager to fulfill her kinks) as she is for you, or even a little extra for good luck and so it doesn't feel like you're keeping track.

@167 there are lots of kinky women, but more prefer to be submissive. Not that many are out there thinking "if only I could find a submissive, gender-bending man." I do think there are more men than women who like to take charge in bed. So the odds for NICE are better than for HITME's spouse looking to replace her. Also, note that Dan did tell NICE to look for someone open-minded rather than someone who already loves to dominate people.

Make your own by finding someone open-minded and being a great, giving partner -- that's the best way to get someone well disposed to your own kinks.
169
Ira Glass was faboo! Bring him back. Podcast crossover is a beautiful thing. Maybe bring in Terry Gross for a threeway?
170
@163, that's actually a good suggestion, a definite possibility; but isn't it covered by the idea that he likes the secrecy? The suggestion above was that he might have a kink for secrecy -- being aroused either by keeping things secret, or by the thrill of being discovered. You're suggesting he might want to keep some of his sex life exclusively for himself, the way you did; a different reason for the same desire for secrecy.

I wonder what Mr HITME would say.

171
@157(Mr Ven), I'd find it fascinating to see your final casting. You're so attentive to detail, I'm sure you'll make interesting choices.

Henry himself strucks me as more of a paleo-Gingrichian character than a precursor of Mr Savage -- I don't think there was much GGG in him, even less honesty, and the need to create a new church just to give himself a divorce sounds like the kind of thing Mr Gingrich could argue in congress (perhaps successfully) as a matter of national security.
172
I meant 'strikes me', not 'strucks me'. No more posting before I get my morning cup of herbal tea.
173
As far as I remember, Henry VIII didn't want a divorce, he sought an annulment, on the ground that his wife of 23 years had been his deceased brother's wife for 6 months prior to their marriage (and was now to old to produce the male heir he desperately wanted) - the argument being that Leviticus somewhere didn't agree of a brother marrying his brother's widow, although to be fair I think Leviticus asks somewhere else for a brother to marry his deceased brother's widow, in order to give the deceased a progeny.

He just wanted a male heir, because in those days and age, his only surviving child being female (Mary Tudor), he felt that the crown might escape her (in the end it didn't). And the Catholic Church wasn't in too much of a hurry to please him with this annulment, since the Pope was being held prisonner by his wife's nephew.

It seems it was not as much an issue of sexual freedom, as an issue of siring a legitimate son.

I've read that Ann Boleyn made him wait for years and became his mistress only shortly before they were married ; if it's true, she's the one who forced him into creating a new Church by being un-GGG... and that Church did annul his 1st marriage as he wished.
174
I wonder if Ann Boleyn ever went bowling and used her own noggin as a bowling ball ;) . Eh, I bet she played soccer, or football; the U.K. version.. Bet she can regenerate new heads to grow likethat! That's why she can go bowling with her own head under her arm. Although, those frilly dresses and things she wears: it must get in the way of being limber enough to nail three spares and a strike in quick succession! :-)
175
Henry VIII: he's always the one you see waving a massive turkey leg in the air, isn't he? Big Man chowin' down on a turkey leg. Like those ham-like turkey legs you find at every turn when you are inside 'Disneyworld' in Florida.

:-)

Henry rocks. He got it done. Can't knock his hustle!

Annulments: Because you guys were speaking of them in here, I decided to read up more on them. What amazes me about them is how any children born into a marriage that was subsequently annulled are still considered legally-legitimate children. That's pretty amazing..

Henry VIII's separation of The Church Of England and The Roman Catholic Church is nothing short of amazing, considering the time he accomplished this.

So what he had a hundred wives? Being The King :-) has its perks! Why not enjoy them?

Anne Boleyn sounds like she was The One lol. Up until getting her poor noggin lopped off on charges of treason and incest. Such progressives even back then in the 1500's.

I wanna start The Anne Boleyn Bowling Foundation.

We can even market commemorative bowling balls with her image re-created on them. I think the statute of limitations for appropriating a 1500's royal monarch should have expired by now, wouldn't you say? :-)

I'd go bowling with a bowling ball decked out to look like Anne Boleyn. I probably would stop the buck at illustrating bloody entrails and microfilaments of tissue...

The Anne Boleyn Bowling Tourney!

Blonde as I would like to be :-) .
176
Is it true that Wallis Simpson was something of a hermaphrodite? She must've had it going on if she got King Edward to adbicate the throne. She must have really put out for him to have done that! Poor Madonna, getting shat on for directing that movie about them ('W.E.').

Madonna tries, she works hard and I thought she rather kicked ass for the half-time show. Not bad for a fifty-three-year-old broad! That, and I guess she pulled a hamstring during rehearsals..

Henry VIII was pretty radical and forward-thinking for a guy in the 1500's. That's awesome.
177
Yes, the necessity of the Male Heir rather obscures the issue. But, had it not been for that - had Mary been male or had a full brother, Henry and Catharine might well have remained the picture of one-sided monogamy that they were for most of their marriage.

But, moving on - Anne Boleyn received arguably the worst treatment from Henry of the whole lot, took greater exception to his deception than any of the other wives, and was evangelical, which at the time was definitely on the liberal end of the scale. While we have several feminists whom I could easily envision in a contemporary equivalent of having vernacular Bibles smuggled into England hidden in consignments of French underclothing, the marital details we know pushes AB in the direction of Ms Erica, who, I hope, will not be too offended if I speculate that she would be at least in theory as open as anybody here to the possibility of incest, one of the major false accusations against Anne.

Jane Seymour is much easier. Providing the male heir made her quite a saint, and I'm sure we would not need a series of caucuses and primaries to nominate Ms Kim for that position. Thankfully, the state of medicine in our time is rather superiour to what it was then.

Anne of Cleves received a rather unfair quantity of blame for the unsatisfactory state of the marital relations, but, by way of compensation, seemed to have rather the happiest time of the group. Without making an explicit statement about the desirability of divorce, I wish the appropriate happy ending on our unfairly-cut-off Mr J.

Catherine Howard probably seems far more sympathetic at such a historical divide, and one might reasonably say that most of the criticism directed towards her would be considered quite unfair and misogynistic - had she not undertaken a role of which the primary requirement was sexual fidelity. Similarly, it would be reasonable to complain about her being unfairly shamed for her pre-marital history - had she not colluded in misrepresentation on a material point. With her conduct as Queen factored in, we have here someone who took on an outside partner in clear violation of understood rules, and was foolishly deceptive in a way sure to be found out - in short, however little he may have been such a way in the past, Mr Erica.

My apologies to anyone who feels unfairly excluded. Please feel free to make a case.
178
@ 177, vennominon: To quote you, if I may..

"My apologies to anyone who feels unfairly excluded. Please feel free to make a case."

I sure don't feel that, and I hope you don't either :). That goes for everyone else in here, too.

That's wild: the irony is is that my paternal grandparents' names were Henry and Catherine.

Cool. ;)
179
Mr. Ven,
But who are you?
Surely not Cardinal Woolsey or Cromwell.

Now I feel like watching that old BBC "The Six Wives of Henry VIII," or "The Tudors."
Sometimes I feel like Mary Tudor, and sometimes like Thomas Moore (I teach "Utopia," after all)

180
I don't want to be AB, a cock tease if there ever was one and hideously cruel to Catherine and little Mary.

I'll be Cromwell, if Mr. Ven doesn't want the job, as I stick my nose in everywhere and have a high opinion of my own advice :-) Also, happy to support king Dan's right to jettison traditional understandings of marriage.
181
Ol' Annie must've been a real piece of work if they went ahead and beheaded her! Eesh! Talk about knarly karma coming back to get you!
182
@ 180, EricaP: Your advice serves us all well. Your props to yourself are most applauded by the masses. Take your bows, luv :-) .
183
Thanks for a good day in here :) . Peace Y'all.
184
@177 Mr V
I've lost my interest in "happy endings" although I'm truly touched by your words.
185
That was quite an interesting read, Mr Ven. You have quite a knack for historical parallels. (Despite the anachronism, I might perhaps nominate Seattleblues et caterva for the role of Witchfinder General. He strikes me as someone Mr Hopkins might have simpathized with.)

186
@182, thank you for the kind words. Your recent appearance after pigeon left yesterday suggests that the two of you (or more?) inhabit the same physical body. I'm happy to see you in a good mood today, but I urge you to find someone in real life you can talk to. (And, yes, mydriasis, I'm aware of the irony in me recommending that other people get some help with their obsessive Slog posting...)
187
@ 186
wait... why me?

@ven
I want in!
188
@187, you were among those last year recommending I take a break from Slog, for my own good, which is essentially what I'm suggesting for pigeon.
189
are you sure?
huh.
190
@189 mydriasis
That's my recollection as well.
191
@189 - I went back and looked (Daddy Issues @July 13, 2011 was the thread), and you just made a brief comment that I could benefit from some therapy. Which, in retrospect, was probably right. Sorry for naming you -- I meant to be humorously self-deprecating but perhaps I hit the wrong note.
192
@Erica

no not at all, I was just totally bewildered!
No need to be sorry, and thanks for filling me in. I have the worst memory.
193
Ms Erica - I suppose it could be expanded to outside characters, but you'd never be Cromwell, going all in on the Cleves marriage. Would you prefer Cranmer? You occasionally show a somewhat Cranmerian tendency to rethink your rethinking on things. But if I were to expand, I'd probably suggest either of the two Marys for you (sister or daughter).I suspect the sister would attract you more, insisting on her own agency in her second marriage.

If I retire into the director's chair, that would open up Katherine Parr for Ms Cute. Or I could be Jane Grey, with a preference for studying Greek over the joys of matrimony, a disinclination for thrones - and it would tie in well to my lingering expectation of being wrongfully imprisoned under some future hostile administration.

Ms Driasis - Whom do you want? Make a case. George Boleyn, perhaps, who scorned the opportunity to save his own life during his trial? One of the Seymour brothers? I don't know why brothers came to mind first, but it didn't seem that either Elizabeth or Mary Queen of Scots would appeal to you. If it weren't too small a part, you could be one of the princesses who declined to succeed Jane Seymour. I could see you saying that, if you had two heads, one would be at Henry's service.

Mr Blues could be Bishop Gardiner, but I think I prefer Wriothesley, with all those wriodiculothousley superfluous letters in the spelling.
194
Cranmer works for me -- sexy enough and managed to get Erasmus a pension, which I like to think I'd do if it were in my power :-)

Re Mary-the-sister, do you mean Mary Tudor or Mary Boleyn? They both had happier second marriages, and got to live out their lives in relative obscurity. (I say live out their lives, but MT died at 37 and MB died at 44, so it's all relative. Guess I'd rather be MB, so I'd still have 18 months to live, rather than having died five years ago!)
195
@ 186, EricaP: You are correct on all spoken fronts. It is I, a much-humbled, remorseful, *smarter* pigeon park.

One thing you can always count on with me is that I'll never be the type to delay copping to when I've been wrong.

Thanks for the kind words likewise, EricaP.
Pigeon Park has been mowed down yet. It's still being held up with beaurocratic red tape lol.

Peace :-) .
196
@195 Hugs :-)
197
@ 196, EricaP: :-) THANK YOU :-) .

It's so much easier for me to be nice (believe it or not! ;) ) than it is to be an a'hole quadrosuprodeluxemofukkey douche canoe in a dog shite shoe lol.

:-D

Hugs right back at ya :-) .

Thanks Again,
The Blonde Pigeon: An Old Crow;)!
198
Ms Erica - Henry's sister, decidedly.
199
Pigeon,

Whether or not you post here is beside the point. You are clearly suffering needlessly. Go to a psychiatrist, a real one with an M.D. or an A.R.N.P., a therapist would be inadequate.

Everyone who says that "no one needs to hear that" Speak for yourselves. Pigeon_park isn't bothering me but his pain certainly is.

I hope you feel better, Pigeon.
200
I have one of those vanilla boys for a husband now, and he very thoughtfully indulges in any kinks I've asked him to -- it's not really his kink, but he likes seeing me get off and that trips my trigger so it all works out nicely:) Give it a shot and ease him into it.
201
HITME, perhaps your husband *is* willing to discuss his online flirtations, but being a sub, cannot bring himself to do it willingly. Maybe once a week or so, tie him down and bind everything but his mouth really tight (or however he likes it best) and DEMAND he disclose. He wouldn't want to make his dominatrix unhappy, now would he? ......
202
Snooping is always WRONG! - I definitely agree with this, I used to snoop before with my bf's Facebook messages and emails..but I stop this because I got paranoid when his ex sent him a message which actually doesn't mean anything to him at all.