Savage Love

The Boyfriend Experience


Real easy solution for CRASH (LW#1) to clear her name. Detective Horton on the case:

Check the expiration on the condom wrapper. Per her story, she only used them for sex toys. She got rid of the sex toy before she met her boyfriend but kept condoms in case she met someone. They are LIVING together 2 years so presumably they have been together for longer, one would think 3 years or more and the condoms pre-date boyfriend.

Look at serial number and expiration. Old expired condoms, she has an alibi. Fresh batch, on the other hand....
No you don't LW1. Melting boyfriends can be a real hazard around the house.
Reading CRASH's letter, all I could think was: If I were going to cheat in my own home, I'd at least use my own bed.

If I were to find an unused condom in the guest room, I'd probably think Hmm, I guess some previous guest didn't have sex after all.
LW3. Agree with Dan. Boyfriend should give you a break when you are really stressed and tired. But sex 4-5 times a week isn't too much if you are both young without kids. Every day and twice on weekends sounds about right.
This collection is hardly worth individual responses. We all get the theme; I'm just curious about the motivation behind the selection.
When a guy has a healthy sex drive, watches porn, masterbates regularly, ogles women and does things that generally makes a lady jealous, it's the lady's problem (which is true). But when the gender is swapped it's still somehow the lady's problem. It's just another example of the differences between genders. In my experience past boyfriends did certain things to keep me in a low level state of jealousy, he liked it, it meant I really loved him. But I've never known a lady who felt the same way, a jealous man lacking in confidence is unattractive. And why is the condom girl claiming her use of condoms is a past activity. "Don't worry sweetie, I used condoms back when I used my dildo, which of course I quit using when I met you" screw that. You have just as much of a right to masterbate, to ogle handsome Doms, watch porn and expect to be believed when you give an honest story. No apologies, no long winded stories, just "I didn't cheat, I have no plans to cheat but I do orgasm, get over it" Every letter was an example of a guy who thinks he has the right and rule over the couple's context and definition of sex.
This is the second time in a month or so that Dan uses “cute waiter/barista/personal trainer” as the most likely male professions to get laid by cis women nowadays. (As some of you may recall the other time was something about asexual married women who get divorced and three months later fuck the exact same demography.)
Did anyone detect a spike of male applicants in those fields?
Tim Horton, I finally answered you over at the other thread.
@5 Clearly this week's theme was fuckboys and the women who suffer them. Pretty sure that the motivation behind the selection was to have a theme. What's your motivation for questioning the motivation? I hope that you aren't insinuating that misandry was the motivation; that would hardly be worth any response at all.
Re WHAT, I would go further and recommend that she consider ending the relationship.

It's true that we don’t know how long it had been since they had sex, before that night when he got “very upset.” And we don’t know how often she has these crazy work weeks. And we don’t know exactly what “very upset” means.

But if he made you stay awake to fight with him, I would serious doubt your compatibility with a boyfriend who throws a fit during your stressful work week to punish you for not having sex with him. I would make the Fleshlight a parting gift.
Jesus! CRASH's boyfriend sounds about as insanely jealous about finding one stray condom as my ex was----over practically everything. CRASH, if your BF is seriously this unhinged about his finding one loose condom in another room now, are you sure you want to buy a house together and have kids with him?
Wow, Joe, you nailed the image of my ex---deep gorilla scowl and all.
LW2, a shudder, Eh. This boy think you'd have no response if some good looking man, a professionally trained bondage person, went thru the steps on you?
He think you not made of flesh.. He think that going to this hulk of a man, with his ropes and pulleys would just be like a visit to the dentist. Well, fool him.

Are we supposed to hate all the boyfriends here? Because I think the BF of LW2 has something of a point with "she cheated right in front of him". She didn't have to be the model herself in these bondage sessions. Compare: me hiring a professional to show my theoretical GF blowjob techniques and I'm the "model".
@14 Yeah, she did perform a sex act right in front of him. But presumably he agreed to the modeling session? Making this less cheating and more "oh wow I didn't know what I signed up for, this was a bad idea, let's never do this again".
I do sympathize with the boyfriend's feelings of hurt, especially if LW is the one into bondage, and he's just obliging. But still, cheating is a very strong word, and the boyfriend is using it lightly here.
@4: Every day and twice on weekends is WAYDAFUCK above average. Boyfriend should count his lucky stars.
@6: Oh, I've met plenty of (young) ladies who played the make-him-a-bit-jealous-by-flirting-with-other-guys-right-in-front-of-him game. Just as immature and manipulative, no matter who does it.

@10: I'd agree with you that WHAT should end the relationship. This is an "ongoing problem"; he isn't satisfied with the plentiful compromise of four to five times a week; and he can't give her a break during a temporary period of overwork and tiredness? DTMFA. Plenty of guys would kiss the ground you walk on for 4-5 times a week sex, as we've read in recent comments.

@14: I was about to jump in and defend HEMP, then I re-read the letter, and have now interpreted the situation as: HEMP is the bondage aficionado; she asked BF to tie her up, but he didn't have any experience, so the whole "let's train you up" was her idea, and for her benefit, not his. From that perspective, I can see that she was maybe too enthusiastic about the whole thing. If BF was a reluctant bondage top who was merely trying to be GGG, it's not surprising that he was overwhelmed by the situation and overreacted to her obvious enjoyment. I think they need to talk more about whether bondage is his thing, and take it at a slower pace. Instructional videos maybe?
Mr(?) Sebastian - No; that's why I'm wondering, especially as only LW1 specifically presents as a woman; LW2 provides a clear inference in that direction; LW3 may be the closest to a toss-up; as for LW4, aren't most bedwetters men (I could be wrong, but just seem to recall that the few mentions I've encountred that have gendred the subject have asserted so)? My line of thinking was that it would be usual to run a selection of letters like this around February, when people who want male partners are more prone to lament the lack of a man in their lives.

Now, in the spirit of Homocentric August, when (as I don't recall your being a regular here) I go as far as possible to presume letters and their writers to be SS, I'll note that the interesting thing about L3 is that there's almost nowhere different to go if the letter is SS than if it's OS, which is a bit unusual. Most non-gendred letters give me a hook; this doesn't. I can perhaps wonder whether standards for libido difference are more lenient in OS relationships, but that feels a bit below par. Ah, well.
Re: CRASH, I'd like to note that partners who accuse you of cheating are often cheating themselves. It's classic behavior. One way of looking at it is that they make themselves feel less bad about what they're doing by convincing themselves that you're doing it, too. Another way of looking at it is that they are trying to manipulate you by putting the focus on your (imagined) behavior rather than their (real) behavior. Either way, it's bad news.
@CRASH - I think it is one of the two things Dan suggested: either an excuse to stop the marriage train which is now rolling, or he's an emotional nutter (insecure, jealous, controlling POS); I'm going with the former, because after two years of cohabitation, I very much doubt this is the first sign. DTMFA CRASH. Even if it is a momentary bit of cold feet freak-out, you really don't want someone who displays the (lack of) emotional maturity to pull this kind of stunt in response to their own fears. You're signing up for a lifetime of parenting an emotional child.
in the spirit of Homocentric August,

I had no idea such a thing existed!

Also: @19 +1 - that's another real possibility.
Ms Fan - I'd say such conduct would cause them to forfeit the status of the L word (which, as I've said before, really only belongs at Wimbledon or at the end of a great many alliterative adjectives beginning with L); wouldn't you?

By the way, to be fair, this is largely not a gendred issue. In fact, the most outrageous examples I've seen have gone the other way - at least three occasions on which someone has made a reference to a convicted rapist or murderer and in so doing called him "the gentleman who [did X]". One would think that there would be consensus about rape and murder being off the table for gentle conduct, even if a serious defence could be mounted for the immature and manipulative conduct you mention as being not incompatible with the L or G word.
Mr Finch - It's my annual tradition.
@22: My multiple comments are confusing even me now. Which conduct are you talking about? (I couldn't find the L word you reference in any of the letters.)
re: crash,

think dan really minimize the BF's perspective and behavior. Relationships are all about trust, respect and acceptance. The guy's insecurity is real. Two years together is not a life time with another person. I think the guy will come around, but don't force it. Most people no matter how fluid and open about personal histories don't want to find or be reminded of past relationships with expired props.
I was a bed wetter/sleep walker for most of my first 12 years and the psychological damage it does to a person is huge. If this guy cant be sympathetic about something OVER WHICH YOU HAVE NO CONTROL???? :.. IMHO DTMFA.
Re LW3 sheesh. I got married when I was 19 and did not have sex 5 times a week. I am reminded of Woody Allen in Annie Hall where each partner is seeing a psychiatrist:
Woody:... "We hardly ever have sex, Maybe 3 times a week"
Then you see Annie in her Dr's office: "He ALWAYs wants's like 3 times a week"
CRASH. Just tell your BF that you use condome to keep water out of your rifle barrel.…
@ 19 - So fucking true.
Tell the boyfriend to check the expiration date on the condom packaging. That should help.
Today I learned: If I like blowjobs, and my girlfriend isn't good at them, and I convince her to let me get a pro to demonstrate on me, she's not allowed to have any feelings about it.

@24: I think he means "lady," and is dissatisfied with that term being applied to people turned on by jealousy.

I don't agree, mostly because people don't get to choose their turn-ons.
When i first read the HEMP letter.... i thought the BF was overreacting...but now maybe i agree with BiDanFan at 17. She took her BF way out of his comfort zone for her own benefit (not a horrible thing all by itself... but obviously they didn't sufficiently communicate about it...or she would've resisted getting so turned on and/or he would've been more okay with her enthusiasm)... then she came in front of him.... and he is overwhelmed... and "wants to dump me" is more along the lines of him saying "it was too much for me... YOU are too much for me...."
BiDan @ 17
I applaud your ability to apply judgment that isn’t based on the person’s genitalia. I hope this week doesn’t turn into a gang male bashing, considering the letters selection as well as the already-celebrated ape illustration.

Venn @ 18
I was also wondering if the bed wetter is a male, but after last week was a bit reluctant to bring up the subject.

@WET, I'd like to know what the jokes are like. The most charitable interpretation would be that he is trying to alleviate your embarrassment with humor (e.g. upon waking up to finding that you wet the bed he says "well that explains my dream about being in a hot tub last night.") But given how much this upsets you I am not inclined to think that is the nature of the jokes. So go with Dan's advice and if your boyfriend doesn't change his behavior he is either a complete asshole or is too dense to realize that his behavior is indistinguishable from the behavior of an asshole.
Chairmanof theBored @32, she didn't have an orgasm. She had an enjoyable physical experience, and her body shuddered. That doesn't mean her clit was involved in any way.

Her boyfriend is accusing her of having an orgasm, because then he gets to throw the word "cheating" around, whereas otherwise he would just have to own up to his feelings: "What you experienced looked really intense and I'm feeling insecure about our relationship now."

I'm not defending her -- she clearly was unsatisfied with her BF's efforts and didn't care about his feelings when she set up the "gift" of these classes. I agree with Dan that their relationship is over. But the alleged orgasm is a red herring.
In HEMP's defense - if the boyfriend knew that getting tied up is her thing, and agreed that she could be the model for the professional… what did he think would happen? That she would just sit there like a statue? I can get that the idea might have sounded good on paper - there was the potential for him to learn the specific things she liked, etc - but really, he went into this knowing it would be to learn about what pleasures her, so what did he expect? If they watch porn together to learn what he likes, would he be cheating if he got aroused by it?

The only way I can see this being unfair for him is if HEMP didn't tell him where they were going, and just dragged him there and went "Surprise! Today we're going to learn how YOU can make yourself good enough for ME." The way HEMP describes it, it definitely sounds more like an insecurity issue to me.

@32, she didn't say she orgasmed, she said she shuddered. I don't know about you, but it's a pretty natural reaction for me to shudder if a stranger touches me unexpectedly, especially if I can't see them or they have cold hands.
@ 37 - The BF may have found (perhaps unconsciously) that this was the perfect way to get out of this whole bondage thing: by going ahead with the classes, he wouldn't lose his GGG card, and all he needed to do was to find something to blame her for once they were there. Then he could use that forever to manipulate her.
@ ericap and jina - ignore the orgasm part of my post. The issue for him is that she enjoyed it so much. I completely agree that him using the word cheating is really insecure.

And as a partial aside... perhaps Dan should come up with an alternative acronym from DTMFA for these instances. The BF being overwhelmed by the situation and throwing out the word cheating is certainly a sign of them being incompatible...but it hardly makes him a motherfucker.
@38 Ricardo - honestly, I wondered if that was the case myself. I actually had a whole paragraph typed up about how he's blowing this out of proportion so that he can have a get-out-of-bondage-free card ("You CHEATED on me! I'm not doing this any more because it reminds me of how you CHEATED on me!"), but I deleted it because it's complete speculation on my part.

In any case, I think she should call his bluff and dump him already. If bondage is that important to her, they're not a good match anyways.
How dare HEMP's boyfriend be upset at being made to watch her have a sexual experience with someone else! Why, the sheer gall of him, having feelings as if he thought he was a person!
Isn't love about seeing one's partner happy? So the girl was happy being bound by the bondage guy and what the boyfriend couldn't see that. Happy as a pig in mud.
men want their women hot but not too hot? A bubble of sex on legs, but only on Thursdays.
@42: Monogamy is a thing, duh.

I get the impression that HEMP assured her boyfriend that this wasn't going to be a sexual experience, and he believed her, and felt betrayed when her physical responses made it clear that it was. He's acting exactly how people act when that happens.

Not mentioned in the letter: How she sold the idea to the boyfriend, and/or how reluctant he was--or, really, any mention of his feelings at all.

HEMP: Feelings. You know people have those, right? Even dudes.
@ 40 - Everything we say here is complete speculation.

That said, I've seen this sort of behaviour so often that I'd call it "educated speculation".

@ 41 - Having consented to taking the classes (as we must presume from the contents of the letter), he should have known that this might happen, and adjust his expectations accordingly. He has a right to his feelings, but as an adult, he also has an obligation to control them to a certain extent in view of the specific situation.
@41 MrE, if this is the first of many telling us boys have feelings yeah yeah yeah.. I'm going to report you. Not for trolling or off topic, for boring the fucking shit out of me.
@6 my thought exactly.
@45: Do you just seriously not know that lots of people don't like it when their partners have fun sexytimes with other people?

Or do you think something about being male means you're not allowed to not like things? Asking someone with power to silence people with boring opinions like "ethics apply to everyone" is pretty standard for that type. Disappointing.
Re: CRASH - Given how frequently people cheat on each other (even Dan has alluded to infidelity in his relationship), I'm not sure who is the more delusional - the person who blindly trusts in his/her partner's fidelity, or the person who occasionally succumbs to unfounded suspicions.

I also don't understand those who get offended at the suggestion that they might have cheated. Are they not human?

As for those who say "Relationships are about trust", brilliant! I'll file that under Platitudes right next to "There is no I in team". As it turns out, actual relationships are about a quite lot things, some of which even contradict each other.

As for the practical matter of this relationship, obviously, the boyfriend needs to move on for it to continue. Towards that end, reassure him, don't pathologize him, and give it a little time. If that doesn't work, dump him.
Bondage girl, now you've tasted the delights of being with a man who knows what he's doing with ropes, and this stick figure of a boyfriend is doing the what about me routine, go forth and enjoy.
Leave this boy in the dust.
Seems this might just be a classic catch 22 for this BF. If he was secure enough in himself to know that he could not handle this situation.... he would've told her in advance. But if he was that overtly self aware... the situation would not have rattled him so much either.....

There is a lot to speculate about...but the end result is that it was too much for him. He saw a side of her that intimidated the hell out of him. Using the word "cheating" is overdoing it. But vilifying him is overdoing it too.
more to @39- I just re-read the letters and see that Dan never said DTMFA re the HEMP letter. Oops. Move to strike
@44 - Control, or perhaps simply *express* those feelings. It was a joint experience, I'm sure that he could have safeworded at any point in the proceedings as well. He should have spoken up and said, "Y'know, on second thought, I'm not as down with this as I thought I would be." But he had to play it cool instead, and now they're both suffering the consequences.

Although I do wonder how she presented the idea to him, and how that all played out. It would be one thing if it were, 'this is something I want *you* to do to me, but we need to make sure we're safe', and 'God, you were utter crap at that I guess you need lessons so I can get off properly'.
@50: And he failed to DTMFA when he should've. The weird thing about situations where you ought to DTMFA is that failing to do it often makes you into an MF yourself--since staying in a ruined relationship doesn't make people into good partners.

He didn't DTMFA, so now HEMP needs to DTMFA. When you think your partner's screwed you over, the correct response is to leave, not to stay and wallow in bitterness. People who stay when they can't really stay usually turn into motherfuckers.

[Possible exceptions for very long-term, high-commitment relationships that might get better. This one's neither, though.]
as to the CRASH letter.... typically, i am not a fan of using "alibis" (of a sort) to restore trust.... but in this case, maybe Tim Horton is right... and you should show him the expiration date. Though perhaps that is no longer an option since you likely had this happen weeks ago...and the condom is long gone now...
@52: "He should have spoken up and said..."

People in pain don't tend to act like paragons of rationality. Especially if they feel like they've just been blindsided.
I'm not vilifying him, Chairman.. This boy could have gone in a different way.
He could have seen how turned on she was and enjoyed her enjoying it.
Thinking how he wants to get her home, and see that same delight when he had the ropes.
men want their women hot, only with them though. Men, thru their own sexuality.. Know that one's hot sex is fueled by lots of people, stories.. Yet they expect their women to just have it for them?
But we don't know that he was blindsided. Maybe he was just going with the flow, maybe they discussed it rationally a half-dozen times before they went to the sessions. (Two sessions, btw, so we don't even know if her little shuddering betrayal happened during the first or the second.) All that we know is that he's freaking out on her now, and she's being forced to defend herself against false accusations.
sanguisuga @52 >> 'God, you were utter crap at that I guess you need lessons so I can get off properly'.>>

That's how I read it. Giving him a gift that was really about her pleasure was a very selfish thing to do. And doing it after only one experience of him tying her, rather than giving him some time to play around and see if he wanted to learn more about rope -- both selfish and short-sighted of her.
@58 - It's entirely possible, but again, we don't *know* that. And not that I've ever been to a professional bondage session, but I find it hard to believe that there wouldn't have been some kind of signal or safeword for either of them to employ if it got to be too much.
@ 56 - never said you were Lava. That wasnt really directed AT anyone... just an observation that neither extreme would make sense to me in this case. There is no clear winner/loser in this scenario... they are both right and both wrong.... and should go their separate ways. I don't think she deserves to be called a cheater at all. That is absurd. For the record, if my partner bought bondage sessions for us... i would be thrilled.... not because i have a bdsm bent...but because it would turn me on immensely to think that something turned her on so much that she would initiate getting lessons...
@59 - by my estimation... it was "too much" before it even started.... so consider his use of the word "cheating" as his retroactive safe word. haha
"He felt ill in the middle of the night and went to sleep in the spare room—where he found a condom in its wrapper behind the nightstand. Now my BF thinks I'm cheating on him."

Yeah fucking right. He snooped, and my have thought this before. If he was sick, why was he moving nightstands around? What a douchenozzle.
@1: You can't argue against these people. Their "ideas" aren't rational.
@14: "Because I think the BF of LW2 has something of a point with "she cheated right in front of him". She didn't have to be the model herself in these bondage sessions."

You'd also be a dick boyfriend if you agreed to the terms and reneged. A safety instructional is not a sex act in itself.
@62 when my SO isn't around and I sleep on her side of the bed I find all sorts of stuff behind her nightstand just by letting my eyes wander as I nod off. Mostly it's used tissues, but occasionally it's been stuff that I knew she was looking for. Her nightstand is just built that way, you can see more from the bed than standing in front of it.
Now that the approval of Addyi opens the door for psychoactive drugs management of libido problems, WHAT should get her boyfriend on antidepressants to treat his pathologically high sex drive.
@ 52 - Yes. But "control" does not mean "repress" or "eliminate".
@ 55 - "People in pain don't tend to act like paragons of rationality"

Like women who burst in tears when having a painful conversation with their BF, you mean?
@69 - Oooooohh....
@69: Only women can be manipulative harpies, you big silly.
@57: "But we don't know that he was blindsided."

True! But it sure looks that way. She gave us no reason to think he wasn't and he's definitely acting like he was. So we have some reason to think he was, and no reason to think he wasn't.

"And not that I've ever been to a professional bondage session, but I find it hard to believe that there wouldn't have been some kind of signal or safeword for either of them to employ if it got to be too much."

Oh yeah. Because everyone treats the feelings of male partners as significant. Why, just look at this threat! ...In which almost zero people are doing that.

@64: "A safety instructional is not a sex act in itself."

He was probably told that, yes, given that he freaked out on seeing that it was an intensely sexual act and realized that it wasn't true. People don't like being lied to, especially when the lie was "What I'm gonna do with this other person ain't sex."

@69: Correct. You probably think you're pulling off a "gotcha" by pretending not to know that this has nothing in common with someone considering a plan to break out in strategically-useful tears. I'm not joining you in pretending that; sorry.

In case it even needs repeating, someone acting badly when in sudden pain has nothing in common with someone who is making a plan to act badly in order coerce someone else.
@66: If you're sick enough to cloister yourself off in another room ostensibly for rest, it really does seem like the sort of thing a person has to search for in order to get mad about.
*Thread, not threat.
@72: "someone considering a plan to break out in strategically-useful tears."

We know, you remain massively obtuse about your willful misread. That's the joke!
so now do we get to say that this boyfriend's behavior is perfectly reasonable because it is an emotional response...? and in no way manipulative? because it isnt intentional.....? or maybe it is intentional...maybe he only said yes so he could hatch this plan to demoralize his gf.... uhoh...i've gone cross-eyed.

Actually... strike that... this conversation has long past reached the beat a dead horse phase.... lol
@ 71 - By definition, yes, but men can be manipulative dickheads... believe me!
@ 72 - The fact is, the "plan" part, although an interesting possibility which I was glad you brought up, was just that: a possibility. There was nothing in the letter that clearly pointed either way. Only you thought it was a certainty... and I really wonder why.
@72 - No, what I meant was that it was a BDSM session, albeit an instructional one. There should have been a safeword, and all three of the people in that room would have had access to that word and would have been able to use it if they felt it necessary. That the male half of the couple involved did not use that word is on him. Yes, he had feelings and those feelings are valid. But if he chooses not to share those feelings until after the fact, and in a fairly negative way, how is that in any way her fault?
@73 - Undead - that seems like a quirky position you are taking on the letter. How he found the condom does not change the fact that he found the condom. He didnt read her diary nor hack into her email.... he found a condom behind the guest nightstand. I guess i dont really see the point in calling him names BECAUSE he found a condom under slightly odd circumstances. If this guy found the condom a day earlier...because he was snooping... and someone told him he should look under the guest bed.... and then he concocted the "i'm ill" story to give himself a a guilt free cover... then i would agree with you... LAME. But it seems like a stretch to assume as much.
@ 72 - As for this case, my post @ 38 shows how HEMP's BF might have planned his reaction. It is a possibility, yet you adamantly refuse to see that: you insist that he must be the victim here. Why?

Still, having put forth the possibility that he was manipulating her, I do realize that it is just that, a possibility, and I don't think it's worth my while to get into a fight about it.

@80: I am, honestly it's not important that he found it, but his freaky-distrustful reaction sort of adjusts how I feel about his "discovery". A lot of times they don't come from nowhere but confirm previous assumptions. That's my read-in though, I don't expect others to necessarily feel the same.
@79: "There should have been a safeword"

As this was a class, this wasn't a "scene", he's free to speak up and these no concern for "breaking" anything.

Honestly, here it sounds like the guy was primarily insecure that he was doing it wrong initially and got angry that some other guy could "do it better".
@83 - Oh, well a class would be an entirely different environment. When LW said 'session', I assumed it was a private thing for them alone.
@ 83 - "it sounds like the guy was primarily insecure that he was doing it wrong initially and got angry that some other guy could 'do it better'"

That's another interesting possibility. Hopefully Eudaemonic is reading all this.
I think her framing the sessions as a gift to him instead of a favor to her is pretty assholish.
I think him insisting she had an orgasm and calling her a cheater after he agreed to the session is pretty assholish.
Break up, you're not well-suited. Or, you know, stay together and spare the single population.
@ 86 - But nowhere in her letter does it say that she's the only one who wants to try bondage.
@72. mr E. In my experience the male population, share their feelings clearly, a lot of the time. This boy has obviously shared his feelings with his gf, or she wouldn't have written to Dan.
I don't invalidate his feelings, I can understand what he might have experienced. Just don't choose to make his feelings the most important aspect of the story. And, if he wasn't such a baby, his feelings might reflect a bit more of an adult response.

@87: That's true but I still think portraying having something that turns you on performed on you so that your partner can learn to better please you as a gift to your partner is an asshole move.
@ 89 - But what if he's actually into it? It might be an interest they both share. We have no way of knowing how much he's into it, but if he is, there's absolutely nothing assholish about giving him that gift.
I still wouldn't frame it as a gift for him. If however they are both very into it and this was just an unexpected emotional bump I would be less likely to advise them to break up.
And I'd also point out that this version invalidates your earlier theory that he planned the tantrum to get out of ever doing it again. If he's really into it then his (admittedly not great) emotional reaction was probably genuine.
@86: Honestly, I have sympathy for them both. HEMP was eager (too eager) to spice up their sex life, and thought that a demo by a pro would be the best way to go about it. (@14: OF COURSE she was the model; the point was for BF to learn how to tie HER up, not how to tie some other woman up.) BF tried to be GGG, but it was too much for him. She overreached; he overreacted. If they love each other they'll each apologise and get back to the negotiating table.
I mean, it could be a bowling ball gift to Marge, but we don't know how it was framed, whether it was a surprise etc.
@93: Yeah, I can see both sides. It's definitely possible to work through if he doesn't keep pushing the "you had an ORGASM" angle and relaxes a bit.
@ 92 - It doesn't invalidate it; it was just an hypothesis (notice the use of semi-auxiliaries may, would, could), and I've discussed a few others.

Personally, I think that accusing her of cheating is assholish beyond doubt. Other than that, everything else is pure speculation, including and most definitely on my part.
One thing we do know for sure, though: if she really did just shudder, the fact that he can't tell the difference between a shudder and an orgasm is a good enough reason in itself to dump him and to find a better lover.
A third of a point to Ms Rand for Marge's bowling ball. Well played.
@97: You're not going to be swaddled down with clothes in those scenarios either, learning or otherwise. The likelihood that she was lightly clothed was high, and having exposed skin being touched by ANYONE would make many people shudder and twich reflexively.
Im gonna assume that this particular shudder was a doozy....and NOT the kind one gets from being surprised by cold hands. She probably shuddered...let out a long moan.... sighed... etc. But...none of that really matters to me... because even if she DID have an actual orgasm... i dont think "cheating" is a remotely accurate way to frame the experience. (unless she is conveniently leaving incriminating information completely out of the letter... like "oh...did i forget to mention the pro dom was my ex fiance.... shucks..."
@Ricardo: I was just pointing out that he can't be both a huge dom AND secretly trying to get out of it because it seemed like you were pulling out any and every scenario to make him the bad guy and excuse her. I already agreed that the "You orgasmed, cheater!" thing was dickish.

#93 puts a more charitable spin on my scenario. You're so much nicer than me BiDanFan :P