@tachycardia, do you wear a sheitel?

When I was young, I worked in a strip club in Houston. I can't even begin to tell you how often wealthy Saudi and Jordanian princes came to the club with their bros straight from the Middle East who were desperate to see the US strip scene. Are they not conservative fundamentalist Muslims?

We are confused here because the women were present, and in their traditional conservative clothing. I tend to think it's a costume- those people were pretending to be conservative Muslims. If they were REAL conservative Muslims- wealthy tourists let's say- they'd remove their garb the moment they step into the club (like they do in the clubs in their own countries). Unless they are REAL conservative Muslims- wealthy tourists- who also get off on being in their garb in the same way that actual real life Catholics might like to put on their school uniforms, etc.

In any case, I think the chances that it's an actual conservative Muslim man with his harem is zilch, but the world is an astoundingly bizarre place so who knows.

@18 CMD

I can't speak for all straight women. My guess would be no in a general sense. I've not known many straight women who found it exciting to see their men in women's clothes. But the world is a big place, and it's changing. HOWEVER, I think it's pretty common to find men in androgynous or femme clothing very hot. Eyeliner for example or fishnets- I'm sort of showing my age here but it was a totally normal thing in the 80s and 90s punk/alternative/goth/metal scenes for there to be male sex symbols bending the gender roles, but usually not in the wearing-women's-panties way. That said, if a man I already found hot felt sexier in women's clothes, that would become hot because it's hot when attractive people feel sexy. But it's an effect, not a cause.

@95 and @99- I don't know about the current generation of young men, but in the recent past, it was totally normal for teenage boys or young men to share beds in many parts of the world including Mexico- maybe not for 2 years unless they were poor and shared a small flat- but certainly if they were out traveling together or sleeping rough together or family friends or rented a place already furnished or were students sharing a room, etc. This is also the case in most of the subcontinent as well, and in both Latin Am and Subcontinent cultures, it's still pretty normal for young straight men to be affectionate with one another (arms around each other's shoulders, sitting close) without there being any gay subtext or interest.

Hunter @ 109 - Praise is not the hardest thing to survive, in my experience.

Thanks!

@80 & @90 Hunter: Was LISA by any chance first printed in SLLOTW? If there was a different name referenced other than in the letter and response printed in Wishful Kinking, that would explain some confusion.
@91 CMDwannabe: I am thinking fuzzier---and loving those panties!
@98, @99, @100, @104 & @105 BiDanFan: Lucky you to be in sunny Spain! Happy holidays!
@102 DonnyKlicious: Aack-oop indeed! Your Penthouse college letter is sheer brilliance. Any chance of a reprint for posterity in Savage Love? It certainly tops LISA's story.
@111 Ricardo: You have much to be praised for. Please forgive my earlier confusion re: LISA. I know the BF described as Roberto wasn't you. I was re-reading the LWs, comment threads, and Hunter's comments [@80 & @90] mentioning your name left me feeling I had somehow misinterpreted something--and of course, I did. Of course that wasn't you. My goof and apologies.
Not bad for Friday and St. Patrick's Day to already be over the hunsky mark!

@106: How sadly true, too, about places we've lived that aren't the same anymore. Gone is the Seattle of my youth.

EmmaLiz @ 108, Welcome back.
Not to add fuel to the anti Moslem sentiment going around, but at least back in the days some wealthy Middle Eastern men were known to have one standard at home while a very different one elsewhere.
I haven’t figured out the hotel scene myself, some contradicting clues.

Ricardo- as it turns out, all roads lead to Hackney. I lived a bit with squatters back in the days.

BDF- my Friday was way rainier than yours!
(And for all of you linguists: This is what I actually thought that mountain, Rainier, stands for when I first moved here.)

Perhaps CMD's phrase should be: "for all time some wealthy and powerful men have been known to have one standard at home while a very different one elsewhere."

I think that men holding the women of your household, your wife or wives, children, unmarried sisters, mother, and mother-in-law to a standard entirely different to the way you perceive and treat other women is practically universal, and simply can be enacted on a larger scale the more money and power they have. It certainly cuts across religions and cultures.

The possibilities I can come up with for the women in modest dress accompanying the man to the orgy at the kink event could have been:
1) Role-playing entirely: not Muslim, not observant, but acting out either their own fetish or helping their friend or client to realize his.
2) Muslim kinksters who get off on transgressive behavior, including incorporating modest garb into sexual situations.
3) Some sort of harem, maybe kinky themselves, maybe not, who are clothed a lot differently underneath their modest outer-wear, but still go about publicly in traditional modest garb.

Griz@112 "Any chance of a reprint for posterity in Savage Love? It certainly tops LISA's story.
Created long before computers, in a drug-fueled haze, I WISH I had a copy. We all thought it was sheer brilliance. But then we thought the same thing about all our other pot-inspired revelations... • an alternate universe where people are high all the time and have to smoke pot to get normal... • "sub-arguments", which is what a debate devolves into over time to the point you're arguing about something completely different than where you started.. • the best way to scare the shit out of your buddies when they were high (which included one guy jumping out of a third story window. After dashing to the window to behold his crumpled body lying below, we just all stood there filling our our pants and universally exclaiming, "WHY DOES HE ALWAYS DO THIS SHIT WHEN WE'RE STONED?!?") Little did we know he had discovered you could jump to a nearby roof to a balcony to the ground.

Griz @ 112 - There's nothing to be forgiven for, I thought it all very funny.

Nocute- Yes, unfortunately the phenomenon is indeed universal. The Saudis still stand out due to their moral police, aggressive marketing of strict Wahhabi interpretation of Islam, and often extravagant money-fueled shenanigans almost anywhere outside the country.

I noticed you are ruling out the possibility of “accidental observers” as sported by LW. I tend to agree, the only thing that still holds me somewhere around there are the reported giggles.
Also, what makes one look like a “cute-as-could-be hippie girl” nowadays?

DK- after a fairly long sub arguments-infused lecture of some sort I often pause to ask, “Wait a minute, where were we?”

@118 :-)

@118: I didn't see anything in WKW's letter to indicate he thought that the man and three women in hijabs and modest dress were accidental observers, if by "accidental," you mean that they wandered in off the street by chance and were unaware of the nature of the convention they'd wandered into. They may have just come upon that particular orgy by chance, but since they were at Dark Odyssey Winter Fire, which WKW describes as "the big kink hotel takeover event," I have to assume they knew they were attending a kink event and were there deliberately. Here is the pricing for the event. If you have to pay that kind of money, you pretty much know what you're paying for. Or if you don't know the specifics, you are at least curious, don't you think?

SHHH is a classic example of people who are no longer sexually compatible. In this case the LW is no longer interested in the type of sex (with her LTR) that brought them together in the first place. It is unrealistic and unreasonable for SHHH to expect her primary to change his sexual preferences while she continues to enjoy those sexual preferences with others. Dan's comment "It's not uncommon to meet people in BDSM spaces/circles who have passionate, intimate, solid, and regular vanilla sex with their long-term partner(s) and intense BDSM play and/or sex with more casual partners." is only true when both parties want the change. All things end and this relationship appears to be one of them. SHHH only hope of saving her LTR is to completely give up (with all partners) the type of sexual activity she no longer enjoys with her primary and accept that he will continue to play with others. I doubt that she is willing to do this. The GGG argument would only apply to her primary if she no longer wanted BDSM with anyone.

CMD @114: Rest assured, holiday karma has struck and we're currently sheltering from a raging thunderstorm. Can't wait to get back to sunny Hackney.

Regulars: I've left a comment on last week's SL.

nocute @ 120
I tend to agree, it’s, “The three women in hijab giggled. The whole scene was really sweet…” that made me wonder, but it does feel like LW’s wishful thinking (which may have also served as the inspiration for this week’s “wishful kinking” title.)

BDF @ 122
Stay warm and dry

I still wonder if anyone knows what constitute “cute-as-could-be hippie girls” nowadays.
I’m still stuck with flowers in hair, bra-less breasts moving gently under a tie-dye, possibly also hairy legs and under arms.

CMD No tie-dye. Body hair has always been the minority rather than majority of hippie girls- then and now- though certainly more common with hippie girls than with non-hippie girls. I've never seen hippie girls these days with flowers in their hair, and I think the look now is a little more urban and more jeans than skirts, though otherwise it's similar- less styled hair, minimal makeup, clothes that are comfortable but aesthetically pleasing with no corporate logos, including natural colors and prints, evidence of handicrafts, layering (like scarves) but all with more tattoos and piercings and dyed hair than before. I'd say there is a distinction between a hippie girl nowadays- farmers market organic farming type- and a Cochela Fest girl which wants to look like a modern version of a hippie girl which might be what they meant. Those are two very different things. Also a difference between a hippie girl and other kids of politically left or subculture or artistic girls. When I'm drinking, I have the problem of both desiring to make huge promises and desiring to be very honest so I'd promise to make you a full taxonomy except that I know I'm actually just going to sleep. :) If you need actual images, I suggest google classes at herbal farms and natural building (cob, etc) workshops etc.

@121

Maybe I'm misreading, but why is that their only alternative? If Dan's assessment is correct, why can they not BOTH seek these experiences outside of their relationship while continuing to have vanilla sex with one another? If they are having a very deep and loving relationship that's simply lacking the BDSM component, I don't see how you come to the conclusion that the LW should stop those experiences with others while allowing her partner to seek out those experiences with others. Am I misunderstanding something here?

@116 DonnyKlicious: Your further elaboration on your Penthouse tiger story sounds a little like what comedian Robin WiIliams once said [about the '60s]: 'If you remember 'em, you weren't THERE, man!' And the good times go by way too fast, don't they?
@117 Ricardo: I'm still smacking myself knowing full well that it was Roberto in LISA's letter. Glad you enjoyed a good laugh, though. What confused me was Hunter's recollection (@80), I think, from something Dan edited(?) in a previous edition of Savage Love. Thus the name-dropping game ensued.

@122 BiDanFan: Yikes about your thunderstorm! Safe and happy spring travels, and
@123 BiDanFan: LOL! Bleed all over us, Hunter; let us know you're there.
Final DDD score: BiDanFan and nocutename = 2, Hunter = 0

Hunter's Savage Love: Wishful Kinking Week in Review write up ought to be a hoot.

Thanks, Dan, Bi, Ricardo, Donny, Lava, nocute, Hunter, sb53, CMD, and everybody--- I needed a good laugh. Bless you all.

EL
Funny you mentioned farmers markets. The only current vintage hippies I can think of are indeed Evergreen college graduates selling their organic produce in Savageville’s markets. Who knew it’s a national trend.
“Flowers in hair” was obviously metaphoric, honoring the hard core traveling ones that those of us growing up overseas still cherish. “Bra-less breasts moving gently under a tie-dye,” on the other hand (intended), was a real thing. Hair was also a musical.

EmmaLiz: What I wrote was that what you and Dan propose only works when both parties are amenable to the change. Something that does not appear to be true for SHHH's boyfriend
"We have a very deep, loving relationship, so my feelings get hurt when we engage in bondage and kink play. This is especially problematic because I still enjoy BDSM with folks I'm not dating. Basically, if I'm not in love with someone, it doesn't hurt my feelings when they beat me and humiliate me. My boyfriend feels slighted, but I just don't know what to do. every time we play rough—the same way we had played for years—my feelings get hurt." From the "My boyfriend feels slighted" and "the same way we had (have?) played for years" comments I take it that the boyfriend is not amenable to that change. He may be willing to accept having passionate, intimate, solid, and regular vanilla sex with SHHH if she is willing totally forgo rough sex with anyone. It's possible,but I doubt it. It is even more unlikely that he will (or should be asked to) forgo having rough sex with anyone. She is being the opposite of GGG (she likes rough sex, just not with her boyfriend and wants him to accept something that I personally would find not only unacceptable, but an extremely offensive deal breaker).

She could lie about not continuing to have rough sex with others, but that would make her a CPOS (it's not like she couldn't get the rough sex at home). It is difficult to hide the physical signs of rough sex, the BDSM community is not that large so keeping it secret would be difficult (word would get back to the boyfriend), lying would undermine her LTR and be totally incompatible with what she describes as a very deep and loving relationship. Rough sex is the only reason that the relationship happened in the first place and (at least for the boyfriend apparently, I could be wrong about that, but I doubt it) is the glue that holds the relationship together. The need for rough sex appears to be essential to both of them. SHHH had better decide PDQ what is important to her (rough sex or her LTR). Frankly, I see this relationship doomed by anger,resentment and heart ache no matter how this shakes out. As I said, a classic example of people who are no longer.sexually compatible.

EmmaLiz

I hope this last comment explains my earlier comment. I am interested in your perspective. In your opinion, what are SHHH's options (hope)? I wrote what I think is her simplest, most straight forward option. Anything else seems more convoluted and/or more likely to warp (or destroy) her LTR. Adding lies, deceit, and betrayal to a relationship never ends well (at the very least it distorts and undermines the relationship) and at some level inevitably creates contempt (and demeans the person you are lying to, deceiving and betraying)

I reread SHHH's letter and it seems that there are three issues:
1) Now that she has a deep and loving relationship with her bf, her feelings get hurt when he humiliates or hurts her during sex.
2) She can still enjoy BDSM with others with whom she's in more casual relationships. It's unclear whether her bf minds that she gets those needs met elsewhere. She says they're polyamorous, so presumably they're each free to have kinky sex or just kink with others.
3) Boyfriend feels slighted that she still wants the kinky sex, but not with him.

It's not clear whether the bf enjoys vanilla sex at all. It's not clear whether he's more upset that the BDSM has stopped in their relationship or that the lw still wants it--just not with him.

This is an interesting twist on a problem I've heard about from the other side. I know some people who can't inflict pain on the person they're in love with. So the relationship, which began as a BDSM one rooted in a D/s dynamic has shifted. Some people seem to be able to switch their primary relationship to a more vanilla model and allow the sex to no longer contain BDSM elements of pain and humiliation, especially, if they can get those desires met elsewhere. If he can enjoy vanilla sex, this might have a chance of working: they each outsource the BDSM. But it sounds as though BDSM is crucial to both of them.

This might just be analogous to a vanilla woman who, though feeling deep love for her partner, no longer feels sexually attracted to him. In that case, I think it might be time for this relationship to shift into a deep and loving friendship.

@135 - I'm confused. I don't see where EmmaLiz advocated for 'lying, deceiving and betraying'. All that I see is a recommendation that they both find a way to get those needs met elsewhere while maintaining a somewhat vanilla if loving relationship.

While ultra-orthodox Judaism isn't progressive on gender issues. I wouldn't go so far as to say that Judaism, even in more orthodox circles, is sex-negative. Celibacy, which is a central feature of Roman Catholicism, isn't part of Jewish thought, and sex is supposed to be a pleasurable act.

I agree that it's impossible that they can both get exactly what they want. Being in a long term relationship always includes compromise. The LW wants vanilla sex with her boyfriend and rough sex with people with whom she's not attached. Her boyfriend wants vanilla and rough sex with her. This is not possible. They have to figure out a way to compromise. If they can't, then they should break up. There is no way that it's healthy at all to say that the boyfriend gets to screw whoever he wants while the LW gets to only screw the boyfriend just so that they can feel that they have evenly shared discontent. That seems really bizarre to me. This is not a legal negotiation. She does not want to have rough sex with her partner. Now the ball is in his court. He can enjoy the sex he has with her and enjoy rough sex with others, or if it's really important for him to have rough sex with his partner, then they can split up. Saying they should just find a way to be equally miserable is no solution at all. You can't quantify these things.

And it's scary to me that you think she's not being GGG because she doesn't do something she doesn't at all feel comfortable doing. She explained in detail why she doesn't want to have rough sex with him. It's not GGG to force yourself to do something that makes you uncomfortable. Seriously- GGG doesn't mean you get everything you want.

What if SHHH tried roleplaying/fantasising that her partner is someone else? Perhaps he could wear a hood or mask, and call her by a different name? Or perhaps she could get into the headspace where she deserves to be punished for failing to be GGG?

Hunter, how did we ever manage without your brilliant and insightful contributions.

Sanguisuga

Miracles can happen and the boyfriend could agree to a vanillaish sexual relationship with SHHH (and Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny are real), which is what Dan and EmmaLiz say does often happen.

My point was that SHHH and her boyfriend are no longer sexually compatible. She wants to continue rough sex, just not with her boyfriend while the boyfriend wants rough sex with SHHH.
The boyfriend might agree to a more vanilla sexual relationship with SHHH if she gave up rough sex entirely while he is free to engage in rough sex elsewhere, something I doubt she would be happy about.

So SHHH is faced with a dilemma:
She can unhappily give up rough sex.
She can continue rough sex and have her feelings hurt by her boyfriend.
She can continue rough sex with others, but withhold it from her soon to be ex-boyfriend.
She can continue to have rough sex with others and lie to her boyfriend about it.

I was not implying that either Dan or EmmaLiz were suggesting that she become a CPOS.

EmmaLiz

I don't see any suggestion that SHHH can't continue to fuck whoever she wants. The issue is rough sex. She wants to continue rough sex, just not with her bf, which is not acceptable to the bf. The bf may be willing to compromise and have a vanillaish sexual relationship with SHHH provided she gives up rough sex. The question is whether she is willing to accept that compromise after all she is the one who wants to change their sexual relationship.

EmmaLiz

Is it GGG to force the bf to accept the change? She's not uncomfortable with rough sex, just rough sex with her bf. In effect, she is telling him that there are sex acts that she will no longer continue with him, but will continue with others. Who is being unreasonable? How would you feel if you were the bf? I would be incensed and move on.

@140 Hunter: I hope your weekend in Ohio with your sibs went well.
I missed your Week in Review, and couldn't resist the opener regarding DDD [your, BiDanFan's and nocutename's comment thread].