Venn @101: It may be "sex with more women," but sadly, almost certainly not "more sex with women."
I am pretty sure I've had more sex with women than our Bub nee Commentor. ;-)

Sporty @103: "Many" would have been accurate.

Mizz Liz - +1 for such an honest self-assessment. If it weren't for how common a type among the Gentile Country Club set the Overstressed Executive has been, which leads me to think that you'd likely go over very well with that type, I'd be tempted to compare your casual sex partner to Mr Darcy's Accomplished Woman. Maybe you take after Jean-Pierre O'Higgins, who'd thrown an Arabian king out of his restaurant for ordering filet mignon well cooked and sent films stars away in tears after they'd dared to mention Thousand Island dressing.

Mr. Ven, I've lived through several AMC binges in my life. It was kind of like crack--or chocolate--in that once I watched 3 sequential episodes, I was hooked again. I remember arranging my life around the ability to be home by noon for about one three-month period. Finally, I decided I had to go cold turkey.

lol Venn, I definitely do not run in country club or executive circles. TBH though it's a handful of years now that we've been monogamous which is why I'm here talking about sex and not going out and finding it. So who knows what my 40s style would be, but my 30s and 20s style tended much more towards busy outdoor hardworking types, or else academic/writery types, or else floppy haired chill overgrown boys in bands types, etc. (At least insofar as you can describe people as being types and having types which is in itself a sort of invention.) And though I've had sex with my fair share of white guys, it's certainly been neither a preference nor a majority, so the typical country club executive would not tick any of my usual demographic boxes. As I age and life circumstances change so that we will probably have an open arrangement (though different) again in the future, I imagine myself to be much more the sugar mama sort, but what one fantasizes about and what one actually does are totally different, as this thread has discussed.

As for Jean Pierre OHiggins, I have no idea who that is, but anyone who overcooks a filet mignon deserves to be thrown out of any home or establishment.

As someone who does, in fact, have a degree in those number-type-things, I'd like to just hop into this conversation and say, with love, that none of these statistics being thrown around (factual or fictitious, with representative samples or not, justified or un-) matter at all.

Not that that should stop people from debating them.

I've been reading Savage Love for forever and JUST NOW got around to making an account just so I could say this: Waffle irons can be hella threatening.

Welcome BiChicagoMama.
'Many'might be accurate for Sportlandia , Fan @111, 'Barely(ha), Like None' would cover my experience of ass (arse) slapping. Before the internet and visual porn and fifty shades,that's my generation.
So much of what you guys talk about is a long ways from my young sex life. For sure these behaviours were going on somewhere, not mainstream like today.
This guy, the ass smack LW, is talking from some weird position. I can get men these days have to show up front how respectful they really are. Poor buggars. But then he uses that to suggest his wife owes him. He needs to back off this attitude if he a) wants to stay married.
b) his wife might ever change her mind.
This is a patriarchal play, and maybe that's why his wife felt degraded. His attitude was she owed him, and that would piss any woman off.

*widespread availability of video porn.
Visual porn has been around forever.

Mizz Liz - My point was that over-stressed executives I have known may well be the most likely people to enjoy encounters with a woman who will run the whole programme.

In "Rumpole a la Carte", our hero attempts to order steak and kidney pudding with mashed spuds in a three-stars-in-the-Michelin restaurant. The chef, J-P O'H himself, makes it quite clear that people who come into his restaurant eat as he d* well tells them to. No sooner does he finish a dramatic speech about how he has run his restaurant for twenty years and never served up a "mashed spud" than a mouse emerges from a dinner plate at another table.

Ms Cute - I mainly followed the whole ABC lineup through college - morning classes, lunch, then worked and wrote letters in one of various lounges while seeing Ryan's Hope, All My Children, One Life to Live and General Hospital.

Moving on, it appears that Ms Ortberg this week tore into a LW for no discernible reason other than LW being a 1%er instead of a member of a marginalized or protected class. Ms O went so far as to write, "...I think it is good and healthy for you to get to experience this kind of discomfort" when LW is among co-workers making nasty cracks about The Rich while unaware they're in the company of one - an unfortunate way to end a sentence that began with the potentially useful, "Being uncomfortable is not the same thing as being harmed..." - although that beginning doesn't quite seem to match her usual sentiments.

I shall say nothing about her economic views, but this does strike me as being in the same line of thinking as Mr Savage's gay-baiting Dr Bachmann. This is just another example of excusing disgusting tactics when they're directed at an "appropriate" target. It's not that one necessarily feels sympathy for the particular target, but that some things will have a bad effect on the character of the targeter.

Mr. Ven: Mallory Ortberg seemed unusually critical of the letter writers this week in general. There was a lot less "life is a rich tapestry" and "next time little Chauncella/Oswaldo/Murgatroyd/Bronwilda..." and a lot more chastising the person who innocently asked for advice. While I generally find the former pose too precious, I disliked the latter more for its mean-spiritedness. I wonder if Mallory might be suffering from a toothache.

@107 EmmaLiz - most people are subs. Gender irrelevant except for cultural conditioning and that's not enough to change the fact that most people are not or do not wish to be leaders. Chaos otherwise.
As far as the cum thing, it's like period sex. If you just assume that guys are cool they'll go along to get along, but there are some that get squicked and communicate this if you ask. Thing to do is try never initiating it with a new guy and see if they kiss you immediately after on their own. Period sex a bit different here bc who turns down PIV? The real test would be period oral. Do you find guys will do that w/o ever having to ask? (Period sex w a third is another thought but manners kick in there too). Depends a bit on the hotness differential too, the leeway you may be given/enthusiasm that might be faked.

EmmaLiz- then you're ultimate test would be period oral plus cum, but if course that tastes better than period oral alone so I'm not sure that it's harder. The guys who kiss you also go down on you after they've cum in you right away too, right? It's the same thing. Maybe the test is do you kiss them after period oral.

I don't want to be touched while on my period, so I don't know nor do I care to find out. But I fail to see how the equivalent of semen is period blood rather than just vaginal lube, and as I said last time we discussed this, no I don't mind kissing someone after they've gone down on me. As for your other scenario, I can't even remember the last time a guy came in me other than my husband. It would've been a couple decades ago, so I don't have the slightest idea. As for kissing afterwards or who initiates, it's possible that there were guys who I didn't kiss after a bj just b/c it didn't occur to me, as this isn't something I'd ever given much thought to until it was brought up here, so maybe some of them would've been grossed out if I had tried, but now we are collapsing into hypotheticals. The point is that I've never had a guy make an issue of it or refused or acted reluctant, not even once. Whether or not they were just going along to go along is irrelevant. In my experience, a little give and take and going along just to go along is pretty common in hook ups.

@113 nocutename: Wow--AMC binges--that was I, too, in my teens (as a hotel maid-- my first high school job; I'd catch about a half hour while vacuuming a room and making beds. Greg, & Jenny, Eliza and Tad, Angie & Jesse, Opal Gardener, Myrtle Fargate, Brooke English, Phoebe Tyler Wallingford, et al. and yes, Erica Kane) and early twenties, and later in my US Navy days.
My last AMC fixation was when they changed the TV theme song to a more modernized, jazzy one. Kelly Ripa was Haley; Erica erroneously married evil, scheming Adam Chandler. Natalie had an evil twin, "Janet From Another Planet", wreaking havoc upon Pine Valley.
Ah, memories!

@125: Among my favorite AMC cliff-hangers, lo these many years: Miriam Colby killed scheming gigolo Zach Grayson (the ongoing plot was akin to "Who Shot J.R.?" on Dallas).
My least favorite plots: Brooke getting a) stalked by a psychopath (Harold?) fixated on Every Breath You Take by The Police (the guy really was creepy), and b) Brooke's bizarre stint in prison (while going undercover on a journalism assignment?).
They just don't make soaps like All my Children anymore.

Ciods @115: I agree, statistics can say anything you want them to say. What I mainly bristled at was someone making broad claims about what "most" of a group of people like when they themselves are not even a member of that group. You're right that it doesn't matter -- even if 95% of women liked being spanked, this one does not, and peer pressuring her into it isn't appropriate.

Lava @117: I agree with your take. "I'm a woke guy, I've earned the right to have my desires fulfilled at your psychological expense." Nope, that's not how it works. You treat your wife with respect because it's the right thing to do, not because you want to cash in on it in the bedroom.

Oh my gosh, I've been scanning the AMC discussion, and I only just now realized you were talking about All My Children and not American Movie Classics. I was so confused, but I just figured there must've been a series on that channel or else a ton of classic American movies I never saw.

Mr Hunter - We appear to be at cross purposes. I used "gay-baiting" (as I've done for some years) to indicate taunting with claimed belief of the recipient's homosexuality, not to indicate any sort of endorsement. If I am incorrect in my usage, this is the first I've learned of it, though I'd appreciate a trustworthy confirmation if this is so.

Mr Savage has consistently called Dr B a closet case in a manner almost exactly that of a high school bully attempting to intimidate the School F*. While he has provided a purportedly high-minded defence for doing so, he does not support the use of that tactic against targets whom he does not class as homophobic.

Ms Ortberg answered a letter of the classic variety, "My co-workers make nasty remarks about group X without knowing that I'm an X myself." Because X happened to be "1% rich" in this case, Ms O, who generally is firmly on the side of X LWs when X is a marginalized or protected group, got quite shirty, went farther than LW (who seemed about middling level annoyance on the Clueless scale) deserved in remarks about LW's fortune-earning grandparents, and at least implied if she didn't state outright that LW deserved it.

I saw the two cases as parallel examples of a consultant's being willing to sanction an otherwise bad tactic if it is directed at an "appropriate" target. I disagree rather strongly, not out of any sympathy for the target but out of dislike for the effect on the character of the tactician and the overall ill effect on society in such an increase in the tactic.

Ms Cute - That seems a reasonable assessment. Weirdly, I thought the opening of the reply to the rich LW was unusually Yoffe-like.

I've noticed also that Slate has assimilated the Outward page into virtually not existing any more, or perhaps they've done away with it completely by now. Decidedly NOT an improvement.

@Emma Liz: Yes, All My Children. I think it might be defunct now, but it had a powerful drug-like effect, as, I guess do many soap operas (I only ever watched that one, but I can imagine that they all could have that same pull). Chief Justice Thurgood Marshall used to never miss an episode of Days of our Lives, and I remember reading once that he insisted the tv in the Supreme Court's lounge for the Justices always have his favorite soaps running.

When I was a college student, I recall wandering into a student lounge in the student union at lunch time, thinking I would eat lunch and get some studying done. To my surprise, the room was completely dark as a hundred + people sat mesmerized by All My Children! Once, someone tried to turn on a light or suggested changing the channel and was booed.

Mr Hunter - I decline to consider the question of Dr B's orientation, while accepting the one on offer as plausible, though hardly conclusive. Think what one likes; just don't go increasing the amount of gay-baiting in the world just because one has found a target who seems to deserve it.

@81. BiDan. I think first of all, in respect to writing the letter, the LW wants to be right--wants Dan and possibly the commantariat to say, 'quite so! Your wife should hitch her knickers and take one for the team ... once a month _isn't_ too much to ask for'; and that this desire to be in the right, to be a more exploratory and energetic sexual being than the readers of Dear Prudence, has got mixed up in WISHOKT's psyche with the desire to spank his wife. This confusion is unattractive in itself. It's not sexy to want to have sex in a spirit of genuine vindication and self-righteousness, rather than the playacting of those things (and even that's hard to conceive...). If the initial question had been, 'how can my wife and I have a more exciting sex life?', people's responses would have been more affirmative, even if the suspicion might necessarily have been that the LW was only asking for permission to gratify one particular kink. The right advice to give, though, is probably what would be the right advice for the broader question: try to find out what your wife might be interested in; try to determine whether she's happy with, or has settled for, 'good enough' sex, in that the sex she fantasizes about, or thinks she might want, could also be a form of sex she supposes would upset the equilibrium between you; see whether you could negotiate some kind of smacking in a way that won't demean your wife (in her estimation; that is all that is required for it to be demeaning).

At the moment he's begging, setting up a dynamic where he's insensitive by virtue of asking and only antagonises her by setting them at odds with each other. 'It's such a small thing', he thinks; 'he has absolutely (?) no respect for my feelings or preferences or words' would be her side of it. He needs to concede right now--'putting you over my knee just isn't an equitable scene--it's not a scene that's going to work'. Then say nothing more for weeks--months even. Then nothing at all until their sex life moves on further--until he's pleasing her in some way he doesn't know about now, which might involve her submitting in some way but also might involve her domming him or getting up something that he'd find genuinely unexpected.

erys @136. I agree the wife's hard no has to stand. The LW needs to accept for whatever reason this play is off the table.
A marriage is an evolving state, and what might be a hard no today could change. You are assuming her hard no is forever. Nobody knows that.
And the other examples of degradation, would not in any way arouse me. Others might find them an erotic play. And for the moment Mr Spank's wife has no erotic interest in being spanked. And this is the key here, these behaviours are in play, so being moral about them serves no purpose. She doesn't want to play like that.
In future, if Mr Entilted backs off with his pathetic attempts to guilt her into it, things might shift. He might let it go, he might work it out with his wife that he indulges elsewhere or she might change her mind.

@65 I had the same thought - it was 2011- funny, I remembered it as a woman doing solo play with a knife. I have no doubt your memory is sharper than mine.

I think APOE and partner are simply incompatible. APOE was informed "early on" of the importance of ass play to APOE's partner, participated for a while without truly enjoying it, and no longer wants to participate. Live and learn. Being open/non-mono is helpful in allowing for such disconnects, but if APOE's partner needs *all* partners to be into ass play, or his primary partner, I get that, too. The answer is not for APOE to do what she doesn't enjoy but to recognize this is a basic compatibility issue. (Side note: If it's only about prostate stimulation, APOE's SO may be able to find satisfaction through a good mount and dildo.)

WISHOTK - My thoughts align best with those pointing out your overall satisfaction with your sex life, as well as your SO's aversion to spanking potentially leading to diminished sexual enthusiasm. Chemistry is fragile. Adding more aversion to the mix can influence the overall dynamic. If I'd conjured my list of "makes me super hot" sex acts and waited for a single guy to meet every one of these needs, i'd be a middle aged virgin. Instead, I consider myself lucky when I find the core stuff I want, and I use my imagination or memories to bridge the gap for the rest.

@97, flip the narrative. All that he has to do to save his marriage is one little thing: go without spanking his wife. (That's not even doing anything, it's not doing something!) If it is simply beyond his ability to treat his wife with respect and not do something that makes her feel degraded, why in the fuck is he married?

@141 I think it's dead already. If Ms WISHOTK enjoyed their sex life, it's probably because she used to think her husband was competent in bed and cared about her pleasure. Now that she knows her enjoyment was incidental, I don't see how the sex can work again.

@102 point 2... you're either having much rougher PIV sex than I am, or much milder spankings, because no PIV sex has ever come close to feeling like spanking to me

@124 cause no one is squicked out by pussy juice and it doesn't taste bad. Period blood generally tastes better than cum, but finding guys who will eat it is on the scarce side.

However else do you deal w cramps? Orgasms and cum are the only things that help.

I guess your test would be snowballing? I mean your point is that guys don't mind eating their own cum when it's in the mouth of a woman who just blew them, that's the name for that. It's a fetish cause it's a tad unusual. Kissing a few minutes later is never a concern bc no more cum. Eating pussy after you've just cum in it is different bc pussies don't swallow, as it were. I think it would be quite friendly if men started licking us clean as the default instead of merely providing towel service, though they'd have to stay down there a while. No downside I can see.

@143 who knows? That sweet spot on your ass when being spanked though? That's what gets smacked into the hardest when getting fucked/fucking. That's why sweet spot exists. Even on top if you feel like it.

@141 more to the point why hasn't she murdered him yet? No way this dynamic is sequestered just to this one issue.

No, this is an old thread, but you are putting words into my mouth which is hilarious given the subject. I said nothing at all about a man eating his own cum and I don't have a test- that was your creation- I'm not interested in any testing. Don't say kissing later is never an issue- it has been my thought as well that it's not, but we had a long conversation here a few weeks back in which people said it was. And again, I'll leave the discussion about eating pussy after a man cums to people with pussies that men cum inside. As for myself, I get off from PIV quite easily and can't think of a scenario in which it would be desirable for a man to go down on me AFTER he's had an orgasm and since I'd never be having unprotected PIV with anyone but my husband anyway, I can't imagine a scenario in which this would ever happen.