Comments

1
"The internet was invented to help realize fantasies just like yours"

Yes. Precisely for that purpose and no other.
2
Maybe I’m just lazy, but I think just role-playing and dirty-talking this will be 90% of the fun for 1% of the hassle.
3
@1 You're...you're not...hinting that there might be some -other- purpose for the internet, are you? I'm...I'm so confused...
4
@ 3 - Until now, I had always thought its sole purpose was to bring an endless supply of free porn to every household.
5
But is it ethical to involve all the other people in the bar Imin this sexual escapade without THEIR consent?

(Yes, of course it is, just preemptively asking before some other consent-uptight reader comes along.)
6
I down vote any attempt to pull off a humiliation scene with an unsuspecting third. Humiliation play requires clear consent after negotiating the parameters, because you’re playing with emotions that can cause strong reactions. As such, I would also veto any attempt at heavy flirting along the lines that Dan outlined. You won’t humiliate this man so much as leave him confused and possibly angry, and that’s not an outcome that merits serving your kink.

What you want is to find a man interested in this kink, and a place where you can let this scene play out. My guess is that your going to want to find a place where you and your fiancé can get fairly sexual without that being an issue, like a kink club, a hotel room, or your home, rather than a bar, where your level of sex play is likely to be too tame to provoke much a response from your third. And it’s obvious that if you’re really in to this scene, what you’re going to want to experience is having sex with your fiancé while this guy is forced to watch.

To get to that point, meet a few guys for coffee, and get comfortable with them. Then try this scene out in a kink club, taking things a far as feels right to you. Then check in with your third a few days later. Once you’re comfortable playing together in public, take it back to your place for the full scene.
7
Sometimes dreams are helping the dreamer work thru some issues they wish to master. Is her man even remotely interested in this? He may be, I skipped thru the letter. Whatever, Dan's got the whole scenario up and running, so much effort needed.
LW, dreams if I remember my studies, can be about different aspects of yourself, resolving issues. Jealousy and humiliation seems pronounced, and how they arouse you. That's one way to master these emotions, you've got to decide if you happy to leave it play itself out in dreamworld or really want to try to take it to the real world. Every dream sequence doesn't need acting out, who'd have the time?
8
If the internet were reduced to a single site I hope it would be the astronomy picture of the day, or apod for the cool kids: https://apod.nasa.gov/

That is what the internet is for. That and sharing data from CERN.
9
With only six weeks left, MEAM is a shoo-in for Worst Savage Love Acronym of 2017.
11
@10 you can serve as sex therapist and marriage counselor both, right? You're so non-obvious and non-turgid, you're all a woman needs. Go on, please, don't hold back.
13
After reading "But could this become a healthy role-playing outlet for G and I?" I thought she was introducing yet another initialized person into the scenario. Then I realized she was just ungrammatical.
14
Well, ethics aside, you're definitely going to have to get the third's consent for this scenario to work. If you don't tell him what you're planning, he'll just assume you were trying to cheat, but your fiance showed up and so you got extra lovey-dovey in order to try and distract fiance from suspecting you.
15
No, please do this. Find the loneliest looking brown eyed guy you can find; the kind who's a virgin at 35, and absolutely Dying for some female attention. And pull this stunt on him, because you can, and to make him suffer even more.
Because being cruel to people is just So amazing, right?
16
I really dislike it when people get their acronyms wrong.
17
Sublime @6: Isn't "confused and angry" kind of the same thing as "humiliated"? I think what you mean is most men won't be turned on by this form of humiliation, and I completely agree that he needs to be told it's just a show for the boyfriend. (Hmm, if only more *women* were told this by flirtatious faux-bi women in clubs... but I digress...)

Sublime @6/Shorthair @15: Hello, read the letter. MEAM is not asking about the ethics of doing this to an unsuspecting victim. "I would never EVER use another person like I do in these dreams/fantasies, because it’s terribly cruel." She is asking about the possibility of finding someone who is into this sort of humiliation to indulge this fantasy. (Also, um, what's wrong with brown eyes, Shorthair? I for one prefer them.)

Alt-Right @12: Thanks for the lols. First, MEAM is not (yet) married to G, which I'm sure makes her even less of a human in your eyes. Second, she doesn't sound at all guilty or ashamed of these fantasies -- nor should she be, so long as she doesn't enact them without the consent of the humiliated party.
I'm sure you have lots of intimate knowledge about the fantasies of women who've had multiple abortions. :rolleyes: Why are you reading Savage Love? Serious question.

One thought I had was that G and MEAM could go to a swingers' club. People are there specifically to flirt with other people who are not their partners. And unlike Shorthair's hypothetical 35-year-old virgin, they have at least one other person they'll be having sex with that night, so MEAM need not worry about blueballing her chosen third.
18
If I understand the letter correctly, she isn't looking for an actual third person to include in this scenario. She is asking if it is ethical to fantasize about this scenario with her boyfriend. The fantasy includes an imaginary third person. Read the letter again: Are there ethical implications to hurting strangers (albeit imaginary ones) for sexual pleasure? [...] Is it healthy to make someone’s (again, an imaginary someone’s) unwilling pain a part of our pleasure?

There is no actual third person involved. It's all just fantasy.
19
Do people worry about the ethical implications of hurting imaginary people? I'd be interested to hear how that works. Thinking about the effects on the imaginer?
20
@17: Fair point.
But it's not like women don't act out this 'fantasy'.
21
RE @18: Good point. Mtn. Beaver @19: I'm sure people do worry about the ethical implications of some fantasies, even if no actual people are involved. For instance: incest or paedophile fantasies. Many (I would hope most) people who experience these desires are wracked with guilt over them, even if they never act on them. The question is, does just wanting to do this awful thing make me a bad person?

Shorthair @20: Indeed, many do. And I hope you are equally outraged by women acting out this fantasy with other women as the unwilling victims of their teasing. This has happened to me many, many times, and it indeed sucks.
22
@17/BiDanFan: "Isn't 'confused and angry' kind of the same thing as 'humiliated'."? No, shame and a loss of status are sin qua nons of humiliation, but neither confusion or anger are necessary to be humiliated. In fact, the scenario I understand you to be describing illustrates this point. Imagine the nominally straight woman, who wants to turn her male partner on by flirting with another woman, but without any genuine interest in following through on having sex with this woman. The woman being hit on could very well be angry to have her time wasted, but she's unlikely to feel the loss of status or shame necessary to be humiliated. If she hasn't experienced this before, she might also be confused. Wondering why a woman would overtly express sexual interest in her, but then so abruptly disengage at the point when heading home for sex appeared imminent.

@17/BiDanFan: "Hello, read the letter. MEAM is not asking about the ethics of doing this to an unsuspecting victim." Hello Bi, read Dan's response where he suggests that because everyday flirting doesn't have to lead anywhere she could simply flirt with any stranger in a bar.

@18/RE: I understood her letter to mean that there wasn't a specific person with whom she had already identified to engage in this scene, so her question involved a purely hypothetical person as of now. She wanted to understand the ethical implications of engaging in her kink before actual do so with a real person. If in fact she is inquiring about the ethical implications of fantasizing, that's akin to asking about the ethical implications watching the Lord of the Rings knowing that so many orcs died in the production of the movie.
23
Hello, Sublime @22. You mean this part? "Flirting is just flirting—it's not a binding contract—and there's no law that requires all flirtations to be strictly sincere and/or immediately actionable. A little casual flirtation with someone else before your fiancé rolls in is permissible—but to avoid being mean, MEAN, you'll have to let the other person know early on that you have a fiancé, that this flirtation isn't going anywhere, and not be too over the top with the PDA after your fiancé arrives."

In other words, she COULD flirt with any stranger in a bar. But she couldn't do that ethically, which is what she's wondering how to do, and what Dan's advising her on.
24
To your other question: I know exactly why a woman would appear to express sexual interest in me, then blow me off to go home with her boyfriend. Yup, being used like that is pretty humiliating. I guess a guy might be "confused" because generally, when a woman teases a guy it's to stoke her ego, but any seasoned queer gal is sadly all too familiar with the sort of game MEAM is pondering.
25
SA @22
If in fact she is inquiring about the ethical implications of fantasizing, that's akin to asking about the ethical implications watching the Lord of the Rings knowing that so many orcs died in the production of the movie.

That's how I understand the letter. I was ready to write something akin to your LotR quip, but then I remembered an earlier letter of a young woman who was only able to masturbate to fantasies which had to become more and more "evil" for her to get off. So then I decided that "don't worry, it's only fantasy" was maybe too easy.
26
Dan's answer is that the third's consent makes the LW's fantasy something other than mean. This is it. My advice is for her to check with her fiance and, if he's game, go out and find a willing third.
27
Jeez. 12, clearly you are Trump troll sent here by your almighty white male god to save us Seattle liberals from our evil free thinking selves.
Sorry, not interested. Go back and report that we are not stupid enough for that type of mind manipulation.
28
Is it just me, or is there a surge of "It's all about ME!" entitled self absorbed whiney people?
It's a well known fact that if a person has something, when someone else wants what we have, that usually gives us the reaction of, "no, it's mine and you can't have it" (remember day care, kids fighting over the newest toy??)
Don't over analyze shit, don't bring others into your inability to think logically, and stop turning sex into something it isn't.
All this talk about not hurting others, no violence against others, etc.
But fantasies about humiliating others is encouraged?? And using sex as a tool for that???? WTF people????

29
Cami @28: Have there not always been entitled, self-absorbed, whiny people?
This LW is none of the above. She is turned on by this fantasy, but she knows it's unfair to do to someone who hasn't consented to it, and therefore is not "entitled." She's concerned with whether her fiancé and the hypothetical teasee will enjoy the scenario, therefore she's not "self-absorbed." And where do you see any whining?

Dan "encourages" expression of all sorts of sexuality, with a few exceptions. And guess what? There are a lot of people out there who are into being humiliated. MEAM just needs to find one of these, and everyone (except for your judgey self) is happy.
30
Dan, a person who's worried about the ethical implications of doing this with an IMAGINARY third party is probably not eager for advice about how to go out and do this to an ACTUAL third party. If doing it in imagination already feels horribly scary, your advice probably made her pass out. :-)

MEAM, it's probably the transgressive nature of the fantasy that makes it hot for you, so I don't think you need to worry too hard that doing this in fantasy will turn you into a hard, uncaring person. Because if you stop caring, the fantasy won't be hot anymore.
31
@30: Yeah, it seemed that the LW is *way* over-analyzing and overly concerned about the ethical implications of the big nothingburger of some fantasy role-playing with her boyfriend.

So, baby steps. Do the dirty-talking thing for now and maybe that's as much as she wants / can handle. For someone who is hand-wringing this much, jumping to a craigslist ad for a third to be humiliated is likely too much too fast.
32
I have often wondered if guys who post "I want to be your cuckold" ads ever get responses. It always seemed strange to think that a woman would go looking for a guy who she wants to tease and humiliate without actually having sex (because of course usually women save that for guys they marry LOL J/K don't flame me). Apparently this is the woman for whom they have been looking (please note the proper grammar @13).
Obviously doing this to a random guy in a bar would be an enormously douchy move. And I think Dan makes it pretty clear he is not advocating what @6 seems to think he is, springing her kink on the unsuspecting.
33
@30 & @31
So what would be the problem with Dan writing his advice with the assumption that she may at some point choose to take her kink further, as so many do? Or in such a fashion as to give advice to others with similar interests?
34
@27: these days I don’t report via posts if they’re Nazi scum, report and send an email form via their profile. The mods are on it!

@28: “Is it just me, or is there a surge of "It's all about ME!" entitled self absorbed whiney people?”

I don’t know, feel free to give your personal perspective on taking a topic on ethical kink and making it about you?
35
@26 Harriet, it's a dream not a fantasy. Big difference. A fantasy is where one takes one's mind, a dream is where one's mind takes one. Dreams can be fantasies, they can be a mixture of all sorts of things.
This LW says when girls flirt with her guy, her jealousy arouses her, which to me indicates this is how she is dealing with her jealousy. (Personally I always found it rude if women flirted with my partner, when I was standing right there. )
She may also feel humiliated by these encounters, which is why I think the practice is rude. What other feeling would a partner have.
Anyway, this young woman masters these feelings by eroticising them, and they all come ready packaged in dreams. My take is, seeing she doesn't want to fuck the third, that this is also bound up with anger perhaps for her guy, who perhaps encourages these flirtations, rather than cut them down. She displaces her rage or disappointment, from her guy, onto the unsuspecting second guy. And then she enjoys it all, especially humiliating the second guy.
My therapist and I often used to analyse my dreams, it helped a lot to understand, from my mind's dream bent, stories of my life.
This is all just hypothesis LW, I don't know you or your mind.
I don't think you are mean, maybe hurt. Your man is not being with you publicly in front of other women, and he's to(o) blind to notice it humiliates you.
36
@31: “Yeah, it seemed that the LW is *way* over-analyzing and overly concerned about the ethical implications of the big nothingburger of some fantasy role-playing with her boyfriend.“

I’d just call that “consideration of others” and way-overthinking is how you best not hurt others selfishly.
37
@BiDanFan/24: One thing about humiliation is that what is humiliating to one person is not at all humiliating to another. So being hit on for a third party's pleasure that is very well humiliating to one person may simply be highly irritating to another. In any event, as I wrote above, there may be many reasons why flirting doesn't lead anywhere, but I disapprove of flirting with an ulterior motive.

In so far as being "confused," I can only relate that I have had many seemingly great encounters with women, only for thing to fail to progress for no discernible reason. Typically, I'm left wonder about the rules some women apply to their dating lives.

@25/RE and @30/Corylea: I think that adults should be able to process the difference between fantasy and reality, and in so doing give themselves permission to enjoy their kinks, including transgressive one, either as inner fantasies or in a consensual manner with others, without worrying about whether their fantasy life might make them bad people. If the letter writer is really wringing her hands over her inner fantasies and possible dirty talk with her fiance, it strikes me as a failure to distinguish between fantasy and reality on a very basic level.
38
@35: It’s not just a dream, she’s curious how a real-life scenario could and should play out. While not a commitment to complete it’s still trying to figure out the right way to work out whatever erotic feelings/demons. And while possibly tied to projection, often these fantasies ARE the therapy versus a poor substitute for it. That’s why communication is so very essential.
39
@37: “In so far as being "confused," I can only relate that I have had many seemingly great encounters with women, only for thing to fail to progress for no discernible reason. Typically, I'm left wonder about the rules some women apply to their dating lives.”

I chalk that up to “life happens”. Same disappointment and confusion on my end. But so much of the courtship process is arbitrary and I doubt official “rules” are being wielded to filter persons out.

I did know a guy who had a “pro/con” excel spreadsheet, that... did not work out very well.
40
It can be a form of therapy undead, if there is no unwanted fallout. Is this girl ready to open her relationship up, because that's what she'd be doing.
And if it's displaced anger for her fiancé, no less, then wouldn't it be better to ask him to be more respectful of her feelings in front of other women. Or whatever the conflict is.
Our dreams are there to serve us, not dictate our actions.
41
Maybe this girl is mean, because wanting to humiliate someone is mean. If someone is pretending humiliation, that's not the same at all. She wants to see the real thing on the third's face. A real mean girl.
42
All the more reason for the LW to do a little work on her mind by herself, before she drags half the local bar into her story.
Actions have consequences and fantasies stay nicely contained. It's always a choice.
43
@41: “Maybe this girl is mean, because wanting to humiliate someone is mean. If someone is pretending humiliation, that's not the same at all. She wants to see the real thing on the third's face. A real mean girl.”

Well, that’s the whole point of the letter! She wants to act the scene out, but she doesn’t actually want to BE mean so she’s trying to sketch out how to do this in a respectful manner to any third parties. If properly executed it wouldn’t “hurt” the third party just the same as getting spanked isn’t really violence.

That’s why Dan is suggesting finding someone already inclined to enjoy being knowingly “humiliated”.
44
When I'm out in public (i.e. a restaurant, movies) I am loathe people who discuss their personal lives, people who talk loudly on their cell phones (they aren't that important) when it isn't an emergency, or anything that else infringes on my personal space and right not to be dragged unwillingly into their troubles. Somethings can't be avoided (arguments, rejected marriage proposals and resulting humiliation, people who are uncouth enough to publicly embarrass or humiliate some one, etc.) It is bad enough when it is happens accidentally, for them to do it for their own personal (sexual or offer) gratification is rude and disgusting. I exclude sex clubs, sex parties, comedy clubs.

45
Can this be considered sexual harassment?
46
@45: Uncouth to bring in unparicpating parties, but flirtation that breaks off is not in any context “sexual harassment” or else every person who feels entitled to go home with someone and doesn’t can claim so.

However @44 light bar-flirtation that doesn’t go anywhere isn’t nearly as harmful. I don’t think anyone here is suggesting what you are, though obviously targeting someone through a play party is probably better, if not without its own complications.
47
@1, 3, 8: the internet was invented to help kill Russians if they nuked us (actually, to get info. between university researchers doing DOD work). google arpanet

This is not an argument for the military-industrial-complex. It is an argument for massive government funding of university based research that has no immediate or obvious practical value.
48
UAR @ 47 Sorry about going off the deep end. By sexual harassment, I meant being an unwilling participant in someone else's intentional acts for their own sexual gratification. Being put in an awkward and extremely uncomfortable position. Public humiliation is not one of my kinks, experiencing it (as bystander) is not happy making. Flirtation and rejection in a bar is normal, but I draw the line at a staged scene. It not as overt as the behavior being publicly condemned, but conceptually is there any difference.
49
Excuse me, weren't we just having this discussion about how people with power should not use it to take advantage sexually of those without?
50
Undead @34: Hah! Right on, the better response to Cami would have been "it's not JUST you..."

Lava @35: "She may also feel humiliated by these encounters, which is why I think the practice is rude. What other feeling would a partner have."
Arousal, as you noted. Instead of feeling humiliated, she may feel proud that her guy is so hot that other women desire him, but only she can have him. She doesn't describe feeling angry about these situations at all, so I don't think your hypothesis (based on how you yourself would feel) seems to apply to MEAM.

Yes, it was an (involuntary) dream, but the dream turned her on and she wants to incorporate it, in some way, into her reality -- unlike most of our dreams; imagine voluntarily showing up to school naked! The motivation does not appear to be revenge on her fiancé for letting other women flirt with him, but an enjoyment of the fact that they are both desirable, but off-limits, to others. "You can't have what I have/what he has." Seems more like gloating than anger to me.

Sublime @37: Perhaps they weren't "rules," but two different perspectives on a situation. I have often been left wondering why a night of great sex wouldn't lead a guy to want more of the same. (Do you also disapprove of fucking with the ulterior motive of ghosting? Many find that far more humiliating than flirting without intention of fucking.)

Whether any particular victim would use the word "humiliating," "irritating," "confusing" or something else, MEAM correctly surmises most victims would not find the experience enjoyable. Can we agree to split the hair that way?

Skeptic @45: Can people loudly discussing their personal lives in public be considered sexual harassment of third parties? Are you kidding? If you don't want to overhear other people's conversations, stay home, or go to a library or a church. The most these people are guilty of is being inconsiderate, and a "Could you please keep it down?" should be enough to get them to lower their voices. Sure, graphic discussions of sex in a family restaurant are inappropriate, but I don't think MEAM is talking about either graphic discussions or family restaurants. She's talking about flirting and bars, and one is commonly expected to take place in the other. She's not talking about shouting "I WANT TO FUCK YOU" so loudly that everyone in the bar can hear it over the music, ffs. It's none of bystanders' business whether a flirtation leads anywhere. Why would witnessing this be any more distressing than witnessing a successful hookup?

Corydon @49: Yes, and we still are.
51
@35 Lava. I think your interpretation is that MEAM's dream is a way of processing her jealousy when other women flirt with her guy. Mine would be that the dreams--if she actually has had these dreams--are a way for her unconscious to prompt her to consider something she finds a turn-on.

One possible outcome of her becoming alive to her fantasy is to talk them over with her partner and for them to go out and find thirds. But this does not seem within their current repertoire of what they do sexually, or an easy extension of it.

I have the fantasy of my partner and I meeting our quite separate dates in the same bar. My actual partner and I affect unawareness of each other and (if not lead on, then) engage our dates with apparent earnestness, before breaking at a coordinated time, and his buggering me in the toilet. If I know myself, this is 'just a fantasy'. If I actually tried, I would feel sorry for the non-consenting stooge, not find the scene sexy and not go through with it. Or I would forget about the arrangement for sex; or worry only about indicating to my partner that the rendez-vous was off. Or I would end up finding the date attractive and want to fuck him instead. The 'stooge' would have to be a particular mix of presumptuous, obsequious, unpleasant, absurd and hot (maybe a banker/stockbroker?) for me to think I could like the idea in practice. The fantasy's hot, but the reality's a bit deplorable; and it would make more sense to try to set it up consensually, maybe with another couple. Maybe this is one for the future!

I guess the point of regaling you with my fantasy is to suggest that the dream isn't obviously about her insecurities over flirting. People do have genuine, want-to-act-out fantasies about this sort of thing.
52
@50/BiDanFan: "I have often been left wondering why a night of great sex wouldn't lead a guy to want more of the same. (Do you also disapprove of fucking with the ulterior motive of ghosting? Many find that far more humiliating than flirting without intention of fucking.)"

Actually Bi, that's the precise situation I've experienced. I think that if I'm being awakened in the middle of the night for sex, after having sex more than once before going to sleep, and then finding my partner interested in having more sex the next morning, I'm going to hear from (and see) this woman again. Who wants sex for a sixth or seventh time in ten hours with someone if they're not enjoying the sex and aren't attracted to that person? More inexplicable are the women who drop off for a few weeks or months, but resurface to state their continued interest through long exchanges of sexts, only to disappear again.

But do I feel humiliated when I do not hear from these women again? No. Just confused. And yes, I do disapprove of fucking someone if you know you're intending to ghost them.
53
Sublime @52: Ah, what a luxury it must be to not have a bunch of gendered baggage to accompany the disappointment of a fuck-and-run. To not hear generations of foremothers and their warnings that men are only after one thing, and if you "give it up too easily" they won't respect you. How humiliating to try to go through one's life rejecting those slut-shaming messages, trying to show that we can have it all -- sex and respect -- and have some misogynist PUA type prove they were right after all. When this happens to a woman, we're not confused at all -- we know we've been suckered. We were gamed by someone who viewed getting into our pants as a challenge that they won, not as a fun step in getting to know us better. Corydon @49 refers to "people with power," meaning women -- that supposed "power" stems from the ability to deny men sex. When we "allow" them sex and they discard us, they strip us of any advantage we might have in a man's world. We "feel the loss of status or shame necessary to be humiliated." This isn't the case for men, and may in fact be the opposite. Even if you never hear from her again, you can still notch that ol' bedpost.

(Sure, the guy might have had other reasons. But we don't know them. So all we feel is that we've been humiliated.)
54
@49: “Excuse me, weren't we just having this discussion about how people with power should not use it to take advantage sexually of those without?”

We were. That discussion has fuckall to do with consensual kink, which is the ENTIRE POINT OF THE LW.

@48: “It not as overt as the behavior being publicly condemned, but conceptually is there any difference.”

Thanks for clarifying! I agree. I can think of ways to execute it that wouldn’t be so terrible, I feel “conceptually” it’s not so black and white but I agree that many people wouldn’t have the empathy to counteract any selfishness. OTOH I think someone with the introspection to ask these questions would be looking to frame “cruelty” in her head, not actually act in such a manner.

After all, there’s a ton of people who dig getting dressed up and “picking up” their spouse at a bar while the spouse chats up others, I don’t see much of a difference here beyond framing.

@52: OTOH while I’ve had that happen to me, I’m not owed or obliged any answers nor a continued relationship with that person.

Polite directness is great but not always possible and it’s far more abusive to push to make such interactions mandatory than it is unfair to receive no reasons for unworthiness.

Sometimes you just have to take the “no” as intended.
55
@53: “Corydon @49 refers to "people with power," meaning women -- that supposed "power" stems from the ability to deny men sex.“

It’d be great if he viewed women as having any power or importance beyond the horrid, just horrid ability to deny him sex without the joys of listening to him rant back.

To be explicit, nothing intended to you with that, Sublime.
56
@54, 55 My problem is that consent is an inadequate safeguard. If I have power over you, I can probably induce you to consent to just about anything. To take the discussion out of the sexual arena, banks get you to opt into arbitration clauses by threatening to deny you access to the financial system. They then will say that this is OK because you consented.

Likewise, employer-employee relationships are also asymmetrical with respect to power. Consent there is also an insufficient standard, which is why we have labor laws (and arguably need more of them, not less)

So why do we suddenly become libertarians when the topic changes to sex?

This whole letter is all about one person exercising power over someone else. LW wants to humiliate someone and we're giving her the go ahead to do just that by draping it under the cover of consent.

And we are letting her get away with it, probably because she's a woman (which is sexist) and because the power involved isn't derived from money or professional position (which hits a bit too close to home)

But it's still exploitation. LW is a Weinstein creep if she does this.
57
So, Corydon @56, a woman can never ethically seduce a man? You realise that this is what you are claiming?

Where exactly is the "power" if MEAM places an ad on Fetlife seeking a cuckold fetishist who wants to be humiliated in this scenario? Where exactly is the "exploitation" of an ad seeking a voyeur who'd want to participate, with the reward of getting to watch her have sex with G? Are you really alleging that there are no men who'd be capable of passing up ads like these?

We're "letting MEAM get away with it" because, 1, there is currently no victim, and 2, because she's aware that, done in the wrong way to the wrong person, it could indeed be unethical, and she wants to do whatever she can to avoid this. If it were G writing in, the advice would be the same.

The "cover of consent" is, in fact, exactly what makes someone like Weinstein guilty and someone like, I dunno, Bill Clinton not guilty of assaulting their partners. As a matter of fact, consent is not a "cover" at all. Consent is real.

What is the nature of MEAM's power? What exactly is she threatening to deny access to? Your bank analogy insinuates that women are a "financial system" that men inherently have access to, unless they do something backhanded to deny that access. Sorry, but no man inherently has access, or entitlement, to any woman (or vice versa). Some other guy who digs being humiliated is not depriving you of anything you would have had otherwise by happily agreeing to a scenario like this.
58
@56: “My problem is that consent is an inadequate safeguard. If I have power over you, I can probably induce you to consent to just about anything.”

You don’t understand the most basic concept of “consent” and I hope you stay far away from any kink.

Honestly until you do you don’t understand any of the topics posted here either. Shut up and listen to Dan more.
59
@57: Apparently just another angry dude who wants to lash out and not be in a healthy relationship (vanilla or otherwise.)

Please wait...

Comments are closed.

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


Add a comment
Preview

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