Savage Love

The Music Box


Yeah. Get over your jealousy!
I'm not sure the guy who keeps asking to be pegged at 3 months will wait until the 6th month if he doesn't get pegged till then. Get your ass to the sex shop now, girl!
Wa-HOOOOOO--I am NOT alone (in being happily single, just not looking)!
Dan the Man, I love your short, sweet, Midwestern-sassy, to-the-fucking-point-already responses. Keep rocking the house.
Dan had some funnies this week. :-)

So someone went to a big fetish event and found everyone "creepy" and "pervy." Hmmm. Well, I wonder about what event this was, and what this person found "creepy" about everyone's behavior. I've been to lots of kink events, and have never found the vibe "creepy." And by definition I think kninky people are going to be getting "pervy." That leads me to think this person is more vanilla than they may have thought or want to admit, and that maybe kink events aren't for them.
Call me old-fashioned, but I think the idea of going on a sex threesome vacation before everyone had a chance to meet face to face- not necessarily having sex, but actually meet as opposed to nothing but pics and text- has a potential to prove disastrous to all involved.

And speaking of old-fashionism, here is a fun, loving, even a bit goofy yet in a very sweet way, introduction to the new pegging device (after the subject was thoroughly discussed by all involved):…

"I feel objectified if you come ON me, so in order for me to be able to continue feeling like a feminist I insist you come IN me" is..well, it's just kind of laughable. On the other hand, if he thinks pulling out early is actually good contraception (assuming it really is about what she alluded to with the IUD remark), then the two of them are well matched.

Be that all as it may, Dan is on point. Have you actually told him you don't like it? Mentioning a zero-percent chance of pregnancy does not qualify. He may find that unpersuasive, and if he is in fact worried about getting you pregnant, you insisting on him leaving an overnight deposit in the bank slot probably comes across like someone trying to trap him into a kid. You're not the only one in the relationship who gets to be a little obsessive and irrational.

Don't beat around the bush, tell him that you don't like it.
Avast @ 6 - A condom would solve both problems: he could come in her and not be afraid to get her pregnant. Simple enough. Wonder why they didn't think of it.

Of course, to get there, they'd need to talk to each other.
I love Savage speed rounds..!
Maybe, just maybe, the guy who won't come inside actually likes the way it LOOKS, from his vantage point. We are quite visually oriented, don'tcha know. They should still talk...
Count me as another person thinking that if it's always on her chest and not anywhere else, it's something he gets off on. So if the asker wants to be validated by random internet people, she earns GGG points for engaging with something that turns her partner on.

If she doesn't like it, that's one thing. (And that means not liking it on its own merits, not because as a feminist she shouldn't like being objectified.) But if she's going to decide what to do based on whether or not it earns her feminist cred, the only real answer is to dump her boyfriend and become a lesbian separatist.
@5: I had the same thought about the threesome vacation. Flirty texts? Huh? I would have suggested starting by inviting the couple out for drinks or some similar in-person activity. But I guess that's just not how the kids do it these days. ;)
How is coming on a woman's chest a sign of objectification? She should use it as a moisturiser, I've been told it's a good one, if a little sticky.
L4: "You should end this relationship yourself or you can let an ill-advised, sure-to-be-disastrous threesome end it for you."

Standing ovation for probably the best one-sentence advice I've ever read! Go Dan!

L5: "So long as they don't see me as a fetish object, I'm willing to date people who may be attracted to me initially because of my disability, not despite it."

Batting a thousand. You could substitute any word for disability -- trans status, body shape, race -- and it would still be great advice.

L7: If your boyfriend is so into pegging, I'll bet he owns a "contraption." Ask him before spending the money -- these things ain't cheap!

L12: Obviously, your girlfriend got in a hot tub with someone and you're pissed off about it. Of course sex is more intimate. Now stop being a douche.

L16: Have you asked your boyfriend why he prefers to come on your chest? My guess is it isn't about you -- he just likes to watch himself ejaculating. He's objectifying himself, not you. Tell him you enjoy it when he comes inside you, so he's going to have to switch it up, or he can find someone else to come on.
Completely agree with SA @4, and CMD @5. Going on a vacation with a stranger has enough awkwardness potential when sex isn't on the cards. Go out for dinner locally with the two of them first! Unless they are not local -- which may be the case. If so, try Skyping, or arrange for backup activities you can do solo or with other friends when you are on this trip.
Another thought re L16: Why on earth are you doing it in missionary position every single time?
Y'all are missing the point of the woman with the IUD's letter. Here it is at its basic:

I like sex act #1. (He comes inside me.)
He likes sex act #2. (He comes on my chest.)
I've asked him to perform sex act 1 at least some of the time, maybe half the time.
He refuses and performs sex act 2 ALL THE TIME! He never compromises, not even once. He hasn't even said what the source of his discomfort is-- if it's even discomfort. All he does is continue to do what he wants when he wants with no regard for me. I'm left guessing as to what might be the matter.

(Do I even need to say what my advice is? Give him one last chance to talk to you about what his problem is with coming inside you. If it is for birth control reasons, see if he'd be more comfortable if he wore a condom. If it's something else (maybe he CAN'T come inside you), see if you can work on it or if you're willing to put up with his quirk or if there's something else you want he could provide. But don't put up with a selfish guy who just does what he wants because that's what he wants.)
LW#2: Go out for coffee with the woman one-on-one and see if you like her. Then get coffee with both of them and see if you like the dynamic of them together. Then talk a bit about the travel schedule to make sure you're not incompatible travelers (planners and wingers often do not mix - same with hikers/non-hikers, etc. unless they can be separate for most the activities). Like Dan said, you're the guest star and demand for unicorns outweighs demands for straight couples looking for a single woman to join them. Make sure you like her, that you find her hot, and, most importantly, that she really wants you - not throwing out passive-aggressive vibes or otherwise giving you "I'm doing this for my man because I'm worried he'll stray but not only do I not find you sexually attractive, I'm going to spend the whole trip upset and demanding that my man reassure me that I'm better than you" - unless you're into that.
Quite a few micro-answers that were I'm sure hilarious in person, but were relatively boring in a column.
...because they are more 'quips' (jokes capitalizing on quick timing) than 'answers' (containing substance).
I wish someone could explain the sudden popularity of incest porn, because I don't get it. It's not taboo - it's just ewww. But it is everywhere. Is it because of helicopter parents? Or are porn audiences just that jaded?
Cocky @ 21 - "I seriously doubt any man ever wanted to have sex with someone's mind"

I second that.
@16 Fichu - my thoughts exactly. You beat me to it. :)

Regarding incest porn - just speculating but I would guess it's the power imbalance, subversion of social and biological imperatives, etc. Dan has addressed the master/slave or nazi/jew dynamic of roleplaying. The incest thing is just more of the same, in my opinion.
1) A shopping expedition for pegging gear would be a great date.
2) A guy who insists on squiring on his partner's chest has probably been brain-damaged by porn clichés. In real life, there's no audience that needs visual proof that ONE person has had an orgasm.
I don't know anything about incest porn in the visual sense, but as a fanfiction writer, it's fairly prevalent. But then again, we're dealing with fictional characters, and it's mostly brother on brother, which may not have some of the same connotations. I have no idea why someone would find the idea of actual living relatives to be bonking each other in any way attractive...
Incest porn: not hot.
Twincest porn: depends. Are we talking identical or fraternal?
Whenever someone refers to their brother-in-law as "my sister's husband" I hear Juanita Hall addressing the father in Flower Drum Song.
sanguisuga @ 26
I know at least one person writing here regularly who, as a horny introvert teenager, used to include family members, though not immediate ones, in their fantasies from time to time.
Looking back it is now baffling and embarrassing, but also a bit funny.

I think incest porn is playing to those emotions. It may also cater to confused parents and/or those finding a friend’s offspring to be attractive, and I'm sure also come from the other way around, like finding your peer’s parent to be extremely sexy.

Personal tastes and distastes vary. Claiming, “My type and medium of incest is acceptable because of…” doesn’t really hold. It sounds more like a rationalized attempt to justify something you probably feel guilty of, though I'm not suggesting you should stop writing about it in case you do.

@29 CMD, incest porn is scratching an itch. Nuclear family structure is a hot bed for creating incestuous feelings. Kids turning into attractive young adults. I'm not suggesting lots of people are acting out these feelings, though we all know some are.
Siblings reaching sexual maturity around each other.
All sorts of weird sexual energies went on in my family. No incest via sex or anything physical, nothing so overt. Though my father didn't keep the priests away from my home, and two of my sisters were abused by them. My father flipping out when my eldest sister started going with boys, and she was eighteen. That's a form of incest. Over investment with the sexual activities of one's children, not for safety reasons. Because of jealousy.

@29 - Oh no, I never said it was acceptable, although I don't feel any guilt when I indulge, either. Perhaps the 'fictional' bit does help with that...
@13 BiDanFan, re L4: This is one of my newest fave Dan lines, too, right up there with "You already made the dog mistake. Don't make the child mistake." Dan, don't ever stop!
@21 cockyballsup and @23 Ricardo: Involuntary mind fuck? Yikes!
"They're hanging out with the kinky folks who aren't super judgy."

Funny, clever, but maybe not fair. Personally, I've never gotten a creepy vibe at a kink event, but maybe the people in this person's fetish community really are intimidating (and in a bad way).
🌈re @30. I should clarify these abuses were not known by my father. Those priests were very flirtatious, and we were a family of four daughters.
sanguisuga @ 26, 31
I may have misunderstood you or possibly never got it to begin with as I'm still baffled by what you meant with, “we're dealing with fictional characters, and it's mostly brother on brother, which may not have some of the same connotations.”
Couple questions if I may:
Connotations to what?
Provided I understood you right, how do you do define the difference between a literary fictional brother/brother action to video depicting sex between other fictional family members?
@21 and 23, That really gives skull fuck a new meaning...
@16 I don't think they've spoken about it at all so your one last chance schtick is moot.
@36 - In my mind, I don't see as much of a power imbalance in a same-sex relationship, plus less of a gap in their respective ages also puts them on more of an even footing than say - Daddy/daughter. (Which - ew.) And I'm not sure that I can adequately define the difference between literary vs. visual simply because to me, I know that in the story I'm reading, they *are* fictional. Plus we're given so much more background on the 'relationship', so it's easier to rationalise to some extent. Video is a little less certain, no matter how many disclaimers they put on it. Perhaps the roleplay just hits too close to reality for my taste? But then again, I really don't consume a lot of porn, especially of the hetero variety, so I'm not even sure what different categories exist under the heading of 'incest porn'.
"In real life, there's no audience that needs visual proof that ONE person has had an orgasm. "

Some people like playing with it. It is also easy to rub into skin or wipe up with a cloth, which I personally find more pleasant than having it drip out.

To that LW, if you wanna have some fun with your husband, next time he comes on your chest scoop up a little on your finger and offer it to him to suck.
When I was single, I regularly went to kinky events/meet ups/gatherings and have to say there were indeed some extremely creepy incidents involving men who did not want to understand that I was not interested in them. However, I found that the creepiest interactions happened outside of kink events - in other words, creepiness has nothing to do with kinkiness. In fact, my creepiest experience happened in the middle of the day at a grocery store! While there certainly can be creeps at kink events, it's only because there can be creeps anywhere.
@16 Fichu: "I've asked him to perform sex act 1 at least some of the time, maybe half the time."

Where does the letter say that? The wording in the letter is, "I told him I have an IUD and there's no risk of pregnancy." That isn't synonymous with "I told you I want you to come inside me, why won't you do it?"

For every person who doesn't like being come on, there are just as likely people who don't like being come in. Rather more of an production to get clean, for one thing. Using the wording she provided, she has at best informed him that she is not against it. She has not effectively communicated that she actively wants it and feels denied. Let alone that the act he chose instead makes her feel objectified. Again, he may assume most people don't like being come inside. Or maybe, as you note, something about the physical stimulation isn't right. Maybe he has Death Grip syndrome, and pulls out and jacks off because otherwise he can't come?

She needs to use way better words than she has thus far, if the letter is a reasonably accurate example.
I read parent /young-adult-child incest fiction because it tends to convey power dynamics the way I like them, without apologies and without awkward affirmations that the D/s is consensual and just a game.
Avast 42-- I went back and reread. You're right that it's not spelled out that she told him that she wants him to come inside her and not on her chest. I took my interpretation from "My boyfriend refuses to finish inside me." That made me think she had communicated with words and that his refusal was in his actions. Unless she writes again to clarify, we won't know for sure.
Jodo @38: "My boyfriend refuses to finish inside me" implies that she's asked him to. "I told him I have an IUD" proves that she has.
Has she told him that she dislikes his coming on her chest? Or does she only dislike it because he refuses to do it any other way? Only way to find out is for him to start doing it less.
There is nothing sudden about the popularity of incest porn. Taboo was one of the best selling porn tapes of all time and it is 35 years old if it's a day.
Go to any porn story website, Literotica comes to mind and scroll through the categories. Then count the likes and comments the various stories get. I guarantee that incest is near the top right along cuck porn.
People train themselves with experience. He might be used to pulling out and know that's just how he does it. Or it's a preference. You could try retraining or compromising (mixing it up) or re-examining the feeling of objectification. Why is it making you feel that way? Is there other behavior that makes you feel disrespected or is it just the pulling out? Because if it's only this, why in the world would that make you feel objectified? To me, it might actually do the opposite. It shows the dude is pretty damn careful about not letting a moment of pleasure cause the creation and growth of another human being inside your body. Even though it's not a concern in your case since you are on the IUD, it shows that he's in the habit of being conscientious about it. To me, it seems like he is respecting her bodily autonomy as well as taking control of his own life in his own hands. He could insist on using a condom too, but if he's confident about pulling out, that might be the extra measure he needs to relax. My dating experience was that men who were anti-feminist were more like to have a fetish in the opposite way- like it was a triumph to cum inside a woman. That would make me feel far more objectified. Plus I have a personal preference for the hot and messy though it's gross after a few minutes, ha ha.

@6- Pulling out as a means of birth control has a high failure rate if the couple (especially the man) are not really well disciplined about it every single time, and it's understandably difficult to pull out consistently. So I'm not saying that it should be anyone's go-to, especially in new relationships, but it varies widely with the individual man's ability to know when he's going to cum and to act on it in time. My point is, there are men out there who are really good at it, and while I would never recommend this on a date, you might be surprised how many LTR couples depend on pull-out successfully for decades. It's an individual thing. Surprised me too until I read a study about it a few years ago- with perfect use, it has about the same success/failure rate as condom use. In LTRs where the couples are very good at it, it's actually a reliable means of preventing pregnancy that has zero cost and zero side effects. I'm not advocating it here, but also I'm not judging other people's choices in BC, especially considering all the problems, expense, and side effects associated with other contraception. It doesn't mean they are idiots.
@BDF, Fichu, etc:
It might be that they are sexually incompatible, but I do not believe that a man who refuses to put his sperm inside another person's body is not being GGG or inconsiderate. This is not so simple as any other sex act. His sperm can cause a brand new human being to grow inside the body of a woman, and he will thereafter have zero say in whether or not the pregnancy will continue (and his entire life is thereafter radically changed). She is on birth control so this shouldn't be a concern- she has taken responsibility for preventing pregnancy. But I don't think it's fair to criticise him for doing the same or for not feeling comfortable doing it. It's his bodily fluid. If they can't communicate and get over it, then maybe condoms will work or maybe they just need to accept that they are incompatible. But I think a reexamination of why she thinks it's so anti-feminist might be more urgent. And she might be right. Maybe he is being selfish. Maybe it is just that he likes to objectify her this way. Again, is this something they can work out or something they can get past or something they can compromise on? I don't know, but I don't think the go-to should be that he needs to come inside her to be fair. One is an issue of being GGG and the other is an issue of bodily autonomy (potentially, this might not be on his mind at all but since she mentioned telling him she's got an IUD I assume this came up in their conversation about why he pulls out).
Oh BTW, another obvious solution would be for him to pull out, but not on her chest. As BDF suggests, if it's on her chest every single time, that means they aren't experiencing a wide variety of positions, so might be a good time to try other places.
EmmaLiz @ 49 : I'm living proof that it's not such a reliable contraception method.
Ricardo, I didn't say the method is reliable and started by pointing out its high failure rate on average. But for some individuals, with perfect use (not an average thing to have), it has about the same success/failure rate as condoms (which of course has a higher failure rate than hormonal BC or IUD). For longer term reliable birth control, the nonhormonal IUD has little to speak against it other than expense and sometimes pain for a small percentage of people. But since hormonal BC has horrible side effects and is associated with health problems (and probably wouldn't even be approved today) plus it's expensive, we would not call someone idiotic for choosing condoms instead of hormonal BC. So it is strange that we would call them idiotic for choosing pulling out if they are consistently well-practiced at it.
@50/EmmaLiz: "But I think a reexamination of why she thinks it's so anti-feminist might be more urgent."

I agree with this. It seems a natural corollary to LW's philosophy that if ejaculating on a woman's body is a form of anti-feminist objectification, then all woman who enjoy having their partners ejaculate on their legs, tummy, breasts, face, etc. are not "good feminists" and every man who enjoys doing this and/or satisfying their partner in this way is anti-feminist and a mere objectifier of women. I cannot ascribe to that belief.

Ultimately, LW is can practice feminism however she wants and is entitled to prohibit any partner from ejaculating on her body for whatever reason. But LW's feelings about this sex act are not motivated by the act itself, but by her philosophy of feminism, which in her understanding becomes a straitjacket, rather than a flexible framework for approaching life.

Anyway, I also agree with those who point out that the monotony of the situation presents a problem that needs to be addressed.
And I'm living proof that condoms aren't a reliable contraception method, or rather, were not in 1963.
Emma @50: I disagree that a man who employs the withdrawal method with a woman who has told him she has an IUD is showing respect for her reproductive integrity. If anything, he is showing that he does not trust her to be telling the truth about her birth control use. If he wanted to respect her, he'd wear a condom, thus protecting her from both pregnancy and STIs. He's not pulling out for her; he's pulling out for him.

As for the objectification issue, I agree that this is a misplaced feminist reaction. Objectification means treating someone like a sex object against their will. Humans are, at least some of the time, sexual beings. Sexualising someone in a context where they do not want to be sexualised, by a person they do not want to be sexualised by -- for instance, a cat-caller -- is objectification. When you consent to sex, you consent to be sexualised by your partner -- and to sexualise them.

Either L16 misunderstands feminism, or her feelings of objectification stem from the fact that her boyfriend is always coming the way he wants to, never coming the way she wants him to -- never coming in a way which involves her -- and she feels left out and disregarded. That is legitimate, and she should tell him why his insistence on doing things his way makes her feel bad.
🌈And I'm living proof my parents actually had sex with each other.
I had an iud inserted many years ago and like EmmaL mentioned above, it hurt, and I had to get it taken out. Contraception is a bitch, and pulling out seems to be one of the worst ones.
Why do so many of these young women sound so timid.
LW, do you like your beau to come on your chest, or not? If not, then have a talk to him. Insist on this, and maybe close down the sex until the issue is resolved. You did write into Dan, so it's big enough of an issue for you. I know if a man had done that to me every time, I'd get mean pretty quick. Hearing a man come inside you makes the sex feel so primitive.
Feminism is what ever you design it to be, because it's about you. You listening to yourself and following your path. There are a trillion versions of F, and as many arguments about whose is the true one. There's Feminism lite and Feminism heavy, and all the points in between.
Thinking that come on your chest makes you a bad feminist reminds me of girls who think doggy style is demeaning. Why can't it just be "I don't like it" or even "Sorry, it kinda squicks me out"; why does it have to be "It's objectification!" BDF makes an excellent point @56 that once you're having sex with someone, you are expecting (and I would hope, hoping!) to be treated as a sexual object. That doesn't mean your wishes are ignored, of course, but it doesn't sound to me like she's actually told him she doesn't like his coming on her chest--only that she has an IUD so he doesn't have to. Like the answer to lots of letters, this one boils down to "use your words."

While we're listing living proof, my good friend is living proof that the pill isn't 100% effective, either (especially in the 70s when they were still tweaking dosages).

Also, ditto to EricaP @43: the point of daddy/daughter incest porn is *exactly* the power imbalance. For me, that puts it in the same basic category as rape fantasies. That said, just like I don't know anyone who really wants to be raped, I don't know anyone who (admits to) find(s/ing) real incest hot.

For the threesome letter, I'm assuming the girl of the couple lives somewhere else--otherwise this seems like a stupidly easy question: meet the girl first. If I'm right and that's not a (cheap) possibility, I'd be pretty nervous about going. Chances of chemistry under pressure with someone you've never met? Slim.

About the vanilla sister's husband: of course cutting back on weed and going to the gym are likely good things, but it's not clear to me how they correlate with getting orgasms for the sister that don't require a vibe...he may turn out to be fit and functional and still vanilla and incompatible with her.
@Sublime Afterglow: I wonder ... what this person found "creepy" about everyone's behavior.

Most likely they were guilty of practicing kink while not conforming to conventional beauty standards.
🌈and LW, this is where you come across the big P, Patriarchy, where the man is defining your sexual experience by ignoring your request for an input.
@avast2000: if he thinks pulling out early is actually good contraception...

...then he's smarter than most people.

The conventional wisdom on the withdrawal method was debunked by science years ago, although the myth refuses to die. Withdrawal can be up to 96% percent effective if the male regularly pulls out in time, and 73% effective if not.
@52 Ricardo (re your conversation thread with EmmaLiz [@49 & @53], about pulling out):
By firmly disagreeing and keeping my feet squarely on the ground saying "NO" and insisting on spermicidal condoms, I really pissed off my abusive former spouse, who stubbornly kept insisting that "putting it in just a little" and "pulling out quickly" was effective birth control. It was an uphill battle, but worth fighting literally, for my life. To this day I am infinitely glad I had no children with him, and that I have remained childless.
And I'm living proof that I was a total surprise--after my father had had a vasectomy in 1962, and he and my mother believed they were done after three kids (hee hee). Mom had a hysterectomy some years later. They should have named me Houdini.
@61 WoofCandy: Are you cis male? I'm cis female, and I don't buy that theory. And exactly at what during intercourse is "pulling out in time"?
Like Dan once said to a male LW years back, putting it in "just a little" can still get a woman "just a little pregnant".
🌈Funny how this story still has traction, Grizelda@63. There would be sperm rushing out the door, ahead of the crowd, determined and focused.
Woof @59: Oh, zing!
I'm wondering whether this person just went to the wrong event. Some "fetish" clubs are more swingery in vibe -- by design or happenstance. Yes, kinksters are pervy, that is kind of the point. But they shouldn't be creepy -- they should respect boundaries. Perhaps this person is a newbie to the scene and it was just a bit too much for them. They could try going to munches. These are lower-key, and people are less likely to be on the prowl for immediate play/sex partners than they would be at a club night.
I don't understand the rise of incest porn, although I guess it has something to do with rationalizing teenaged and young-looking starlets? Like, porn sites, you had me at "hot teen fucks ", you don't need to throw in stepbrother/stepdad/mom. Lesbian sisters, you get a pass, you're still the Gold Standard.
"My sister's husband describes himself as sexually "vanilla." She says she hasn't had an orgasm without a vibrator in seven years." In other words, he is very lazy and doesn't care about her. This is also apparent in "smokes pot less and uses the gym". This guy is a Depressed loser and she really wants to DTMFA if she is smart.
61-Woof-- 4 pregnancies in 100 couples using the withdrawal method per year is still double the number using condoms and quadruple the number using birth control pills. And that's if it's used perfectly every single time which is notoriously more difficult to do than with either condoms or the Pill. There's some circular reasoning that goes with talking about using the withdrawal method perfectly in that if you don't get pregnant, you're likely to say that you did it right. If you do, there's your proof that he didn't withdraw quickly enough.

(For comparison purposes, I tried to find the statistic for the likelihood of getting pregnant while using no birth control whatsoever. It was oddly difficult to find. All the webpages got into monthly cycles and likelihood on different days of the cycle. There is this: "Individually, your chances of getting pregnant are about 20% in any given month. Research suggests that out of 100 couples having regular, unprotected sex: 20 get pregnant within a month. 70 get pregnant within 6 months." That's actually higher than I thought.)
cockyballsup: Someone who doesn't like being objectified should probably avoid all sex.

I've yet to hear a definition of "sexual objectification" that made any sense. It's a vague, misleading, and denigrating metaphor for male sexuality that was dreamed up in academia by people who have no firsthand knowledge of said desire (and I'm guessing little secondhand knowledge either).

As a human male, I'm sexually attracted to human beings (or representations thereof), not bowling balls, salad spinners, or large rocks. If my attraction to a person says anything about them, it's an affirmation of their status as human, not a denial of it.

Sure, I might be interested in someone only for sex, and that interest may be inspired by purely physical attributes, but in that case, the term for what I'm doing to them is sexualizing, not objectifying. I'm "reducing" that person to a (potential) human sex partner, not an object.

Ditch the buzzwords and LW's issue is pretty simple. Like most women, she wants to be sexualized when and how she wants to be sexualized, and not when and how she doesn't. She needs to work up the courage to communicate the whens and hows to her partner. By telling herself she feels "objectified", however, she shifts blame to the boyfriend (omg, he's treating me like object!) and thus relieves herself of the responsibility of initiating a potentially awkward conversation.
@58: Mr Weed and vanilla sex appears to have chosen his major, so to speak. There isn't much overlap between being good at sex and 'good at weed'. Particularly for men. I base my opinion on years of anecdotal evidence from the RLD in Amsterdam, where the ladies have noted that there isn't much overlap in their customer base and that of the nearby 'coffee shops'.

All that being said, this guy probably doesn't get much out of sex anymore, if he ever did. And if he doesn't enjoy it much, he probably isn't motivated to put effort back into it.

To the kink vs perv/creep comment: Define perv. My guess it is voyeurism (which the commenter wasn't comfortable with). Some people get off on watching or being watched just as much as diving into the orgy. Some people don't and consider that attention to be creepy. Well planned events will have some private rooms or nooks set aside to accommodate.
@64 LavaGirl: I agree about the risk of unplanned / unwanted pregnancy factor on the "putting it in just a little, and knowing when to pull out in time". For me, that overall possibility is still too high to engage in comfortably. That said, I'm glad I went with my own gut feelings at the time and not those of my ex-spouse. We weren't a good match to begin with, and he would have been a horrible father.
@69 WoofCandy: Congrats on scoring the magic number this week!
Why can't it just be "I don't like it" or even "Sorry, it kinda squicks me out"; why does it have to be "It's objectification!"

Because the former allows you to outsource responsibility - instead of it being her problem, it's her partners problem. I'm also a little suspicious of LW's wording on that one. "my boyfriend refuses" does not equal "I have asked my boyfriend not to..." While I would still assume that LW has indeed asked her bf directly not to cum on her chest, when combined with the deferred responsibility tactic noted above, the odds that she's assuming her BF will read her mind and cum inside of her rises to like... maybe 20%? Certainly non-zero.

Also, man, c'mon. Shit happens when you party naked.
What actually does she mean by "he comes on my chest?" In the porn world there is tit fucking (or boob fucking), if her boobs are large enough. Maybe this is what gets him off.
EmmaLiz @ 53 - "So it is strange that we would call them idiotic for choosing pulling out if they are consistently well-practiced at it"

If someone is capable of getting pregnant or getting infected with HIV, that's an "if" they shouldn't risk their future on.

Griz @ 62 - One of my basic rules concerning men: if I hear them talk about "putting it in just a little" (i.e. condomless), I know exactly who I'm dealing with and what I should do - run. Luckily, I didn't have to learn it the hard way like you did. Glad you managed to get out of that mess eventually.
@74 Ricardo: Thank you. Believe me, I have taken serious note from past painful experience to avoid ever repeating my worst mistakes. I really was unhappily married 9 years too long, and stayed with him for all the wrong reasons, too (would you believe, among stupidest reasons, "trying to be a good GGG wife"?!). The scary part was finally managing, with help, to get away not only from him, but also break the isolation built up over time. Fortunately, the setting wasn't anything like The Overlook Hotel from Stephen King's bestselling novel, The Shining, but metaphorically speaking, the relationship itself was damn close. A little too close for comfort.
I like quippy Dan Savage :)
Woof @69 (congrats!): Really? You don't think it was made up by women who were sick and tired of being treated like objects instead of people?

A person can simultaneously be sexually desirable and a human being with feelings and thoughts. Sexualising someone is recognising them as such. Objectifying them is taking away their humanity and viewing them only as a conduit for one's own sexual gratification.

I quite like my own off-the-cuff definition of objectification as overt sexualisation without consent.

In your example, if you see someone and decide you want to have sex with her based on her looks alone, you are sexualising her. If you approach her respectfully and flirt with her with the objective of seducing her, there is no problem. If you instead shout "nice tits!" at her, knowing (or not caring) that she probably wouldn't want that, you are objectifying her. Objectification is dehumanising.

I think certain women view sexual acts such as coming on breasts or doggy style as objectifying because they are staples of porn, in which women are treated like objects for men's pleasure. Not to say I necessarily agree; but I can certainly envision such acts being performed in an objectifying way, ie, without any consideration of whether the woman may enjoy them -- which, in this example, she clearly does not.
If anyone's relying on the withdrawal method, woman-on-top positions are a terrible idea.

Always @73: I thought it was pretty obvious: They're fucking, missionary style, and when he's about to come, he pulls out and jacks it over her tits. Size does not matter one jot for this move. Nor does active participation by the boob-haver, which would be absolutely essential if he were to actually thrust between her boobs for any orgasm-inducing length of time.
Sportlandia @72: I agree that L16's phrasing was probably closer to "Feel free to come inside me, I have an IUD" than "Please come inside me, I prefer it to your pulling out and coming on my tits every single time. It's boring and I feel like a piece of meat."
Final one: "Hey, Dan! I'm 27 and I just lost my virginity. Thanks for all the help!"

What was the story there I wonder?

1. "losing virginity" terrible saying, it's one's "sexual debut" and no worries if that happens sooner or later, as long as that is what one wants

2. sounds like this person didn't want to wait -- thanking Dan for the "help" -- so, 27 and in a major city (Chicago) and so long to wait, what up?
Griz @ 75 - Yes, the isolation... I had one relationship with an insanely jealous/controlling guy. It lasted a whole 16 months, and it's only once I ended it that I realized the extent to which he had tried to isolate me from my friends etc. I can only imagine what that must be like after years and years.
@BiDanFan: Your definition has the virtue of not being entirely man-phobic, but it does nothing to facilitate communication. Tell me that I shouldn't objectify women, and I can only speculate about what you mean. Tell me I shouldn't sexualize women when they don't want to be sexualized, and your meaning becomes clear.

Your definition is also much narrower than how "objectification" is generally used (see this letter, for example). The term has been around at least since the 80s, when it was variously used to shame straight men for their use of porn, their kinks (particularly dominance), their focus on appearance, and their sexuality in general, regardless of behavior.

I've been in LW's boyfriend's shoes many times. My preference for doggy style was "objectifying". My kinks for certain articles of clothing were "objectifying". My interest in rough sex and spanking was "objectifying". My interest in D/s role play was "objectifying". Getting a lap-dance was "objectifying". My porn stash was "objectifying". My high libido was "objectifying". Were I in the habit of pulling out and shooting my load on women's tits, I'm sure someone would have labeled that "objectifying", too.

When I was young, I internalized all this slut-shaming. I wasted time in relationships doomed by sexual incompatibility and missed opportunities to connect with like-minded women because feminism taught me they didn't exist, and if they did, it's because they'd been abused by men.

I credit my gay friends for pulling me out of this mindset and helping me understand and accept myself, mostly just by their unapologetically male example. I distinctly remember one friend playfully calling me a "slut", and a light bulb suddenly turned on. I've been wearing that label like a badge of honor ever since. Dan deserves some credit here, too, although his views on men seem to have darkened since back then.

@77: "I think certain women view sexual acts such as coming on breasts or doggy style as objectifying because they are staples of porn, in which women are treated like objects for men's pleasure."

And it's not for the pleasure of the man participating in the (on screen) act. It's for the porn spectators. Why people import the crap they see on videos into their personal lives, I'll never know. Lost of porn stuff is done for camera angles and to 'sell' an activity that doesn't work well via the audio and/or visual tracks.

Using the current example, cumming on her tits, it doesn't do much for me personally. If I'm going to jerk it, I might as well just turn around and splooge on the dog when I'm ready.
@59: "Most likely they were guilty of practicing kink while not conforming to conventional beauty standards."

"Oily" can be an attitude, not necessarily a physical appearance.
WoofCandy @82, you seem to carry a mighty big chip on your shoulder, towards feminism. I can understand after all those sex shaming negative reactions. Times have changed, feminism has evolved, yet the danger towards women doesn't seem to have. I don't read Dan seeing men en masse as darker, just specific ones who behave in certain barbaric ways, like rape and assault.
There seems to be a lot of vicious men on line who attack feminist writers, and most of them are young and not in any way radical in their feminism. The laws, especially in the US, are becoming more and more anti women. One of the states, a Carolina I think, wants to make a law where employers can fire a woman if she takes birth control. What the fuck is that?

🌈Dan was the first one to point out such an attitude had nothing to do with feminism. Also, Dan doesn't go with women. His perception of what is going on, hence the need for feminism, isn't clouded by individual women and their issues. He can see the picture, without a wounded heart.

@LavaGirl: My beef is with the term "objectification".
🌈And those women who used It against you, in the name of feminism.
Objectification is a feeling, I've always thought. That someone is not quite seeing you as a whole person, there's an intense emotional barrier there, or no interest. Not saying your lovers were feeling that, it's just my take. I've never felt a sexual move itself was objectifying, then I never had a guy force my head onto his cock. Maybe if I was young today, post internet porn, my experience would be very different. Porn has changed the sexual landscape, along with contraception and feminism. With sneaky capitalism grasping opportunities to exploit the changes.
Woof: I sympathise with your predicament.

However, saying "I don't like that word" doesn't facilitate communication either.

People are going to use a word, whether or not you like the word, to express a concept that we all must understand in order to have discussions. The other day I had a man attempt to shut me down for using the word "patriarchy" -- he didn't like the word for various reasons, one of them being that he was a father, and the other being that it conjured (to him) images of gray-bearded wizards running the world from behind the scenes. Unfortunately, once he said "I stopped listening when you used the word patriarchy" what came across was "I'm not listening to you because you are a feminist." And you can probably guess my reaction to that.

We all need to cringe and bear words we do not like. Cumming (rather than coming) is one example. I'm not going to stop having a conversation with Holmes just because he used the word "cumming." Or "gifting" instead of "giving" -- arrrgh! That makes me want to scream! But, people are gonna keep saying it, so I just have to grin and bear it.

Demonising the male libido does not do any good. I agree, shutting you down simply for having sexual desires was unfair. The issue is not your having sexual desires, but how you express them. I hope you were able to find women who were able to reconcile their own submissive desires with being feminists, who understand that there IS, in fact, a time and a place for consensual sexualisation, that mutual respect can coexist with desire. So long as your co-participants were consenting, all these activities are fine. (The problem is that a lot of women who go into various forms of sex work are not entirely doing it of their own free will. It's a tricky balance to strike, being a pro-sex feminist.)

Ironically, I quite enjoy it when a guy comes on my tits. For variety. If it was every time it would get really dull.
🌈Not to say having ones head forced into a cock is a problem, if there is consent for that sort of play.
We need men onboard as Feminists, now is a really bad time for women. And Black men, and Muslims and undocumented Mexicans etc.
In other words, next time someone inaccurately says "That's objectifying!", you should counter with "Not if it's consensual."
🌈*onto a cock.
(@91 is a follow-on from @89, I didn't expect Lava to sneak in with a post!)
@BiDanFan: However, saying "I don't like that word" doesn't facilitate communication either.

I can only tell you what works if you're interested in communicating with me, and I tend to shut down when someone uses sexist jargon. Or assigns made up quotes to me.
@81 Ricardo: It truly was 9 years too long. The only thing I ever did right during the whole ugly mess was not have children with him---or anyone else. The best thing I've done since has been moving on with my life. Every morning I wake up in my own bed in my own space with those I love is a good sign.
@85 LavaGirl: Blood Red States and counties fueled by Trumpzillan hatred, lies, xenophobia, and propagandist bullshit are to be the Death of Women, Asians, Hispanics, African Americans (a.k.a. anyone who ISN'T insanely wealthy, corrupt, and/or dumb, misogynist white male) in the U.S.A. Reason #1 why I voted for Hillary in 2016--and I'd do it again unless we could persuade Senator Elizabeth Warren to run for 2020. Warren would roast the pigs and send the rest of 'em squealing for their mama sows. The White House, Congress, House and Senate need serious cleanup.
🌈have you guys got another long weekend, let's hope the switch to page two isn't the problem it's been the last couple of weeks.
WoofCandy, women objectify men too, it's not a one way street. Treating people like objects, there to satisfy oneself, not a mutuality.
And this is why it is so difficult to have a dialogue.
I can't see how "I don't like that word" is not an accurate paraphrase of "My beef is with the term 'objectification'."
Olive branches can sometimes knock chips off shoulders, sadly sometimes not. I tend to shut down when attempts at mutual understanding are rebuffed. "Objectification" is a real thing which happens -- and is pretty horrible when it happens. It is not "sexist jargon." These women were anti-objectification for a reason, but if you can only see your own "victimisation," then you're correct, I don't think we can have a conversation that encompasses both sides of the issue.
BDF @ 97 - I don't want to take sides (or get involved in any way in that conversation, to be honest), but no matter how accurate a paraphrase is, if you put it between quotation marks, then you're implying it was said verbatim.

And as we all know, some people are pedantic about those things (I, for one).
I don't think I've ever felt objectified. I've felt desired; sometimes I've felt that the desire was based on insufficient information; sometimes I knew the desire was close to 100% physical. But it never gave me anything that felt emotionally like what I think people mean when they say they're being objectified. Maybe I'm just fortunate in the set of men I've interacted with? Do any of the people here (male or female) have examples where they felt they were being objectified (in the negative-connotation way)? And how they dealt with it?
Ciods @ 99 - Ever since my beard turned white, I've been attracting much younger guys than before. It's obvious they're not into me for who I am, but for what I represent - the father figure they didn't have, or something similar. There's a bit of pseudo-incest fantasy in there, and always the wish to be treated in a very specific way, since they're really compensating for something that's been lacking in their life. My own desires have no importance whatsoever, so I guess this qualifies as a form of objectification.

Luckily for me, being young, they're pretty transparent. They haven't yet learned to dissimulate their motives or intentions, and to make the exchange less obviously about their obsession. So it rarely goes beyond five minutes of talking before I pull the plug. When sex does happen, it's usually in a place where we don't really talk beforehand (a sex club or a bathhouse), but one of the advantages of such places is that it's easy to end things if they become unpleasant or uncomfortable - I just tell them it's not my thing as soon as I hear "daddy" or "sir" and I walk away.

That said, I already know that a high proportion of men (of all ages) are pretty self-centered in their sexuality, and that objectification is part of the deal, so it doesn't affect me in any deeper way. Indeed, some guys objectify me precisely the way that turns me on, and then it's really hot.

What I'm trying to say is that I don't mind being treated like a piece of meat at all (and I also treat men like a piece of meat sometimes, when they enjoy it); I just want to decide which sort of piece of meat I'm treated as.
Ricardo @98: I didn't mean to imply that I was quoting Woof; I meant "saying a thing" in a general way, and then went on to give a different example.
But I take your point regarding the way quotation marks can be interpreted, and will attempt to not use them in future unless I am quoting someone directly. (I normally indicate this by italicising the direct quote.)

Ciods @99: Unfortunately, I can think of many examples of having been objectified. Less than 10 days ago, I was at a club -- granted, a fetish club, and I was wearing fetish attire, so I had placed myself in a situation where I was consenting to be objectified, at least visually -- and a male acquaintance, whom I had met only once before, decided my ass was his to grab. I have also been catcalled, had inappropriate remarks made about my breasts in my workplace (retail), been flashed by a man who was masturbating from his car, and been filmed when I was riding my bicycle in summer clothing. None of these were the slightest bit consensual, nor did they take place in situations like Ricardo describes where sexual advances were to be expected. Most of these examples did happen in situations where I had less power -- me on a bike or on foot, him in a car; me at my place of work -- which is an important aspect. In all situations I did pretty much nothing in response. I've been well trained to be polite, or to not protest the situation lest the perpetrator escalate.

I've felt objectified by a partner who likes first-thing-in-the-morning sex -- I don't -- who brought me a coffee, didn't even give me a chance to drink it, then attempted to turn me around and use me as a fleshlight. Cue me grumpily stumbling out of bed and advising him never to pull that kind of move again. (He hasn't.)
Everyone has covered this week's Savage Love: The Music Box so beautifully, I have little more to add but say thanks.
To all celebrating the U.S. holiday on Tuesday, Happy 4th, and as of Saturday, July 1st, Happy 150th Birthday, Canada! Save the Salish Sea!
Uh-oh. Testing...testing....?
And testing... Damn, this is getting irritating.