Savage Love

Cock Locked


SHIN, she's using you. She may be trying to escape from a sincerely bad situation, but I guarantee you that she didn't come visit and then decide not to leave. She came to visit for the sole purpose of moving in with you. Dan's advice still applies, but let's not pretend that this wasn't planned from the start.

Also, you don't mention how old either of you are, but if I were you I'd also make sure to find some way to see her driver's license and confirm her age, just in case you're unknowingly housing a runaway minor. I mean, if she's obviously a 30-year old in a bad spot, that's one thing. But otherwise, treat it like convenience store guidelines for selling tobacco or booze: If she looks even five minutes south of 25, card her just to be sure.
How does safewording work in PAUSES's relationship? Can he safeword something now, then go back and consider it later? My instinct was that he should maybe do that, because his Domme is asking something very significant of him. He doesn't want to do it but (I feel) doesn't want either to wuss out or to let her down. But I wasn't sure from reading the letter that she understood how much she was asking.

Probably he (or she) will get the bespoke chastity belt made; and I hope he enjoys it and has an imaginatively rich and complex and powerfully ambivalent and wonderful time in it.

I thought that SHIN had concerns that his new gf wasn't as into him as SHIN was into her. But there's no evidence of this in the letter; he (probably he) displaces this anxiety onto the facts of her not being able to pay her way. She _has_ found her feet fairly fast: I've been in NYC in my early 20s and not had the get-up-and-go or brass neck to find an entry-level job (I interned without pay doing something equally menial, with nothing but the mostly fake appreciativeness of stuck-up lawyers to show for it after the end of a hard working day. This, further, wasn't the basis for going on to do prestigious law jobs: I hated that area of the law, and everyone who applied for the jobs I wanted had at first a more shrewdly targeted résumé). Does SHIN's gf expect to have to pay rent on the same basis as SHIN's roommate? Does he own the flat/condo? That he has a roommate suggests that he has money constraints of some sort of his own. Whatever the owning or renting situation, he needs to have the conversation about how things can be made financially fair between the three of them.
Dude, it’s okay to draw the line at genital piercings. Don’t take that step if you’re not 100% on board.
I second Drsalty @ 3. Your body, your decision. No one has any right to push you into self-mutilation.

I assume that since they are in a constant sub/dom relationship, not just when they are having sex but in their regular relationship too, that it's fine for her to hound him about things that he's reluctant to do in a way that would be abusive in a normal relationship. He's obviously mostly against getting a cock ring. In a healthy relationship, a partner would see that reluctance and drop the topic or else let it go for a while and bring it up gingerly only from time to time. You wouldn't push and push and urge someone to do something that they weren't sure they wanted to do. But if you are in a constant sub/dom relationship, you would do this- even to the point that might seem abusive in another relationship. And to prevent it from being abusive, the sub has a safe word that he could use to say "hey, not playing now. I really don't want to do this, so drop it". Until he says that word, he hasn't really said no. He's said "maybe but I would only be doing it because you want me to" which in a non-sub/dom relationship, a healthy person should not pursue but in this one, well he actually enjoys doing all sorts of things that he doesn't want to do until she makes him do it. That's my reading.

OK- here's the part that I don't get AT ALL.

"So if your Dominant is locking up your cock to prevent you from coming, PAUSES, she'll also need to lock up her vibrators."

What? I'm not in this scene so maybe I'm wildly misunderstanding, but being in a sub/dom relationship is not at all about mutual reciprocity or equality right? What in the world does her vibrators or her orgasms have to do with her intentions to prevent him from coming?

Also where in the dude's letter did he say anything at all about her preventing him from coming in the first place? I'm sure there are various motivations behind making someone wear a chastity belt, but historically they are used to prevent other people from fucking your property. Likewise, in this situation, it's obviously about controlling someone else's body, but he said nothing about preventing coming so it's weird that Dan would go there and even weirder that he would make some strange connection to the Dom's vibrators- like even if this were her point, why would he conclude that she can't have orgasms either? Or that she'd need a vibrator to do that? What am I missing here?
I have a slightly different take on LW2. Depending on how much money he makes (he was comfortably paying rent without her help) and how much money the gf makes (is her part time work minimum wage?) I disagree that she'd need to contribute to rent. The LW did not express concerns about money. He expressed concerns about her taking advantage of him. If he's worried about that, he needs to talk to her, as Dan says, and make sure they are on the same page, but there are all sorts of ways someone can contribute to the responsibilities of a household and a relationship without paying rent. However, it seems like the living together is premature and the room mate is not down, so I'd suggest setting up a timeline (you stay here and save money for 6 weeks for example) with the expectation that the gf gets her own place and her own roommates.
Emma @ 5 - "What in the world does her vibrators or her orgasms have to do with her intentions to prevent him from coming?"

It has nothing to do with HER orgasms, just with his. If he finds her vibrators, he can make himself orgasm (from the previous paragraph in the letter: "I've yet to discover any kind of device that can prevent the wearer from achieving orgasm if he's holding a powerful wand massager against it, especially after weeks without coming."). Consequently, she has to lock them up until SHE wants to use them (on herself or on him).
Emma @ 6 - It's unfair for the roommate. S/he's sharing living space with an additional person without compensation.

Even if the LW is OK with her not paying rent, the GF has to pay the roommate the difference between half the rent (what the RM is presumably paying now) and a third of the rent (what the RM would be paying if the rent was shared equally between all of them), which amounts to one sixth of the rent. Or something along those lines.
Harriet @2: I think SHIN's having a roommate suggests only that he lives in New York City. Rents are high there.
Ricardo @8: We don't know what the typical arrangements are between these roommates. Perhaps the roommate's partner stays over several nights a week and he/she/they aren't bothered if SHIN's new girlfriend is around, particularly if she's contributing to groceries and perhaps the utility bills. SHIN definitely should include the roommate in discussions about what contribution from the girlfriend is fair.
I don't understand why the first lw can't just agree on sub's honor to not try to escape whatever chastity device he's locked into unless he has permission. If they have that kind of relationship, shouldn't he want to obey her wishes?
@5 - Chastity play is often about orgasm denial. When I lock up my sub's cock, it's not because I don't want him fucking, it's because I don't want him coming. His pleasure is at my discretion, not his.
@PAUSES: However sexually inactive I am, I'm in agreement with drsalty @3, and Ricardo @4, @7 & @8: If it's your body, then it's your call, D/s or otherwise!
WOW again, Joe---you are the reigning King of Graphic Illustration!
@5/EmmaLiz: “But if you are in a constant sub/dom relationship, you would do this- even to the point that might seem abusive in another relationship.”

First, I have to disagree with your characterization of D/s, and what is acceptable in a D/s relationship. I don’t think that is how a good dominant should act.

PAUSES dominant is asking for a permanent body modification that he would rather not have. While they both enjoy the power exchange of his being caged, he’s obviously not into actualizing his partner’s Prince Albert fantasy. That she went ahead and made an appointment, even three months ahead, is to me an excerise of bad judgment, and not how I would recommend a dominant to act.

As for REDBUM, you are one a large group of women whose partners refuse to spank them. Unlike WIFEOTK, you have a reasonable expectation that your husband should willingly spank you. He jad an unreasonable expectation that his wife should be willing if to get spanked.

Since your husband won’t do something easy to please you, you have every right to go out and get spanked by whomever you choose.
Sublime, I think you are probably right and I'm sure you have much more experience with that than I do, but we don't know how ambivalent the LW has seemed about it. "I don't want to do it but I will to please you" might be his answer to everything. If he doesn't want it, why not really say so with the safe word if that is their arrangement? But I agree that it is troubling that he's having trouble doing that, and it makes me wonder if some of this power play is becoming a bit too real.

@Ricardo- thanks, duh. I totally misread that. It seemed a really bizarre thing for him to say, so I knew I must be missing something!

As for the other LW, I agree that if the room mate doesn't want the third person living there then she's got to go sooner rather than later, and in fact that bf is already being a bad room mate for letting it carry on this long. But I don't see how the financial arrangement would change this- that's a separate issue and it could go either way. So long as she is paying her share of the bills/groceries, etc, then we don't know if the room mate also believes she should pay for her share of the bf's room as that might make no difference to the room mate who is paying for his room and half the apartment regardless. It's up to them- the disrespect is in having the gf stay there if the room mate doesnt' want a third in the first place. I don't think the LW said anything about the room mate's concern over the rent, just that the LW himself worries she might take advantage of him. He just throws in the "I have a room mate" bit with no extra info- obviously the first thing he should've done was talk to the room mate about he feels about it.
That Domme sounds like a pushy woman and to me this whole PA thing is a major red flag, but what do I know, I'm happily vanilla in my marriage.
Agree, red flags all round on the dom.
I'm mostly vanilla but every now and then I visit a professional dominatrix who offers "sweet and sensual" domination. At one point I considered incorporating a male chastiity device in our play and I bought a "Holy Trainer version 2". It is indeed pretty easy to get your penis out of it, which was a little disappointing, but if you suspend your disbelief you can simply decide not to do that. I found it a bigger problem that it's impossible to keep that thing clean if your dick is locked up. How am I supposed to urinate during the day if I can't jump into the shower and clean the inside of the cage with running water? Do I even want to do that every time I go to the bathroom?

Not my thing. I gave the device to the mistress and she tells me that she is succesfully using it with other subs.
Red alert: I think REDBUM should be made to wear scarlet spanx.
LW1, she may own your penis but she doesn't own your agency. And you can take your cock back at any time if the Domme you've picked to play with is also an unnegotiated (with you) sadist.
Ffs, unless you are locked up in some weirdos house, Free Will(y) is still in your possession. Tell her no, if she can't trust you, then what's the point of playing together?
LW1, PAUSES - I got the feeling that one of the reasons he hasn't used his safeword is that his partner has asked for this "gift" for their 2nd anniversary. LW, the traditional 2nd anniversary gift theme is paper, not wood. Please reconsider and use your safeword unless you are 100 percent sure you want to go through with this. Take a tip from Reg @18, you may not like it once you have it.

Also, my take on "not subordinate all the time" is that either they occasionally switch during roleplay, or he does not have to be in his sub role while out in the "real world." Which is fine with me. The less I know about co-workers' sex lives, and the less they know about mine, the happier we'll all be.
Sublime @14: I gotta disagree on how "reasonable" it is to expect one's partner to administer spankings and how entitled one is to seek that elsewhere if they don't. I agree, as I said in the WISHOTK thread, that asking someone to spank you is a far lesser ask than asking someone to let you spank them. But it's still not something that one has the right to insist on -- like, say, oral sex*. Mr REDBUM may find the idea of hurting his wife repellent. I agree that, like Mrs WISHOTK, he should have at least given it a try. But he has every right to opt out. And if it's that important to REDBUM, she should have brought it up early in the relationship, and/or told him that if he wouldn't spank her, she'd like the freedom to get spanked by someone else. Glad she's found a solution that works, but I wouldn't have called it the ideal one.

*I agree with Dan that "oral sex is standard," but even here, there are exceptions.
LW2, SHIN - Dan correctly identified the key issue here: inviting your lover to move in with you is NOT the same as having her extend a weekend visit indefinitely, while you are still ambivalent about whether you are ready for that step. The fact that SHIN really likes GF and feels sorry about her family situation creates even more ambivalence; he'll feel like a total cad if he tells her it's time to leave. As to whether she's using him, who among us (well, maybe the aces) would choose to go back to sleeping alone on Granny's sofa-bed, if we had the option of sleeping with our lover in a real bed in a real bedroom, rent-free in NYC no less? Dan's advice is spot-on: even if he didn't have a roommate who should have at least been consulted on the matter, SHIN needs to have that difficult convo and work with the GF on a plan for her to move out, including helping her find her own place locally (probably also with roommates, if she's staying in the city) and possibly even kicking in on her deposit, if he's got the means to do that. This will let their love relationship develop at its own pace. If he lets her stay on out of pity, it may feel better to both of them in the short term - but it will doom their relationship dynamic, and make it hard for her ever to achieve parity in the partnership.
LW3, REDBUM - Dan made me laugh out loud with his response to this letter - although, like BDF @25, I think she should have discussed her needs openly with her spouse rather than being a CPOS. If you're getting off sexually to a spanking, yeah sorry - it still "counts" as sex even if the genitalia are not involved. And if you are in a supposedly monogamous relationship, IMHO sneaking around to get your jollies falls squarely in the cheating category.
BDF @ 10 - "We don't know what the typical arrangements are between these roommates."

Emma @ 15 - "I don't see how the financial arrangement would change this"

What we DO know is that it's NYC, so it's 99.99% sure that the roommate would like to pay less rent. If either the LW or the RM were "above that", so to speak, they'd probably be living on their own.
I'm very much in agreement with Ms Fan on the third letter - asking to be spanked is a lesser ask than asking to spank, but complying with the request would still make her husband a Spanker, which is not necessarily a little matter. (We could even take it farther and look at the implications in their hypothetical eventual divorce.)

The response to L2 is the sort to which one's main response is to wish it had been made clear whether it had been gendered or not.

My hunch about L1 is that perhaps LW1 has to make up for safewording, and rightly fears that the consequence of avoiding this will be something even more unpleasant. I'm not sure whether they should have broken up or entered a Covenant Marriage yesterday.
@19: Dadddy, I was kind of apprehensive to click on your link. And it turns out that I was right to be! The horror!
alol @19
Ricardo @28: Probably, but I'd put the odds at less than 99.99%. One exception might be, as I mentioned, the roommate takes frequent liberties with having their own partner stay over, so really has no room to talk about SHIN's. Another exception is that they may be less "roommates" and more "joint lodgers" -- each of them with a separate lease for their own room and access to common areas. Yes, it's probably a standard arrangement with a roommate who would probably feel shortchanged by the presence of a third, non-rent-paying person, but as always we can't assume.
PAUSES, don't get pierced to please someone else. Permanent genital piercings remove some tissue and can cause nerve damage, get infected, etc. I had one of my nipples done. It hurt so much I chickened out on the second one. After it was all healed up, I realized I had lost significant sensitivity in the pierced nipple. The choice to have it done should be yours and yours alone.
Re REDBUM, if you're sneaking around, it's cheating. There are circumstances in which cheating is preferable to leaving, but "I'm pouty because I'm not getting exactly what I want in bed" isn't one of them. I'm puzzled by the oral sex comparison too. Yes, all GGG partners should be open to giving oral sex. But if they're not, that's the price of admission. You don't get a free pass to go get oral somewhere else with a clean conscience. Same with spanking. Ask for what you want, and if you don't get exactly what you want...*shrug*. Is it worth leaving or cheating over?
@#19: How did you ever get a picture of my feet?
I have a PA and a PA integrated chastity device. Both at the request of my partner. My advice is definitely do not get a PA! This is a much bigger commitment than it sounds. You may loose feeling and experience difficulty in getting or maintain an erection. You will hurt and bleed for weeks. Sleeping will not be the same, ever.

My chastity device was custom made and $2000. It can be very very painful in ways that a regular device is not. It also requires a jewelry size that takes years to work up to. (I got my PA 15 years before the chastity device) You will not be able to lock ANYTHING to your cock for at least a year after the piercing as it will be too sensitive. This plan makes no sense and was ill conceived.

Unless you are a true masochist and crave pain this is not for you. True chastity play should be possible even without a device. Control should be mental first, physical second. I only get locked up when he is out of town, otherwise I just do what I am told.
Sorry for being so long winded...

I think @19 wins the comments! (That pic would make anyone's libido go bye bye!)
@24, perhaps LW1 should counter offer revisiting the possibility of getting a PA on their 11th anniversary, for which the symbol is steel! Lol.

LW1: please note that I am mostly vanilla...

have you and your Domme have a signed contract? From my understanding, not all couples/partners in BDSM relationships/arrangements have a contract but some find it invaluable in maintaining clarity in what they will do (full speed ahead!), might do (soft limits), and won’t do (hard limits) in the arrangement. Safe words are needed if SSC is observed, as well, of course. Contracts can be renegotiated on an ad hoc basis or on a schedule or even both...or not.

Your ambivalence, if not total reluctance, regarding getting a PA and the fact that you do not have a 24/7/TPE/FT Mistress/slave relationship, IMHO, says to me that this is not something you should do right now (or even in 3 months). Just because this is something your Domme wants doesn’t mean that if you don't get it on HER schedule you don’t love or respect her. (IMO it was not okay for her to make an appointment without you first agreeing to have this done.) A loving Domme/Dom should consider what is best for their sub. A PA is not the same as getting your ears pierced as one can get one's ears pierced one day and then the following day remove the earrings by themselves without much ado or risk...not so with a PA.

As stated above by others here, there must be a commitment by you for hygienic self care that goes beyond tapping it off (in regard to having a PA attached to a cockcage), understanding that there is the a for infection (at least in the immediate post procedure period), and an acceptance of risk for permanent nerve damage to a very nerve-dense organ.

I've read of some wearers of *intimate piercing jewelry* having to show a TSA officer (in private) their piercing after it is pIcked up via the X-ray screening. It is often recommended that piercing jewelry be removed prior to undergoing an MRI or other medical procedures in order to prevent potential thermal injury and/or artifact results.

This is a body mod that you are, right now, unsure you want to undergo. Per your letter, this is not a 24/7 Mistress/slave relationship and the implication is that it is not a TPE. Therefore, you make the decision as it is your body.
@37 should read: “understanding that there is ^a risk^ (-the -the a) for infection...”
BDF @ 32 - "as always we can't assume."

Really? That's hilarious. This is a SLLOTD comment thread! An extremely large proportion of what we write is derived purely from assumptions.

Of course, you're right: their situation could be different. I'll still assume it's not. In the end, what I assume makes no difference whatsoever in how the situation will play out.
@36 I had to practice deep breathing techniques to get through your post. Intense!!
I think the secret side spankings are a betrayal. But probably one you can live with, without feeling too badly.
Second that philosophy school dropout @40, that post was intense. How about nocturnal emissions Granny Smith @ 36? Thanks for sharing and letting the LW know straight what the procedures feels like.
If someone hands themselves over completely to another, it's on them to really check out the person who is going to be in charge of them, or parts of them.
I don't get this Domme much cares for you LW1, she sounds more into the power. And power without compassion and respect for fellow humans' humanity turns nasty real quick.
This is your cock you're talking about.
@5. EmmaLiz. I'm not sure that talk of a 'healthy person' here is helpful. (I know you're NOT saying that the LW's domme partner is unhealthy, but rather that pushing getting him pierced would be 'unhealthy' without a D/s arrangement between them). It's not clear to me that this is a Total Power Exchange relationship. It seems, in fact, that it isn't: He says he isn't submissive in everything (he wouldn't do all the housework as a form of eroticized subjugation, for instance). She 'owns his cock'. This could well mean she owns his cock in their sex life, owns his cock during scenes ... but when do scenes begin and end? If he's into chastity belts, as Dan's correspondent Sheets suggests, it would seem pretty 24/7.

He can say 'no'; he can safe-word it and, from the tone and content of his letter, I think we should encourage him to do so. But I'm not sure that people who aren't D/s, like you (really so) and me, should do much more than listen and be supportive to problems cropping up in D/s relationships. I've only just seen your response to me, so don't know whether or not others have cautioned you on some of the assumptions attached to your vocabulary of 'healthy' and 'abusive' or not.
Harriet, I'm sure you and Sublime are right about this as you all have way more experience than I do in this sort of relationship. My original post was just in a response to what a safe word is outside of a sexual context which was how I read your original question, but upon reflection I see that you meant something bigger and more specific to how their relationship works.
@19 Dadddy: Aiiiggghh! Oh, that poor penis!
@22:....or maybe dress the poor penis in scarlet spanx instead?
@45 & @46: Okay. So much for my shot at being humorous this week.
I thought your comment valid, EmmaLiz. D/s relationships are not in some pure land, never to be looked at critically. Lots of people on FetLife complain of being badly treated by Dominants, so obviously abuse does go on.
And I don't mean badly treated because they are Dominant, and it's part of the play, I mean badly treated because the D didn't take care of where the dynamic takes the s.
@45-@47: Seriously, Dan and everyone. I was trying to be funny. My deepest heartfelt apologies if I offended or hurt anybody.
@28: That's a pretty fair assessment. Roommate would be within his rights to say, "This apartment is now being shared by three people. As one of those three people, I am willing to pay at most one third of the apartment expenses. How the two of you want to divide up the two thirds share that the two of you represent is between you. He can pay for you, or you can get a job. I don't care which. But starting this month, my share is a third."
Wait, safewording incurs a penalty? I don't think that's how safewords are supposed to work.

Also Harriet, I think I was meandering a bit and can't remember exactly what I was thinking when I wrote that (probably under the influence) but my guess is that I was trying to say that in a healthy relationship (either one with a sub/dom arrangement or not) a person would not coerce or hound someone into doing something that they'd said they were reluctant to do (be it pierce their cocks or take off their shirt) but would instead express their desires and/or discuss that reluctance in a healthy way- being one that does not involve coercion and that respects the other person's feelings/boundaries. But I was trying to say that since playing around with these boundaries and playing around with consent/coercion are part of the sub/dom dynamic, what we consider abusive in a non sub/dom relationship could be healthy in a sub/dom relationship, and safe words play a role in that- even outside of actual sex. Whether or not that is happening here in this relationship is questionable, and I'll let you or Sublime (even with limited experience) or others with more experience (Daddy's sounds fun here) discuss that as I don't know. My original intention was to answer what I thought was a basic question about what are the purposes of safe words, even outside of sex itself, and my answer was something along the lines of- it's one of the things that keeps a sub/dom relationship healthy even when they are doing/saying things that would seem abusive in a relationship that did not have that dynamic. See? If the word "healthy" itself is problematic, well I'm not sure what to use to substitute it.
@44. Emma. I think she enforces his chastity as part of their relationship. He wants sex? He can't have it until she unlocks him. He wants to vote Green, not for Hillary Clinton? Their relationship has nothing to do with that.

Without having much experience in this area, I'd endorse comments like Sublime's that one can be a bad or a good Domme. With the appointment for the piercing, she seems to have jumped the gun.

I thoroughly agree with the Australian comment @49, which is making the point I was making whether the commenter thinks she is disagreeing with me or not.
Speaking with some experience here, LW1 is facing a complicated situation.

First, purely pragmatically, there are many different models of male chastity devices available these days, designed for different body anatomies. He and his partner should try some other options before they decide that the PA is the only option. Some people swear by them, but they are not common.

Second, 'inescapable' is a tricky term when dealing with male chastity devices. Even a full belt can be easily removed with a pair of bolt cutters, as can a device held in place by a PA.

Third, imposing body modifications on a submissive partner can be an expression of the D/s relationship that ends up being a positive experience for both people. But it's not something that should be undertaken lightly by a dominant. Some body mods have more potential downsides and a longer healing time than others, with more potential negative consequences. Nipple rings, for example, take surprisingly long to heal, and I've had experience with my then-partner's nipple rings getting infected.

Fourth, and perhaps most important, it sounds to me like LW1's partner is actively trying to extend her control, linking the piercing to the anniversary. She may want a full-time D/s relationship, and sees this as a step in that direction. LW1 does not sound excited by the prospect of that slippery slope. It might be time to clearly re-negotiate boundaries.
@5. Emma. I don't want to pick holes any more. Neither of us really understand about chastity play. I've never worn a Prince Albert cock ring. Just to explain my reaction, if you look at your first sentence @5, implicitly your comparison is between a 'normal' relationship and a TPE (or what you describe as a 'constant' sub/dom relationship) in which it's acceptable for her to 'hound' him. I would have thought a D/s relationship was or could be 'normal', meaning 'psychically integrated and gratifying'; that coercive hounding was always suspect, and that you'd mischaracterized their deal.

But I don't think we disagree on the substance of the advice, do we? That he should think very carefully about going through with the piercing?
Ricardo @39: That's the royal we. You'll notice that my posts which include assumptions will always include qualifying words like "probably," "my take is," "it appears," etc. You've probably also noticed (see that "probably") me pulling up other commenters for jumping to conclusions based on facts which, while likely, are not in evidence from the letter. Unless a letter writer states something outright, obvious assumptions always, always, always may or may not be true.

I offer Harriet's post @43 as a gold star assumption-free comment:
"@5. EmmaLiz. I'm not sure that talk of a 'healthy person' here is helpful. (I know you're NOT saying that the LW's domme partner is unhealthy, but rather that pushing getting him pierced would be 'unhealthy' without a D/s arrangement between them). It's not clear to me that this is a Total Power Exchange relationship. It seems, in fact, that it isn't: He says [fact in evidence] he isn't submissive in everything (he wouldn't do all the housework as a form of eroticized subjugation, for instance). She 'owns his cock' [fact in evidence]. This could well mean she owns his cock in their sex life, owns his cock during scenes ... but when do scenes begin and end? If he's into chastity belts, as Dan's correspondent Sheets suggests, it would seem pretty 24/7."
Harriet @56: "@5. Emma. I don't want to pick holes any more."

Neither does the letter writer. *ba-dum tish*
@50: Nobody spoke up. I guess that's a good sign.

Congrats in advance to this week's next lucky numbers winner!
Happy Easter and Happy April Fools' Day for those celebrating.
I hope the weather is nice enough for fortune hunters seeking the golden egg.
For an excellent overview of what it feels like to like within male chastity, checkout the blog Denying Thumper. If you read it chronologically you can see how Thumper’s responses have changed over the years he and his wife have been doing this. He also has the best reviews of devices around.
One thing he stresses often is that chastity happens between your ears, not between your legs. The device is a symbol much more than an actual barrier. If all you can think about when wearing one is how to escape, it’s not what you should be doing.
And don’t get a PA piercing until it’s your idea.
@56 Probably you are right. As I said I re-read my meandering comment in the light of day (and sobriety) and I'm not sure what I meant either by those word choices, and so I explained what I assume were my intentions. The way you are characterising them is not how I feel about this topic so I assume that I used the wrong phrasing to try to say what I said @53.

As for whether or not he should get his cock pierced, that's up to him and he should figure out what he wants there, not what she wants him to want. I'm a little concerned that he seems to have trouble expressing that or distinguishing between his desires and hers (or else standing up to it) but since there is a safe word in place, I also don't understand why he hasn't used it. Which could be an indication of an unhealthy relationship here. Also her hounding him could be an indication of that, or it could be what their dynamics are like- I don't think we know enough to do more than speculate on that front, so like I said, I lean towards agreeing with whatever other people who do have experience with sub/dom relationships see as red flags. To me, the only red flag I really see is that he is having trouble standing up for himself at all, but whether that is because she is abusive or coercive, we don't know. Some people really are pushovers, and while that does not change the fact that it's unethical to push them over, it does increase the chances that you might push them over without realizing that you are doing so, and the dynamic of their relationship might increase that chance even farther. I say this because I can't wrap my mind around someone not wanting to get their dick pierced, having fully the ability to say they don't want to get their dick pierced, not saying that, going along with it and then stressing about it to the point of asking a letter from a third party sex expert. I'm glad people like Dan exist in the world to take these questions- and there are all sorts of reasons people go along with things rather than saying no and I'm sympathetic to them, but that does not automatically translate to their partners being abusive or unhealthy. A very good dom might need to be even more mindful of the desires/needs of their partners, but if this one is wrong about setting up the appointment for the dick ring (and I think she is) I'm not willing to say that means she's being abusive, though it could mean that the relationship is unhealthy even though it might not be her fault. The dom could honestly believe the discussion/coercion (we have no details about that) are a part of their dynamic as the sub has not in fact used the safe word.

So if we disagree at all, I'm not sure, as I really don't know what this situation is about. I'm just saying I'm not so sure the problem is more with the dom than with the sub himself. Or both- rather than one making another do something. Though if this were not a sub/dom situation, then it would be pretty obvious that the gf was being pushy in an abusive way.
EmmaLiz @ 5: there's no real "historical" context for chastity belts being used that way, long-term. Chastity belts have later been made for pervy people rather than going back to "the Crusades" or "when the Lord and Master left the castle", and given factitious provenance suggesting they were medieval.

Look at what RegisteredEuropean says @ 18: even in a modern context, with full awareness of hygiene necessities, it's a pain to keep a genital cage clean--and that's a man, and a man's junk is much easier because it's more separable than a woman's parts.

The nearest "old-fashioned" equivalent today is Female Genital Mutilation with Infibulation, stitching up the vagina (in old-style ways with a thorn, or if the girl is lucky given proper sutures) until marriage, then cut for her husband's use. Urinary infections and persistent pain etc are rife.

Now imagine not just stitches to get an infection but a large metal device, in a context without modern understanding of hygiene.

Is she going to be temporarily "let out" to use the privy, or is the waste going to fall out of a hole? Some examples of "chastity belts" seem to suggest the latter, and it goes with the concept of being ceremonially unlocked by the husband when he comes back.

Without a modern concept of hygiene, I'd expect it to half-kill her in a week or a month, and certainly kill her by the time he gets back.
Happy Foolish Easter to you too, Ms Griz!
Woof, I visited a torture museum once full of chastity belts. They were mostly thick leather or chain belts with small teethed metal holes that would prevent penetration of the vagina and anus, and contrary to my belief before entering, they were mostly worn voluntarily by women who were protecting themselves from rape but also by men who were trying to prevent other men from accessing their property. It did not appear that they would prevent one from cleaning oneself, as they were loose enough that you could simply get into a bath with one on, but I doubt people were wearing them 24/7 unless they were in conditions in which hygiene and health were not priorities. The idea that a man puts it on then goes out of town and comes back and unlocks it is probably one created by romance novelists. In any case, I was referring to the fact that it seems impossible to design something like this to prevent someone from ever having an orgasm as that is not what they were ever designed for, and as the subsequent conversation and the one that Dan included indicate, it is still nearly impossible to design a belt that prevents that. Therefore, the intention in a BDSM sense must be mostly fantasy- it's about controling someone else's body (orgasm prevention, maybe if the wearer plays along, preventing them from having sex with others certainly as the belt makes it impossible) but since the whole thing is consensual, it is play and requires the wearer to play along. Therefore, it seems weird to me that they would need a belt that actually works- that you can't get out of or have an orgasm with. But who knows- I suppose different people have different thresholds for what they need to feel that their play is new. If he can get out of it easily, it might break the spell, so he wants something that makes it easier to suspend disbelief.
"but also by men who were trying to prevent other men from accessing their property"

should've said:

but also by women who men forced to wear them in order to prevent other men...
@62 Woofb: Thorned vaginal stitches?!? Wow--now I'm doubly grateful for having had a uterine ablation, and equally glad that I wasn't born during medieval times.
In my opinion, a lot of dicks really should be caged, however---particularly the one currently stinking up the White Trashed House.
@63 BiDanFan: Thanks. I do have plans to be quite an April Fool this Sunday.
Now, if the wind and rain would stop so that I can get my sweet little car back out of winter hibernation......but that's just March / April around here.
And the lucky winner IS................
PAUSES: You will regret your PA.

SHIN: If you tie yourself to an anchor, be ready to go down with the ship. You don't need a talk about her rent / home situation, you need to talk about your relationship and what it's future is. Either she's going to live with your forever, or she'll need to figure something else out eventually.

REDBUM: You're cheating, you're just cheating and fucking. You feel guilty about it, which is the ultimate indicator that you're cheating. How bad you want to feel is up to you.
@69 you're just *not* cheating and fucking. myb.
@69: Congratulations, Sportlandia, for nailing the lucky number! May your immediate future be truly golden.
There's also an excellent chance that SHIN's landlord would not be down with a permanent but unofficial third regardless of the financial arrangements between them. Most landlords I know take a dim view of extended "visits" of people who aren't on the lease.
Capricornius @27 -- it sounds like REDBUM has asked her husband to spank her and been turned down. You say:
>> If you're getting off sexually to a spanking, yeah sorry - it still "counts" as sex even if the genitalia are not involved.>>

But what does "get off" mean? Suppose REDBUM and her spanking partner don't touch each other's genitals or have orgasms together, though perhaps they get off alone at home thinking about it. You may consider that cheating but I'd put that in the "bodily autonomy" category. I think non-genital spanking is basically a massage, and I think if a spouse refuses to give massages and refuses to let one get a massage elsewhere, adults are entitled to do what they want with their bodies and not report on the frowned-upon massages.

And if one gets off later thinking about the masseuse, or about one's tennis coach, or one's colleague, one isn't thereby cheating, even if one's spouse would be upset to find out about one's fantasies.

Does this sort of secrecy mean there's a problem in the marriage? Sure, that's probably true. Would I judge the spankee more harshly than the spouse who won't encourage them to go elsewhere to get spanked? No, I wouldn't. Spanking poses no risk to one's spouse. If one can do it discreetly in order to stay in an otherwise functional marriage, I won't judge which spouse is more at fault.

But then, I also don't judge who is more at fault when one spouse has a non-sexual emotional affair, or goes to a strip club, or enjoys live cam porn. Marriages are complicated and when communication and intimacy break down there's usually blame on both sides.
EricaP @73, I'm not judging. I'm just going on the facts that REDBUM provided. You've found a way to make this more about a fantasy sexual experience than a real one, but REDBUM is up-front in saying that neither her spouse nor her spanker's spouse know about their affair. And apparently you consider sexual spanking trysts to be as innocent as appointments for therapeutic massage, but I would disagree, and so would a lot of my state-licensed massage therapist friends. REDBUM is lying to her spouse about where she is going and what she is doing, as is her spanker. To me, that qualifies as an affair, with or without genital involvement - which is perfectly OK in some marriages, but probably not in this one.
@18 reg - curious as to what those sessions consist of, care to enlighten?
@18 and feel free to be vague, I'm just curious about the general gist, not your personal specifics.
no @75/76 Think playing with (erotic) tease & denial and powerlessness, without humiliation or pain.
Erica @73: I agree with Capricornius that massage and spankings are not at all comparable. For one thing, massages relieve pain, while spankings cause it! A massage may be sensual for the recipient, but it almost certainly is not for the giver if that giver is a licensed professional. So it's the primary purpose of the acts and their mutuality that make massage and spanking very different. If the massage-giver were just a friend with strong hands -- a friend who has a big crush on you -- then there might be some basis for comparison, but most people who seek massages from people who aren't their partners are doing so for therapeutic, not erotic, reasons. And most people would be more OK with a third party touching their partner's bare shoulders than their bare arse.

Your reasoning that the spankee may not "get off" as in have an orgasm while being spanked -- they may reserve that for later -- doesn't fly with me, either. With that logic, two people could fuck each other for an hour without coming, then masturbate themselves to orgasm, and that would fit your "not cheating" loophole. I think it's pretty obvious that the presence or absence of an orgasm isn't a determining factor.
Lava @48/@49: I agree with you that there are a lot of abusive Doms. But it's very tricky. It's like, how can you have a sex industry that is completely free of exploitation? How can you have a dynamic where one partner is hurting or humiliating the other without running a big risk of abuse? One issue is that by definition, subs want to please their Doms, and many -- like our LW -- will allow or even encourage the Dom to push their boundaries. They'll agree to something they don't really want to do, because they're in sub space and they want to make their Dom happy. After the fact, the sub realises the Dom pushed them too far. But from the Dom's perspective, it can be really difficult to know whether a sub's "no" means "no," whether their "yes" means "yes." My former sub agreed to things, both sexual and non, that she either didn't really want to do or didn't have the ability to do because she was so keen to make me happy. (Which of course backfired, and is one reason she's my former sub.) If it's sometimes difficult to determine whether consent exists in vanilla situations, it's even harder in a BDSM context, where someone wants you to hurt them and boss them around. Communication is so, so important but there's plenty of scope for things to go wrong.
PAUSES is in an abusive relationship. The appropriate response to him isn't "here are some ways to save yourself from the genital mutilation your abusive girlfriend is pushing on you, it's DTMFA.
I do understand it's a complex dynamic Fan @79, hence my suggestion to investigate the person before taking them on as a D. In this situation the D must know the LW is telling his truth that he doesn't want a piecing and yet there is the D making appointments for it to be done. This is not some minor demand, it is his body she wants to mutilate.
I feel bad for LW2’s roommate.

I had an ex move back in with me once when he was on the verge of homelessness. We were already exes, so he had another room. I also had a roommate who was obviously inconvenienced, so I lowed roommate’s rent by over a third. When ex finally moved out (a year later), I kept my roommate’s rent at the reduced rate for the next four years, never giving an annual rent increase (we weren’t covered by rent control) much less raising back to the original rent. I also let him stagger his rent, half with each semi-monthly paycheck, to make it easier for him to manage his budget. And when I finally sold my place to move elsewhere, I let him stop paying rent the last two months so he could save for a deposit for his new place. I think I treated my roomie fairly but I still feel guilty about it.
Lava @82: I wasn't trying to condescend, just musing. I agree this LW needs to state a hard no. If he hasn't been clear -- and if their usual dynamic is that he resists at first before complying -- they need to drop their roles and talk.
I didn't think you were condescending Fan. Whatever label used, it's still a relationship between two ( or more) people, whole human beings.
@19 made me LOL
Following some others here re: PAUSES getting a PA:
From what I understand --and PA-havers please chime in--, a PA permanently alters your ability to use the bathroom... as in, you must sit to pee... forever. Because it pierces a new hole through your urethra, and you will always squirt pee in two directions.

1. Yeah, if you're not 100% on board with that, don't.
2. Even if you are, research the shit out of that piercing first.
3. There may be other piercings that are lockable to a device (with some ingenuity) that don't poke a permanent hole in your urethra. Like an ampallang piercing. Or some variant of a hafada, through which a lock could be passed. In fact, just a small lock by itself through a center-located hafada might be sufficient, and waaay less life-altering.
@83: I fell bad for SHIN's flatmate, too. Maybe the girlfriend is great and they all get along, but springing a new housemate on someone without an earlier discussion about the particulars, uninflected by coercive elements (including the situational coercion of not wanting someone to be homeless or stuck in some other sort of bad living situation) really doesn't strike me as okay, even understanding why circumstance sometimes leads people to do so.

My long-time on-again, off-again housemate (with whom I'm probably done living at this point - he and his girlfriend live in another state now and are talking about kids) had our third housemate's boyfriend move in for about six months one time, due to him being evicted from his previous dwelling. We felt bad and didn't want to throw him out on the street, but it sucked; there were reasons that he had been evicted, and while most of our problems with him were not things that would have been issues for his landlord, they did connect to a probable common source: his entitled lack of concern for how his actions impacted others and failure to comply with agreements he made. We rode out the remainder of the lease and then didn't renew with the third person (+BF).

Finding people with whom one gets along well as a housemate is difficult; even if one gets along well with someone as a friend, it's not guarantee that all involved have compatible preferences and norms for a shared living space. Some things can of course be negotiated and compromised, but three's a limit past which one's living situation becomes miserable, which is not good for one's long-term psychological well-being. For me, the primary concern wouldn't be the equity of the division of rent - there are people with whom I wouldn't want to live even if it was free for me, while it sounds like SHIN is mostly thinking about himself and money, not the other elements of a shared dwelling. There's also the issue that tenants who are not on a lease can be grounds for eviction in various places/with various leases - SHIN and his GF may be imperiling the flatmate's housing.

So, I think SHIN's first important conversation needs to be with his flatmate to figure out what's acceptable to zir. Once he knows those limits, he can decide what he's willing to pursue in terms of shared-or-not housing with the girlfriend, and discuss that with her, but from where I sit, the flatmate's preferences matter the most, as SHIN/GF are proposing a change to the housing agreement the flatmate originally made.
Capricornius @74 – oh, cool, then neither of us is judging REDBUM. Apologies for misunderstanding.

BiDanFan @78 – I said explicitly that I’m supposing REDBUM and her spanking partner don't touch each other's genitals or have orgasms together. So I don’t know why you jumped to:

>> With that logic, two people could fuck each other for an hour without coming, then masturbate themselves to orgasm, and that would fit your "not cheating" loophole >>

Fucking can spread STIs and so potentially affects the other person’s health. I use "cheating" for secret fucking and other activities with the potential to spread STIs. Spankings (like massages, tennis lessons, lap dances, and going to the grocery store) only expose one to airborne infectious diseases so I don’t put them in the same category.

>> And most people would be more OK with a third party touching their partner's bare shoulders than their bare arse. >>

Sure, but I bet most people object to their partners fantasizing about other people, while secretly fantasizing about other people themselves. I don’t use "most people's" assessment to guide my standards of reasonable behavior.

I’ll be clear here. I don’t need to desexualize spanking with the massage analogy. As I said @73, I would understand someone secretly watching porn, secretly going to a strip club, or secretly enjoying live cam porn, if they feel their partner won't approve. I put secret spankings in the same category.

Is it preferable to have the kind of relationship where one can be honest about one's sexual needs? Yes. Can it be ethical to stay in a relationship while lying about something the other person won’t accept? Yes, if that doesn’t endanger them medically, legally, or financially.
@EricaP: I defer to you as the masochist /sub who clearly knows much more about this stuff than I do, but I disagree with the last two sentences of your closing paragraph ("Can it be ethical to stay in a relationship while lying about something the other person won’t accept? Yes, if that doesn’t endanger them medically, legally, or financially.")

It might be practical to "stay in a relationship while lying about something the other person won’t accept," but I think the issue of what is ethical is about more than simply the lack of endangering someone "medically, legally, or financially."

Certainly, those are considerations, and yet behaving ethically seems to require not lying to your committed partner about something which you know they have strong feelings about. If you have let your partner know that you want something that you can't do alone but which requires input from another person; if what you want is generally supplied by either an intimate partner or a paid professional; if that thing you want is sexualized for you; if the terms of your relationship prohibit you from either soliciting another intimate relationship or paying a professional to provide you the act; and your partner lets you know that they are unwilling to fulfill your desire, I consider it to be unethical to go out and meet that need elsewhere. It might allow you "to stay married and stay sane" as Dan likes to say, but I can't consider it ethical behavior.

As to your three criteria for determining the ethics of an act, I would be much less concerned with the medical aspects of a partner's infidelity and much more upset by the fact that my partner lied to me, were I to be the spouse of either of the REDBUM participants and were this extra-marital spanking to come to light. The fact that my partner might say to me, "but honey, I didn't expose you to infection, legal troubles, or financial hardship, so it's okay" would certainly not fly with me.

The REDBUMs are choosing to meet in secret and to do something that has a sexual charge for both of them. They are doing this because neither of they spouses are willing to do what they want and they are doing this knowing that their spouses would be hurt by the revelation. I don't consider this ethical.
@12 "it's because I don't want him coming"

You'd better hope he doesn't learn the hands-free orgasm. And then there's the prostate massage. Better lock up your Mont Blanc pen as well as your vibes/dildos.
I know this is SO many SLs later, but I will never forget Joe's graphic art from SL: Bloody Business (See the January 17, 2018 issue), in comparison to this week's SL: Cock Locked. Some memories just plain stand out.
@91 And why would I lock any of my toys up when it's my job to torture my boy with each and every one? You think he doesn't have anything stuffed up his bum while I'm dangling that key in his face? Interesting.
Nocutename @90, I don't see ethics as all black & white. I'm not positive REDBUM is acting ethically, but I'll repeat:

"Can it be ethical to stay in a relationship while lying about something the other person won’t accept? Yes, if that doesn’t endanger them medically, legally, or financially."

It may be ethical. It may not. I reserve judgment, because I don't know the rest of the circumstances that REDBUM is facing.
nocutename @90 -- and of course REDBUM's husband gets to feel hurt and upset if he finds out. But not everything that upsets one spouse is unethical.

Do you think it can be ethical to watch porn in secret if one's spouse doesn't approve?
@95: In this sort of case, the ultimate question is whether the person doing the thing is willing to entertain the possibility of losing the person who would be upset if they found out. Because once they do find out, it's out of the hands of the person who did it what happens next.

If you know your partner would leave you over it, and you do it anyway, and they leave you, you knew that was one possibility, and you chose it. All the arguing over whether the thing was ethical or not is just so much noise, in the face of the other person exercising their prerogative to dump you.

If the thing they dumped you over was porn, or something even more trivial than porn, you can proceed to argue over whether you are well rid of such a controlling asshole.
@95: First massages, now porn: you continue to make comparisons that aren't applicable. Watching porn is a passive activity. You sit at home, tap something onto a keyboard, and the porn comes to you. You don't interact with another person. You don't touch another person. When you watch porn and masturbate, the person or people on the screen don't know about it; they don't feel anything physically; they aren't interacting with you.

Yes, I know some people believe watching porn to be a form of infidelity; that isn't what REDBUM is talking about or doing. It's irrelevant to this letter and the issues it raises.

REDBUM is having sexualized contact with someone else secretly and lying to her husband in order to do it. I don't say that I don't understand why she's doing it--I do--and I'm not entirely unsympathetic to her. But I also can't consider her behavior ethical.

I can have empathy and compassion for the situation she's in: having a deep sexual need or desire that her spouse refuses to even try to fulfill. I can have empathy for her spouse for not being able to do something that is completely distasteful to him and for possibly not really understanding how important it is for her. I can ache profoundly for all humans and their terrible communication skills and the cruelty of mismatched sexualities that don't fully reveal themselves until far too late. I can have compassion for all those who truly love someone who cannot, for whatever reason, meet their sexual needs. I can feel the frustration of the person who asks for something and is denied what seems like a reasonable, low-stakes request that doesn't demand much of the other person.

I can do all that--and I do--but still believe that lying to someone about doing something you know would devastate them because you want what you want is unethical.
My option: Dan got unwittingly wrangled into a D/s scenario! The Dom is using timed task to give the sub an erotically-charged threat. The piercing will never happen--it's all about the desperate search for a device that doesn't exist and the somewhat humiliating lengths the sub has to go to to avoid the punishment of piercing. Fun and nothing to worry about, folks.
@98 ^^^ I meant "opinion", but I suppose it would also be my option!
BDF @ 57 - If you're using the royal "we", which means "I", then thank you for giving me licence to make assumptions.

I was using the inclusive "we", as in "everyone here". I wasn't accusing you of making assumptions, merely stating that so much of the content of the comments is based on the commentariat's (sometimes far-reaching) interpretations of what the LW said.

EricaP @89: I jumped to "what about people fucking for an hour without coming" to illustrate the absurdity of your claim that REDBUM and her lover aren't "cheating" because orgasms aren't involved. If you're amending your definition of "cheating" as "something that can spread STIs," you've included sharing needles with someone who is not your partner, and excluded having sex with someone not your partner after both of you had clear STI test results. So I'm afraid I disagree with that definition of cheating too.

"Sure, but I bet most people object to their partners fantasizing about other people, while secretly fantasizing about other people themselves." I don't think they do, no. I think most people accept that their partner will at least occasionally fantasise about someone who isn't them. I doubt many people would put a fleeting fantasy and a bare-bottom erotic spanking anywhere near each other on the cheating scale. (I agree it's a scale; we're just drawing our acceptability lines in very different places.)

I'm actually a bit surprised it's you who's taking this view, as you're kinky, lifestyle kinky. So I'd expect your attitude to be: Of course BDSM is sexual activity, as it is sexual gratification. And if you're secretly having sexual activity that physically involves a third party behind the back of your partner who you know wouldn't be okay with it, you are cheating. (That's my definition; no technicalities related to orgasms or not, STIs or not, whatever.)

I can envision there would be some situations where one could lie to one's spouse and remain an ethical person, but this is not one of them, sorry.

Nocutename @90: Exactly.

Ricardo @100: My point was that you must have been using the royal "we" to mean yourself, because you are wrong, NOT everyone on the board makes "far-reaching interpretations," nor rounds up likely conclusions to certainties. Everyone projects -- as you did with your "we" -- but not everyone presumes their projections must be correct.
BDF @101 maybe it's because I'm lifestyle that I don't see BDSM as entirely about sex. I don't have sex in front of my children but I do get Mr. P his coffee in front of them, which (to us) is part of our dynamic, along with accepting his choice of restaurant, movie, etc.

As you say, there's a scale between what reasonable people see as "my own business" versus "I need my partner's approval."

Me, I need my partners' approval for many things (because I agreed to that and I enjoy it). Other reasonable people will draw the line in other places. And, yes, it's better to have a relationship where you can be honest with each other about your fantasies and activities, but many people don't and I don't judge them all unethical. I reserve judgment.

>> you've included sharing needles with someone who is not your partner, and excluded having sex with someone not your partner after both of you had clear STI test results.>>

Sharing needles with someone without telling your sex partner is clearly unethical. STI results aren't guarantees (due to false negatives and people getting infected too recently for it to be picked up by the test), so not telling your sex partner that you're fucking other people is likewise unethical. There I don't reserve judgment.
Interestingly, in the ball-busting column cited in Friday's SLLOTD, Dan presents a similar perspective:…

>> as your encounters with other men pose no physical risk to your female partners (you’re not exactly gonna catch an STI getting kicked in the nuts), you can certainly justify getting your balls busted on the DL.

>> But secret double lives are stressful, and most people leading them eventually get found out. And when your girlfriend inevitably stumbles over—read: snoops and finds—evidence that you’ve been sneaking around behind her back with other men, you won’t be explaining just your kink to her, BSTD, but your betrayal too. >>

So -- the guy can "justify" getting his balls busted in secret, but his partner will still feel betrayed when she finds out. So much better to find a partner who can participate in your kink or accept you getting it elsewhere.

I agree with all that. Better to be honest, but justifiable to run your own life the way you want -- if you're not endangering your partner and only endangering the relationship and your partner's esteem for you.
@100 Ricardo: Congrats on your hitting the hunsky mark!
@101 BiDanFan: I'm late into the comment thread, but "What about people fucking for an hour without coming?" (re: EricaP @89) caught my attention. That sounds like what life was often like for me when I was sexually active, particularly during my marital years. I'll take 50% of the blame, however, having been guilty for faking orgasms, often under pressure or duress. I'm so glad that ugly chapter is over in my life.