Savage Love

The Leftovers


"A hired hand"? Priceless!
Wtf that girlfriend doesn't deserve him. My straight boyfriend makes out with a really pretty boy, at my request, and gets hard? Holy shit, fantasy times 1000%. You hop in there with your hand, foot, mouth, pussy, ass & have the night of your life-- you don't spend 6 months berating him about it, damn. I want this boy.
I'm in favor of informed consent obviously, but having to formally ask, in the middle of ardent lovemaking - "Is it OK for me to put my finger in your butthole?" would most definitely detract from the many delightful times I have had, both giving and receiving, when finger-in-butthole comes as a bit of a surprise. It's a fairly universal and "vanilla" sex practice, no? I don't think I would ever feel the need to ask permission beforehand, nor would I expect a sex partner to ask me. YMMV.

I'd also say (at risk of BiDanFan tearing into me again) that the BF whose GF got mad when he got hard while kissing another guy is a Kinsey 1 straight guy, whereas GF was expecting him to be Kinsey 0. In other words, she was highly disappointed that he didn't BARF or otherwise seem disgusted after making out with this very sexy guy at her specific request. (wtf...?) I wholeheartedly agree with Dan's advice to DTMFA. The scenario reminds me of a great old poem by Leigh Hunt, The Glove and the Lions, with a fabulous closing line: "No love," quoth he, "but vanity, sets love a task like that."
@3 Capri, why would they barf? There are all sorts of things that don't do it for me at all that don't disgust me. In the words of Old Scratchy in the original Bedazzled, they "fill me with inertia", they don't actively disgust.
Tl;dr sometimes it's a long way from "meh." to "Eeewwwww".
@5, I'm pretty sure that was some slight hyperbole on the part of Capricornius, but disgust at the thought of homosexual acts is a not uncommon reaction on the part of guys who are Kinsey 0 straight or who would like to be perceived that way. Of course, the bf wouldn't have made out with another guy, so it seems like the gf wants to have her cake and eat it too. Also, I second Dan's advice to dump her. Anyone who carries on for 6 months about their SO having an involuntary physical reaction to something they asked SO to do is a psycho bitch and LW should leave yesterday.
@4, I think outright asking would kill the moment, but someone surprising me with finger-in-butthole would kill things entirely. At least for that night. My experience has been that if I start rubbing on it and it feels good, my partner will push back against it and encourage it. I pretty much let them set the pace, so no one is surprised. They give me the same courtesy. I know this has been mentioned before but as you point out, it is worth repeating. Consent can be nonverbal. Especially if you have been with someone long enough to interpret their body language fairly accurately, have a pretty good idea of their boundaries from previous experience, and trust them to let you know if for some reason, something that is normally okay isn't okay this time. Ex. Sometimes my favorite position is a no go because I get cysts on my ovaries. I just tell my partner what I would prefer instead. Easy peasy.
Stranger @4@5, I have known a few Kinsey 0 individuals, and believe me, they would barf - assuming they would ever agree to perform this request in the first place, which is doubtful. (Same for a Kinsey 6, asked to kiss a member of the opposite sex.) The Kinsey Scale is a spectrum, most of us are not at the extreme ends, and I would therefore place most people who claim to be straight or straight-ish at 1 or 2, and most who claim to be gay or gay-ish at 5 or 4, all tending toward bisexual as they move closer to the center of the scale. BiDanFan assigns a much wider range of sexual flexibility to Kinsey 0 and 6 - to include "meh" or "filled with inertia" feelings, in your words, also those who are willing to experiment with non-preferred gender partners in order to confirm that their preferences are absolute - while regarding everyone else along the spectrum as bisexual or bi-ish, regardless of whether they actually seek out bisexual experiences. Same objective scale, different subjective interpretations, both arguably correct based on our differing viewpoints and life experiences - like the parable about the six blind men and the elephant.
Tach @8, I completely get and agree with your comments about long-term sex partners and non-verbal consent through familiarity with each others' ways. But honestly, I would welcome gentle butt play even with a new lover. It's a sexual organ, lots of sensitive nerve endings down there! I said YMMV, and clearly you have a very different take on this than I do. Thanks for the alternative viewpoint.
@7 tachy @9 Cap, I would personally tend to view anyone who collided "Meh" into "Eugh!" under Gertrude's "doth protest too much", or plain old "Jerk". Human bits aren't that dimorphic, anyway, feel, smell and taste included.

Anyway, if you can't get into at least the idea of what you want to get into you without "pass the sickbag", where does that leave anyone?

Re @8 tachy, for non-verbal consent, there's a range between probe and poke, and for any careful partner, you'd hope they'd know which was which, giving or receiving.

And if you're a cis-guy, whose idea do you think it was to put one of your key erogenous zones where it could pretty much only be reached by butt-probe? Cis-women? i like to give when the other party likes to relieve, but location? Not my doing.

Not my pick, especially after a few guys of the "I'm a man, that means no penetration" persuasion, but I'm still curious what ever happens next.
@1 Capricornius: Congratulations on your making Firdt, in true Hunter-style tradition.
@2 saxfanatic: I know huh? "A hired hand" gets my vote as one of Dan's best rapid fire retorts of all time.
Thanks, Dan the Man, too, on stressing the importance of mutual consent. That should be a given.
Let's take down Trump's Wall (and Trump's Wall Street, too)! I have to go back to the link and sign up.
@4 @5: You ask him how he feels about a finger in his butthole at dinner. "When we're going at it later tonight, how would you feel if I tried a little finger in your butthole?" Or after sex. "Wow, that was great, what do you think about trying a little anal stimulation next time?"

In a trusting relationship, consent can be obtained in advance. You should re-verify consent contemporaneously, but once you have initial interest, you can assume application of lube to the butthole without objection is agreement to try the finger that would invariably be following.

And of course, start slow, ask questions. You can stick your finger on an anus and rub it around a bit without any penetration at all and ask, "How does that feel? Do you want more?"

It amazes me how obvious things like this apparently are not.
Anyone who tells you, "That was solely for MY pleasure, you weren't supposed to get any pleasure out of it!" should be immediately and unceremoniously dumped for being a selfish, sociopathic, hypocritical, flaming asshole.

That's before you even get to the specifics of what the thing was, let alone whether she asked you to do it as a special favor for her.
@4: "BF whose GF got mad when he got hard while kissing another guy is a Kinsey 1 straight guy, whereas GF was expecting him to be Kinsey 0. In other words, she was highly disappointed that he didn't BARF or otherwise seem disgusted after making out with this very sexy guy at her specific request. (wtf...?)"

Yeah, let's unpack that a little more. She wanted her boyfriend to be a Kinsey 0, but then she wanted to put her Kinsey 0 boyfriend into a situation that common sense says ought to make his Kinsey 0 self deeply uncomfortable.

Strike One: she gets pleasure out of making other people deeply uncomfortable. Sociopath.

Then when he goes through with it as a special favor, she gets bent out of shape that he got enjoyment from the situation. This is HER fantasy; he isn't supposed to be enjoying himself; only she is. She gets all the pleasure, he is only supposed to be deeply uncomfortable.

Strike Two: she thinks other people should not get pleasure out of things. Pleasure is only for her. Selfish.

Then, after she talks him into doing it, she proceeds to reward him for doing what she told him to do, by punishing him over and over again for doing what she told him to do. (Did I mention he was doing what she told him to do?)

Strike Three: Batshit crazy. Or possibly just exceedingly stupid.

In any case, a swift DTMFA will be character-building for her, and an improvement in situation for him.
For "I want to try anal," a recent poop and a condom should be enough.

Cap @4: One shouldn't necessarily have to ask every time one is with their partner, once one has ascertained that this particular partner does enjoy having a finger in their bum and is generally up for it, so long as the option to say no prior to penetration is available. (It is not, in fact, an act that is enjoyed universally. Now you know.)

And lucky you, I have zero desire to reprise the great Kinsey debate. Your definition of Kinsey 0 is "someone who is physically repulsed by the opposite sex"; mine is "someone with zero attraction to the opposite sex"; we've each had ample opportunities to change each other's minds and failed to do so, so I can't see how more attempts will have a different outcome. Dude says he's straight, I'll take his word. And yeah, that girl is a douchecanoe and he should DTMFA pronto.
Biggie @13: Not sure anal penetration or other sexual details are a suitable dinner conversation topic -- I'd personally suggest sometime between dessert and clothes starting to come off -- but agree with the rest of your post. Are they up for it usually? Sometimes? Rarely? Never? If "usually," go ahead and proceed with caution as Cap suggests. Sometimes? Ask verbally. Rarely? Let them suggest it. Never? Respect that preference.
BDF @16 - Yay! I'm happy to share a peace-pipe with you. I have to say, I really thought gentle finger-in-butt (I'm talking about caresses and very slight penetration here, not deep sudden jabbing or finger-fucking) was part of the general repertoire for virtually all sexually active couples, be they straight, bi, or gay. It's just another delightful way of exploring the lovely nooks and crannies of the human body. Once I've agreed to share myself in a sexual way with someone, I've always played by the rules "Approved Unless Objected" - as have all my partners. (Obviously if they DID object in the moment to something I was doing, I would stop immediately - and follow up with a discussion outside the bedroom leading either to their full GGG consent to try it again, or to a non-negotiable NOT FOR ME.)

So I learned something new from SL today...again.

Maybe the difference between my philosophy and what you and Biggie @13 expressed, is that I prefer to establish a sense of trust and open communication with any potential sex partner before I ever go to bed with them. Thus there's not as much need to specifically ask permission for each little activity during sexytimes. I've enjoyed a few random encounters in my lifetime and I don't regret them, but it's just not the way I like to roll.
@18 ...establish a sense of trust and open communication with any potential sex partner...
Everyone should have that engraved on a plaque above their bed.
Capricornius @18: "I prefer to establish a sense of trust and open communication with any potential sex partner before I ever go to bed with them."

Um, that's not mutually exclusive from what Biggie and I were talking about.

You seem like the kind of person who's open to pretty much anything. So before you have sex with someone, you'll probably mention that you're the kind of person who's open to pretty much anything. Right? And if they respond, "haha, well I'm pretty vanilla actually, just the basics for me," you'll probably decide you won't be sexually compatible, and the relationship will proceed no further.

If, on the other hand, you were someone who was pretty vanilla actually, you might not find it necessary to discuss this prior to the first jump into the sack. As discussed in this very forum, the assumption should be that the first sexual encounter(s) will be more or less vanilla in nature. As the relationship progresses, the partners will feel emboldened to bring up kinkier things they enjoy or might enjoy. Just because someone doesn't mention anal or bondage until the third or fourth date doesn't mean there was no "sense of trust and open communication" between them. It just means that it's probably in their "sometimes" or "rarely" category, and not a dealbreaker for them either way.
Hunter @20: There's nothing wrong with someone wanting her boyfriend to be "all straight." There is something wrong with wanting your boyfriend to be "all straight," but nevertheless asking him to make out with a guy, and with giving him grief six months later for doing what you asked him to do.
I mean, if this were a straight test and he failed it, she should have just dumped him.
Hunter @20, you're urging BF to show a lot more tolerance and forgiveness than I would be able to muster for anyone who claimed to be my loving partner, yet treated me so badly. What will motivate her to change her controlling ways, if he sucks it up (ummm, perhaps a bad metaphor under the circumstances) and stays in the relationship? It may indeed be GF's immaturity and a lack of real-world sexual experience that led to this bizarre series of unfortunate events, but I would still dump her - and hope she learns enough from the experience to be a better GF for her next lover. As the trite-but-true saying goes: experience is the best teacher, and we learn more from the bad ones than from the good ones.
BDF @21, I AM pretty vanilla myself, and that's what I was trying to say, although I may have phrased it poorly. I have always assumed in the past that gentle ass play was included in the "basics," since I've never had a single sexual experience where either my (also pretty vanilla) partner or I objected to it, be they male- or female-bodied. And no, I didn't mean that I would plan to go from zero to 60 mph in an initial sexual encounter, just because I'd established a trusting relationship in advance of any sex play. What I did mean is that in an established and trusting relationship, either partner can say "Huh!? No, stop, I don't like that" at any time, without the other partner either taking it personally or losing their desire to continue playing in other ways. So it's not really necessary to negotiate up-front what is on or off the table, it's all part of the real-time process of discovery and appreciation for each others' likes and dislikes in the moment. Like what Tach @8 described, where even her favorite position is occasionally a no-go for her.
Re the "hired hand" (fisting) letter: LW, I will assume that your really large hands are still somewhat smaller than the average newborn's head, which the human vagina is designed to accommodate, albeit with considerable discomfort. I'd suggest that you start with gentle stretching, using a series of progressively larger-sized toys and/or multiple fingers, and gradually work your way up (over several weeks or months, if necessary) to using all of your fingers squeezed closely together into a point to make insertion easier - like the "swan head" shadow puppet you made as a kid. Throughout the stretching-prep process and into your first complete fisting attempt, pay very close attention to whether or not the reality of being "filled up" is still as fun for her as having the fantasy, and definitely choose a safe word beforehand so she can tell you to stop and withdraw should the pain become overwhelming. And of course, lube. Lots and lots and lots of lube.
Cap @25: I don't think we disagree, then, and I'll withdraw my interpretation of your post as being a bit smug and judgmental. But I do think that there's at least a significant minority (myself included) who'd prefer to have someone ask while clothed "are you into butt play?" than have to wriggle and pull away, or have a partner wriggle and pull away, during sex. And given the number of people who assume all women are submissive (thanks, Fifty Shades), I'd rather state up front that I am not than have someone pull a mildly dominant move on me, thus souring the mood. I agree that general guidelines should be enough to get a point across; for instance, if someone says "yes, I love butt play," that could constitute permission to attempt both fingering and rimming.
re fingers in the anus: talk about it before sex as part of an "I'd like to do this and that to you" conversation that every couple should have at regular intervals. Work out the logistics and consent outside the bedroom and then when you start going in for it during sex there is nothing awkward and everyone is aware fo what's going on.
@16: I probably should have been more clear that I didn't necessarily mean LITERALLY at dinner (although, certainly a possibility, I know I certainly don't exclude sexual conversation from acceptable dinner topics, depending on who is at dinner...) but more generally, it's often better to talk about new sexual wants/desires before or after sex and not during.
Just got around to reading through last weeks posts.

@EricaP "And he's in charge of our finances, and our calendar, and my outfits, and our sex life, and what topic we're going to discuss next. It's a whole package."

Do you know enough about your family finances? I assume from what you have written before that you and Mr. P are near 50 years old (plus or minus a few years). Mr. P could have a heart attack at any time and possibly die. Does he have life insurance with you as the beneficiary?

You can be a complete sub in a D/s relationship, but you need to be aware of the risks involved. I'm not trying to be intrusive, but if you were a friend or even neighbor, I'd tell you the same thing.

"There's nothing wrong with someone wanting her boyfriend to be "all straight." "

BDF @22, bigger picture, there's an awful lot wrong with insisting her boyfriend is "all straight." I agree that it's a bad idea all around for a not "all straight" guy to try to change an individual woman's mind on the issue because he's interested in her. (Women are not lunch counters, you can't stage a sit in until they serve you.) But, in general, the reflexive dismissal of "not-all straight" guys by women reifies internalized misogyny AND creates conditions where those guys are highly incentivized to stay in the closet, which is no good. It's basically the man-loving woman's version of "Just my preference!"

And not to piss on the peace pipe, but I think Cap is being smug and judgmental. This:

"What I did mean is that in an established and trusting relationship, either partner can say "Huh!? No, stop, I don't like that" at any time, without the other partner either taking it personally or losing their desire to continue playing in other ways"

BDF, you seem like the kind of gal who'd agree with me that what Cap described there should be the standard in ALL sexual encounters. That's just being respectful and I don't like Cap's implication that we should go through relationship-building exercises before it's fair to expect that.
@4 Capricornius: And here I am surprised to learn that butt stuff isn't universally considered an "ask first" activity before doing it the first time with somebody. A surprise finger in my ass would absolutely detract from enjoyment of the activities, and maybe end them altogether.
BiDanFan: I'm sorry if you thought I implied that polyamory was addictive, although I suppose that it could be. NRE and endorphins are addictive (toss in adrenaline as in adrenaline junkies). Like drugs, you can come to crave them at the expense everything else in your life. It may have been how HUSBAND phrased it, but I took it to mean that wife wanted polyamory (first propriety), pause, and to remain a married couple. That is why I believed the choice was polyamory and marriage or polyamory and divorce. I realize I may be wrong, but it is be different than wife saying she wants to stay married (first priority), but would also "like" to date again (and to specifically date her very close friend. [THE END]
LW53: wow, that's a tough one.
Your definition of Kinsey 0 is "someone who is physically repulsed by the opposite sex"; mine is "someone with zero attraction to the opposite sex";

Zero attraction can go to physical repulsion when one is forcing oneself to do something they don't want to do.

I mean, I'm a Kinsey 4. I prefer women slightly, but totally okay with men. But trying to make myself fuck someone I don't want to fuck can repulse me, even if the person isn't repulsive to me.

Once I was dating a cuck who very much wanted me to fuck his friend. His friend was okay: all around great guy, decent looking, nothing wrong with him. I just didn't feel any attraction to him in particular. Had it not been for my then-boyfriend's request, he would have been a "meh".

But "meh" turned into "oh FUCK no" when I tried to make myself have sex with him for my boyfriend's sake.

I imagine it could be the same for a 100% gay/ straight person trying to think of England with somehow not of their preferred gender.
Sophie, @32 Cap said that they always establish trust before things get to the sex point. So an established, trusting relationship would, for their purposes, include all sexual encounters. Also, this was further clarification in the context of implied vs explicit consent. While it seems like basic respect that you should be able to say no at any time, and it is basic respect, attempting something you know is generally okay with a person you have previous experience with and them having veto power in the moment, is not exactly the same as getting the go ahead beforehand to try something with a new lover when you have no idea how they might respond to the overture.
Hunter @20 Nice trolling. It doesn't matter whether it stems from immaturity, being psycho, or whatever; why should anyone stay in a relationship with someone who constantly questions their identity for 6 months, gets mad when you go along with their wishes, then tries to make it your fault? That's emotionally manipulative and abusive, so yeah. He needs to dump her and find someone who will appreciate him being GGG instead of making it out to be some huge flaw.
SophieX @32: Fair. I was trying to point out where Hunter had, once again, gone wrong by ignoring two-thirds of a letter. I personally agree that a hypothetical woman who dumped her boyfriend after finding out he was a little bit bi would be a dick. But everyone is entitled to their preferences, however bigoted, and I personally feel that bi-ish guy would be better off with someone less homophobic. So if the woman in this letter DID dump her guy for failing a "straight test," he'd have dodged a bullet.

The "smug and judgmental" part of Capricornius's post, in my opinion, was this:
"Maybe the difference between my philosophy and what you and Biggie @13 expressed, is that I prefer to establish a sense of trust and open communication with any potential sex partner before I ever go to bed with them. ... I've enjoyed a few random encounters in my lifetime and I don't regret them, but it's just not the way I like to roll."
That implied, to me, that what Biggie and I were talking about referred only to casual sex, and that Cap doesn't do casual sex, so it came across as a bit slut-shamey.

Skeptic @34: Priority, not propriety. Apology accepted, though you kind of owe me another for bringing the debate that wouldn't end into this week's thread!!!
Oh and wow. I missed on first reading Capricornius @4 characterising my disagreement with his definition of the Kinsey scale points as "tearing into me," such was my horror at having the can of worms reopened.
Cap, you've seen me "tear into" someone, and you've seen me respectfully disagree. Characterising the latter as the former will discourage me from employing the latter.
Aha, so I think I remember where the "tearing into me" came from: my exasperation at a conversation that went something like

"I think A."
"I think B."
"I think A and here is why."
"I still think B."
"I think A and let me explain it again."
"I get it but I still think B."
"Let me explain once more why A is correct, and let me be a bit offensive while I'm doing it."

So. Respect my respectful disagreement and I won't tear into you. Pretty simple.
BDF @41, You got it - and yes, I get it too. You have been totally respectful in the current discussion, and I'm willing to let bygones be bygones regarding the previous exchange, in which you did indeed offend me - but I also understand that you felt provoked long before you bit. Apologies for my role in perpetuating the drama, and Peace!

SophieX @32 and BDF@39, I have already admitted that I didn't phrase my thoughts very well @18, and you can go ahead and keep on criticizing my ineffective writing skills all week if you like...but honestly, I did not AT ALL intend to come across as smug, judgmental or slut-shaming. Quite the opposite, I was actually trying to acknowledge that not everyone needs to develop trust and communication with a potential partner before they can truly enjoy a sexual relationship, the way I do! Should have stuck to YMMV I guess.
Cap @42: "in which you did indeed offend me"
Er, I was the one who thought B. But anyway. Let's call that feeling mutual, and the bygones bygones indeed. I suppose I can't fault you too much for being tenacious when you believe someone else hasn't got your point. There's a difference between not getting a point, and getting it just fine but not agreeing with it! And no one wants to cede the last word; see @34 for proof of that.
Not discounting anyone's feelings, but I'm always a bit amused (not sure that's totally the right word, maybe bemused) at commenters that get personally offended by posts here. Yes, a few of the commenters can be pricks and write offensive things, some are downright idiots. And yes, we have sort of a "community" here so it seems mean when "one of our own" attacks us. But in the end, as I've said before, none of us are "real", you're not my friend, you're not someone I know, we're all just disembodied voices. Be an asshole if you want, I just won't engage with you. And remember, karma's a bitch. What goes around comes around.
I hope I'm on the offensive list rather than the idiot one, Donny.
I've got a few friends thru SL. Not face to face, bit hard when oceans seperate. Depends how you define friendship.
I'm on the letter page now, so I'm too lazy to go back and count how many of the questions came back to the same damn' classic:

'How do I get my boyfriend to do (or not do) X....only without my having to like, ya know, TALK to him?'

This has to be the most depressing heterosexual trope going.
Lava@45 – I consistently like and respect your posts, Lavagirl, and you're right, it's how you define "friendship". I consider you, and a few of the other people whose posts I have come to look forward to as interesting, like-minded people, who are intelligent, thoughtful and, though scattered around the world, have taught me a thing or two whether we agree or disagree, and that's a good step toward friendship. I probably would be actual friends with you (and them) if we ever met in the real world and became more than aliases on a computer screen. I enjoy the back-and-forth banter here, but it's a strange kind of place, stuck somewhere between total fantasy and real life. Kind of like a Stephen King story. You get little bits and pieces of personality but all the posts put together from two years don't equal a month with a real person. I can't hold your hand, I can't cry on your shoulder, I can't drink a beer with you and tell you what a great (or shitty) day I just had. But, y'all CAN be my "Internet Friend" (and that's better than a poke in the eye with a sharp stick).

Speaking of Stephen King stories, if anyone has a few minutes they'd like to waste, and would like to read a few short stories, I have written, you may find them at http://mytalltalesandshortstories.blogsp…
In the spirit of peace pipes, maybe there's a way for Capricornius's and my interpretations of the Kinsey scale to coexist, for Capricornius to not be wrong. ;)

Perhaps Cap didn't misspeak when they referred to a "Kinsey 7." Perhaps that was an intentional expansion of the Kinsey scale to classify people who are not just "exclusively homosexual" (the definition of a Kinsey 6), but so homosexual they are literally off the scale. The corresponding Kinsey -1 would represent people like Hunter, who couldn't even bring themselves to kiss a bloke in order to seduce a hot girl, for a million dollars, or any other non-sexual enticement.

With these expanded numbers, someone like Dan could keep his "exclusively homosexual" designation despite having (presumably) not vomited onto the woman he was testing his sexuality with, and someone like LW3 could continue to identify as straight due to having zero attraction towards the gorgeous gay boy he snogged. That would allow a continued differential between monosexual-by-desire-if-not-experience Kinsey 0's and 6's and hetero/homoflexible Kinsey 1's and 5's, and end the erasure of mostly-bisexual Kinsey 2's and 4's who do not experience a socially and mathematically improbable 50/50 distribution of desire. (Which is probably most of them.)

My definitions come from here, by the way:…
@47, Donny.hi Internet friend. Friends to me is yes, what you described, and it's also feeling good about people's energy and intellect. And with the shit going down all over, coming onto Dan's pages is very comforting, even when there's a blue on.
Re: The last letter:

"Tonight I'm here with my fabulous boyfriend and my hot sub."

Are they the same person?
Loved Joe Newton's "hot sub" in the illustration :)
So our arsewipe PM, who is in NZ for a commemoration of the Battle of the Coral Sea, and to meet with your arsewipe President. And he praises trump's passing of the health plan. Right. He's going to cop it when he gets home.
I don't know about that hunter. If any of my family really piss me off, I let them go.
No not NZ, NY.
Dadddy @51: I read it as all three of them are a sandwich. :)
BiDanFan @39 At least I used the correct word the second time. My entire post was intended as an apology to you. I felt I owed you an explanation of why I thought what I thought. The only reason I am posting this is that you said I owed you a second apology I'm sorry that I continued the discussion into this column. [THE END] was intended to signify that I was ceding you the last word to you. Please just accept my apology so that we can get on with our lives. [THE END]
Skeptic @59: Uhhhh.... but you didn't cede the last word to me. And you had amply explained why you thought what you thought (as had I!). Anyway, apology accepted, and life-getting-on-with commencing.
For LW currently enjoying a BF for the first time in ten years, but missing all the fun stuff they used to do as a single: Dan's advice was good, but IMHO it didn't go far enough. If you are a bit of an introvert, you may not have realized how much you valued "alone time" until suddenly you didn't have enough of it in your life. This particularly applies if BF is an extravert, requesting more attention and personal interaction than you can tolerate in large, continuous doses. Start attending your open-mic nights and other just-for-me activities again - alone, as Dan said - but also encourage BF to make plans to hang out with friends or participate in a club, team sport, or other group activity on those same nights. He'll get the extra social stimulation he needs to be happy, you'll get a much-needed break from being his One and Only All the Time, and you'll both have interesting stuff to talk about when you get home.
Capri@ 62. I identified with that letter writer. Having to give over space in a relationship if one has a need for a certain amount of alone time. Or as I see it, drama free time. Because in that time, nobody else's drama is in your face. In your mind, maybe.
The boyfriend and the submissive are different people. I can say that with certainty because I submitted that comment.

But a hot sandwich wouldn't be a bad thing either.
Off topic this week, again, (*sigh) but Happy Cinco de Mayo, everybody out celebrating Mexico's Independence Day.
S&C @65. I agree.
Ricardo, I know you must be laughing your ass off right now. I certainly am.
Okay---Griz is off for red wine and GF nachos, with a side of Herb Alpert and the TJB.
@70 GIrlFfriend Nachos? Is that another way of saying cunninglingus?
Congrats on the magic number, Grizelda!
Capricornius @26 advised: "definitely choose a safe word beforehand so she can tell you to stop and withdraw should the pain become overwhelming"

Why not use plain English, rather than a safeword?

always.want.more @31 - yes, we have life insurance and I read our tax forms before signing. If anything happened I'd know how to keep the household functioning. He consults with me on financial decisions; he just gets to make the call. (We have kids; I don't think he's likely to be secretly screwing me over in any way that would lead to them thinking poorly of him after it came out.)

EricaP @73: Good point. Safewords are only necessary when the play involves some sort of resistance, where "no! stop!" might not mean "no! stop!"
EricaP @73 and BDF @74 - I assumed that GF with a fisting fantasy might indeed enjoy the option of saying "No, stop!" a few times without actually meaning it. Maybe she would, maybe she wouldn't - we don't know the sexual dynamics in their relationship. I'm pretty sure GF wouldn't bother to follow my decidedly unprofessional advice, if it wasn't applicable to her and her partner's particular situation.
I just. don't. get. the butt thing. I've been experimenting with anal recently after twenty years of no go. It is no longer painful, but it's meh. I do it because my partner likes it. That is about it. But YMMV. Enjoy everyone else ;)
EricaP @73 Thanks for the reassurance. It seems that you've got your life where you want it.

I just don't understand the concept of a total sub. Sexually, D/s relationships work for many people. Does he approve your other partners or do you make that decision yourself? Does he decide what sexual acts you can do with others?

I'm probably D++, but only in bed with my wife. I don't have the need to control anything else.
It's ...complicated. Everyone involved knows the deal ahead of time: no surprises.
@53 Dadddy,
that sounds hot AND would be a fair compromise.
@71 DonnyKlicious: I really meant gluten-free nachos and a night in watching movies.....but your analogy and use of nachos sure sounds a lot spicier!
@72 BiDanFan: Thanks so much! I happened to log in at the right time and couldn't resist.
@80 HUndt: What about my 69ts?
Donde esta Ricardo? I hope I didn't scare him off.
@80: No hunsky---rats. Hopefully this upcoming week's Savage Love.
No Grizelda you didn't scare Ricardo off. He's a tough one. Hi Ricardo. Grizelda and I send our love.
@67: "Off topic this week, again, (*sigh) but Happy Cinco de Mayo, everybody out celebrating Mexico's Independence Day"

Hope this doesn't come off as unwanted (I figure the crowd here is a bit more interested in the El Grito story than most) but the date of independence from Spain is 16 de Septiembre.

Cinco de Mayo is an unrelated battle with France some 50 years after mostly celebrated by Americans of non-Mexican descent-…

At least you've still got time to celebrate that? :)
@83 LavaGirl: Thanks, Lava. I figured Ricardo was held up again at work this week.
Big hugs, positrons, and VW beeps to you, Ricardo, and everybody. XO
@84 undead ayn rand: Thank you very humbly and gratefully for the clarification. Boy, do I feel ignorant. Again. I have duly noted that Cinco de Mayo is really about as Americanized a holiday as fajitas are considered authentic Mexican food, and will easily remember the date of Mexico's true independence from Spain as 16 de Septiembre. Easy to remember because my celebration of independence from a bad marriage es 16 de Octobre.
At least I fully enjoyed another DVD double-feature viewing of Brad Pitt in "Thelma and Louise" and "The Mexican"----and reliving sweet memories through my CD copy of Herb Alpert & the TJB's "Going Places" on 05/05/17.
This week proves once again that Savagistas don’t care for quickies.
Not much to chew on and no Dr. Ley
He'll be along shortly CMD. have you been feeling unwell? 'Doctor Doctor my baby's sick. Come and see her. Come and see her.'
Must you shit on every thread hunter?
@89 HUndt: Brad's a fantasy. I thought you knew that already.
@89 HUndt, Part II: Would YOU instead like to read in the National Enquirer all about juicy, embellished details of Griz allegedly stalking WiIliam Bradley Pitt and desperately seeking his mobile number? Finally landing Brad for a hot night of illicit Vagabond Motel passion? Again, Brad's a f-a-n-t-a-s-y. So what? I'm asexual, remember?
Are you wishing your cock was thrusting inside someone right now?
@93: Seriously. And the DVDs go back in the jacket after each viewing without incident.
@94, re @89: Listen.........crickets!
Griz @93: Of course he is. His cock is all he ever thinks about. Projection, that's Hunter's specialty. (Sorry I missed the offensive remark. Beauty can be appreciated for its own sake... by people who think with the heads atop their shoulders.)
Said Bernice in The Adventures of Priscilla, Queen of the Desert: "Just what we need: a cock in a frock on a rock." and, to the drunken lout who beat up Felicia in Kipperpitty: "There. NOW you're fucked." Where is Terrence Stamp when we need him?

And why the fuck do all my best said or quoted lines come so sadly after the fact?