Savage Love Nov 9, 2016 at 4:00 am

Aaron The Side

Comments

107
I just read in the news! @Busy Quilting---how is everything in New Zealand? I hope you and your loved ones are all safe, and okay, and that earthquake damage was minimal. You are in our thoughts and prayers. I have friends here with family over there--our choir director's daughter is expecting her third child.

Everyone--stay healthy, at peace, and be safe.
108
Grizelda; Moore is getting around the traps I'm reading.
Bernie is up to something re organising people. Maybe check this out?
Women are moving, so google sites and find a place where you could find sisters you can connect with.



109
@108 LavaGirl: (@105, to Busy): Did you hear anything from Busy Quilting about the earthquake there? Were there tremors felt in Australia? Hope you're all okay.
@108 I would hate to think that Michael Moore would actually be among those plotting the Fall of the U.S. just to sell books and movies. He seems like he's out to expose all the fraudulent political and corporate corruption---and the truth that the U.S. people need to wake up to--- rather than dodge anything. Yes, I am reading continued good things about Senator Bernie Sanders, I-VT, signed the petition to end the electoral college, and have reached out to sisters protesting in L.A. on Facebook. California is pushing for Calexit, and secede from the broken union. There is supposed to be a protest in Seattle in January. I am still looking to find out if there will be a local women's / voters' protest here where I live.
I had a long visit with a neighbor friend just as horrified by this year's disastrous election as I am. I have no idea where to go if I HAD to move!
110
No tremors here Grizelda. It was the Sth Island, again. Nth of Christchurch, which coped the last one which killed people. No deaths that I've heard of. I think Busy lives in Wellington on the Nth Island, though there was a tsunami there as a result. Not crazy huge waves, I don't think.

I guess the Bernie or Bust crowd have now got their Bust.

And sleaze ball men will only have to ask a woman if she voted trump, if she says yes he'll know she has no problem with him grabbing her pussy.

Feminism is back. Big march by women planned for the day after the illegitimate President elect's inauguration, in Washington.
111
@110 LavaGirl: I'm ready for feminism to officially roar again. Let it go global.
No sex for GOP pigs and dogs! I know I'M not missing anything good.
112
No, I will not "give Trump--or Pence---a chance".
But I won't be the least bit surprised when those ecstatically cheering and gloating over DJT's illegitimate victory now get rear-ended like the rest of us will in the Divided States starting 2017. Let the Revolution begin----and it's going to be Donald Trump's butt-ugly.
113
How to Explain and Deal with Trump

(this is someone else's comment, not sure where I saw it.)

"He's just repeating names he's familiar with, of people he knows and now have attached themselves to him. As with everything else, there is not thought behind any of this, and no actual conviction or commitment, despite a fake show of having given such questions consideration.

If democrats were smart, they would start arranging meetings with him immediately, fun, jocular events where he can show off his Trumpiness and they can flatter him and plant ideas in his head; give him some "great guys" to do stuff for.

We know exactly how Trump works, and who he is: He is not ideological. He's "for" whatever he thinks his audience wants, whatever his rally crowds want, for as long as they are there, in front of him, feeding his ego.

Well, the TV ratings and rally crowd feedback loops are over, so they need to be replaced with new loops, with new characters here in the present, who he can feed off to shape his decisions, since he has no "thoughts" or "beliefs" or "principles" to ground them.

Whoever can be part of the next such loop is going get him to do things, regardless of party and Dems need to start getting in there now, and be part of it, to counter some of the influence from his cabinet."
114
Earthquakes GHASTLY. Hate them and terrified of them. Massive quake midnight last night and pretty much constant aftershocks since then. House and land we're on very solid and we are not close enough to the epicentre to suffer damage although quite a lot of damage to office buildings in central city.
I understand that there were actually two earthquakes close together and they've basically irritated each other (different faultines), and now there are up to four active faultlines that are all (my words) mad at each other. Hence the vast number of aftershocks.
Thanks for thinking of me! I need some sleep, only slept for about one hour last night. The rest of my bastard family all went back to sleep after the 7.5 quake - I was tempted to wake them all up to drink warm milk and bond with me!
115
NAME: So the "Forbidden Fruit" that is so tempting - so very tempting that you'll risk the ridiculously good arrangement you have now?

So much of kinky sex is "playing cops and robbers with your clothes off" (i.e. role playing actions and feelings you'd never do IRL). Can you negotiate a set of rules that lets you pursue forbidden activities AND give your GF the confidence that you'll follow rules that are important to her? I think so.

First, fess up to your kink / preference / thrill at breaking the rules. Which is as common as bigots in a voting booth. Then structure some "soft rules" and admit this is something your GF is doing for you (and maybe you owe her something else in return). Her "hard rules" remain in force and breaking those are DTMFA infractions.

Soft rules could be about sexual activities / positions, traits of a partner (hair color, shaves or not, body type), time / place of liaisons, etc. They might be your GF's preferences for some limits on you or maybe she could get into designing some constraints for you to sneak around. Then you try to break those rules and not get caught. And if you do get caught, maybe there's some punishment for you and reward for your GF (you pay all the rent that month? enthusiastic and competent foot rubs the next 30 nights?). Maybe she gets to enforce a yet-to-named punishment if you get caught. That uncertainty might excite you.

You get to break rules, but ethically. Your GF gets to control you in minor ways (which it sounds like she gets off on). You still don't get to fuck Erins/Aarons but you would get to break rules.

Cause NAME, there are so many, many more fuckable people out there - roughly 169 out of every 170 people* - that for some reason you are fixating on the very few that are out of bounds. Maybe it's like immediately after buying a new car it seems the same model is EVERYWHERE, but the fact that this trivial constraint causes you grief tells me that you are sorely tempted to break some rules.

* data to follow.
116
There is a department of the US Government with data on hand to help analyze NAME's kink for some forbidden fruit. Your tax dollars at work. Turns out, yes, Aaron/Erins are pretty thin on the ground.

By decade / name / number with that name / total births / rank / incidence of that name (within their gender):
1990's: Aaron; 128,318; 20,546,528; 31st; 1/160.
1990's: Erin; 65,326; 19,640,557; 50th; 1/300.
1980's: Aaron; 138,343; 19,230,995; 32nd; 1/139.
1980's: Erin; 115,814; 18,451,632; 28th; 1/159.
1970's: Aaron; 101,539; 17,111,945; 35th; 1/168.
1970's: Erin; 67,911; 16,461,313; 39th; 1/242.

Yes, I am an engineer (hence the MacGyver avatar). And a David who dated 6 women in a row, 5 of whom had a first or middle name of Susan, several of them having had an immediately previous BF named David. Which should tell you within 1-2 years when I born.
117

@113 Amos: Thank you for sharing this article, but truthfully, I find Trump far too repulsive to deal with, and can't imagine having to endure him or Pence in person. I'll keep it in mind while I join the protesting though.
@114 busy_quilting: We're so glad you're okay! Two earthquakes and multiple tremors?? Yikes----that is ghastly! I'd be terrified, too. No fun. I'm surprised that the rest of your family slept through that. I couldn't.
118
You have one rule and you can't follow it. My guess is whatever that rule was, that would be the rule you would want to break. There are 239,586 Erin's, of all ages, in the United States (howmanyofme.com) And somehow you need to bang them? If this chick's name was Edeveenospensenfurg he'd want to fuck all of them, too.

If you are lucky enough to find a compatible partner who is on board with you being bi and poly, you should be rejoicing. Not mourning all the Aaron's you can't bone.

This guy is the same guy who, at 36, will write in that his wife who had a C Section of Triplets and doesn't want to join him two weeks later at the swingers party isn't being GGG and it's okay to stray, right?
119
@118, Crissycrunch: Interesting site. And useful for stats on first OR last names, but not both. I run a number of combinations and its report of how many "David Smith", "Harry Potter", etc there are and in all cases it assumed a random distribution. They were all US population x incidence of first name x incidence of last name.

But contrary to how Sheldon in Big Bang Theory tried to gain a mathematical edge by combining the most common first name and most common last name in the world for his guess, "Muhammad Lee", there are strong correlations in play.
120
I alternated between "Davids" and "Mikes" for about 20 years lol.
122
[preface - if I'm offending anyone, I'm not aware, and it isn't intentional; I've only skimmed a few comments]

Might as well start with one of the biggies. Not Homocentric August, which is not yet decided (though I advise Mr Hunter against vain hopes).

I leave Austensplaining to Ms Ods - a recent Austen reader, who can presumably be trusted to keep Ms Cute in a good humour with whatever references are necessary to Henry Tilney. Perhaps she will be able to do more justice than I have done to some characters I feel I have neglected - Lady Russell and Admiral Croft, Sir William Lucas and Kitty Bennet, Julia Bertram and Dr Grant, Robert Ferrars and Mrs Palmer, Mrs Thorpe and Captain Tilney, Robert Martin and Mrs Weston, the Johnsons.
123
@122 vennominon: We are entering dark and strange times, for certain, and must be strong and solidify against the pending evil to see that justice is served, and ALL people are rightfully represented.
If I ever offended you, Venn, it was equally unintentionally.

Wishing you and everyone the best,

Grizelda
124
I have been experiencing trouble sleeping, despite my continued activity in my life's passions: music, VWs, and cats. Now, more than ever, my beloved little car is a warmly welcome, safe, and happy place for quiet solace as are my musical instruments, composing, and playing.
125
David @115: Interesting take, sort of the opposite of my read. NAME met one Aaron, Erin said "no Aarons," and all of a sudden every Aaron/Erin he meets shoots up about four points on the scale of one to ten. That would explain why there have been "several" over a few years. (I still think the actual name has been changed to prevent the real-life Erin from knowing NAME wrote in about it.)

Chrissy @118: NAME doesn't have "one rule." He refers to "one of the rules she mandated." Perhaps the others seem more reasonable or haven't been relevant.
I agree, though: if (IF) none of the other rules, whatever they may be, are arbitrary or restricting enough to have warranted his mentioning them, this seems a very reasonable price of admission.

Venn @122: Glad you're back!
126
@125: Yeah, I wondered if NAME disclosed his girlfriend's actual name or not. He purports to be bisexual and says this homonymic rule restricts him with prospects of both genders (Erin/Aaron, Francis/Frances, maybe Don/Dawn) so it could be any of those or a name that is ungendered like Jordan, Morgan, Lynne, etc.

But with any of those, my point still holds: Any particular name is a de minimis restriction to his hall pass to fool around. And a desire to want "Erin!!!!" cried out in a moment of passion to more surely be about her is understandable to me.

If, as you theorize (@71), the GF "Erin" whips out rules to constrain NAME's activities after nominally approving their open status, yeah, then it's on her to knock it the fuck off.
128
Franklin replies and unsurprisingly continues to completely miss the point. Reading his stuff is like watching Mr. Spock try to understand human relationships.
129
David @126: My guesses @13 were Jo/Joe, Chris, Alex. Those are all more common (though you're the researcher!) than Aaron and Erin.

Chase @128: Yeah, I disagree with Franklin's analysis too. He's assuming that every poly person was born without a jealousy gland. Which is the case for some, but not all.

I agree that "Happy, joyful people in awesome, fulfilling relationships do not write to strangers asking for help." But that does not logically follow that "damage has been done." What damage? Turning someone down for a date is not "damage." This happens all the time for every reason possible. By Franklin's logic, if someone asks you out, "first, do no harm" would compel you to say yes; I couldn't disagree more with this way of thinking. My agreement with the theory that this relationship is not "awesome and fulfilling" is not the existence of this "one" rule, but the existence of multiple "rules she mandated"; this just happens to be the one that's currently causing a conflict with LW's desires.

Franklin and Eve's "Relationship Bill of Rights" may work for them, but it's pretty presumptuous for them to insist every relationship must follow it. People are human. Most humans experience negative emotions like jealousy and insecurity to some degree. And shouldn't people be more concerned about "doing harm" to a person they supposedly love and have an established relationship with than some random they've just met? I certainly wouldn't want to date anyone who just jumped into dating whoever they wanted with zero regard for my feelings. The partners in question must decide what rules they are comfortable with, from "anything goes" to "veto power," most arriving somewhere in the middle (ie "run it by me first/keep me in the loop/listen to my concerns"). If Franklin and Eve have been together so long and are so secure in their relationship that they need no restrictions at all, then good for them. This is not necessarily the case with everyone.

"If you feel the need to test your partner to ensure their trustworthiness, it might be time to take a step back and think about why that is." Yes, it might. And you might conclude the reason is that the relationship is new, and you don't yet feel secure enough to jump fully into unrestricted outside relationships. Or you might conclude that one or both partners were hurt by previous lying partners, and are understandably skittish about full-blown poly. Or you might conclude that one or both partners is new to poly and not used to even the idea of openly dating others, let alone communicating effectively, and you might want to proceed slowly until you develop the skills and vocabulary to keep each other informed and reassured. All of these are valid reasons to proceed with caution.

Having the right "to choose your own partners" does not mean "without regard for your partner(s)'s feelings." If you think that the right to stick your dick* wherever you want is more important than making your partner(s) feel loved and secure, then YOU might want to step back and think about why that is.

*By which I mean your metaphorical, unisex dick.

    Please wait...

    Comments are closed.

    Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.


    Add a comment
    Preview

    By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.