Glad to read you don't have sex in front of your children, Erica. Did someone assume you did?
How is the spanking woman any different to the man's recent letter re getting with young men because he's bi and his wife won't have sex with him? If part of a person's sexual needs / desires include spanking, how is this any different to it including PiV?

LG @105 - BDF wrote:
>> you're kinky, lifestyle kinky. So I'd expect your attitude to be: Of course BDSM is sexual activity, as it is sexual gratification >>

I was explaining that there are lots of parts of my BDSM life which aren't about sexual gratification, like making Mr. P. coffee every morning. That doesn't arouse me, but it is part of what I have promised to do in service to him.

And in fact, a flogging or a spanking doesn't have to be sexual either. Many kinksters share those activities with people they don't view as sex partners. Impact play causes a rush of endorphins, so for many people it is more like getting high with a friend than like having sex.

As for your other question (what's the difference between a kinkster sneaking off to get spanked and a guy sneaking off to fuck men?) -- I personally see an important difference between acts which involve fluid exchange (ie fucking, oral sex, needle sharing) and acts which don't (lap dances, spanking, porn, live cams, tennis, flogging, massage, etc.).

I tend to agree with Erica here. Lying about anything is unethical, but it's a different violation than lying about something AND exposing someone else's body/life to risks/situations they did not consent to exposing themselves too.

As for NoCute here:

"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, "

It's not a comparison between two things. In both cases, the partner is lying to you, so you are going to have to deal with that violation of trust. But in the second, the lie to you is also a violation of your bodily autonomy. You did not consent to exposure to STIs, you were not aware of the exposure and therefore could not seek treatment or testing, and this could have serious consequences IN ADDITION to the violations of trust.

Every relationship includes some level of dishonesty even if it's minor, and it's up to each individual to decide what's minor and what's not. But exposing someone else's body to STIs without their consent is a black and white indefensible wrong. There's no excusing it- it's never ethical or OK no matter the circumstances, sympathetic or no.

I know these things change by person, but if someone trusted lied to me about something that had no affect on my life, then I might feel hurt or that the trust between us is destroyed and I might look at that person differently. But this is a very different response than if someone lied to me about something that put my life/health/security at risk while I carried on under the delusion that I was safe/healthy/secure.

I agree that lying about spanking (or any other clothed sexual activity with zero health risks) is still a violation of trust, but I don't see how we can pretend it's in the same league as lying about sexual contact that exposes the lied-to person to potential bodily harm. There is a difference- one really is worse than the other, regardless if they both would make the lied-to person feel bad. The spanking is like phone sex or sexting or whatever- it involves another person, there is some limited contact, there is some form of intimacy and shared pleasure. But it does not harm the lied-to person in any tangible way.

@101 Yes, I'd put lying to your partner about your needle-sharing drug use in the same category as lying to your partner about fucking other people. Likewise, lying to your partner about your coke-sniffing drug use is in the same category as lying to your partner about being spanked by other people. They are all violations of trust, but only the needle-sharing and fucking around ALSO violate the lied-to partner's body.

My point Erica is nobody gave the male LW from the daily thread any grief re going off, behind his wife's back, fucking men. He was given a pass by Dan and commenters, because his wife wasn't available. How is that different to someone who wants to be smacked and her husband won't give it to her.. I'm confused with the different notions of ethics by commenters.

LG @109 - do you have a link to the letter? I don't remember it. Was he still having sex with his wife as well as (secretly) with other guys? That's pretty shitty.

But maybe they had a sexless marriage? That changes the situation, because then her health isn't endangered.

It was Monday's letter, Erica. Two letters that day, the second one. Yes, the LW says his wife doesn't want to have or talk about sex, and he's staying because they have young kids, that's he's bi and he's been finding men on Craigslist.
His transgressions are the same as this LW's who wants spanking.. ie lying to spouse.. yet responses to his situation, in the comments, nobody mentioned ethics. Why does he get a pass and this woman doesn't?
Dan was consistent- he gave both a pass.

Lava @111, I think commenters to that letter just got distracted by the idea of a bi guy whose current submissive male partner and previous dates had been reluctant to let BOSS blow them. Thus his initial mention of a wife no longer interested in sex, and the concept of "staying married for the sake of the children" by seeking out BFs on the down-low, was only commented on by Dan. But in my mind, the two situations are indeed ethically similar. If you have an arrangement with your spouse to seek out sexual gratification elsewhere, it's OK; if you're sneaking around behind their back, it's cheating. Regardless of bodily fluid exchange, nude vs. clothed, emotional involvement, etc.

Erica @102, since you raised the subject, I am curious about how and if you explain your TPE arrangement with Mr P to your children. Specifically, do your children understand that this is an unusual but deeply satisfying lifestyle choice you made of your own free will, rather than an example of how all women should live their life - i.e., submissive and compliant with all of their male partner's wishes and desires? Whether you have boys or girls, I would be interested in knowing how you manage their expectations of how men and women should interact in their personal and professional lives, while remaining age-appropriate and private regarding the specific details of your relationship with Mr P. I say this with complete respect for your lifestyle and for what you have revealed to SL readers thus far, and I apologize if this is too personal a question for you to address.

Addendum to my own comment @112 - some couples have a "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy, and while I wouldn't agree to that arrangement in my own partnership, IMO that also allows each partner to get their sexual needs fulfilled outside the marriage. But then again, such relationships are monogam-ish at best, so at some level your partner is aware even if they don't know (and don't want to know) the details.

Cap@112: I could not agree more. Although I wonder how EmmaLiz knows @107 that the spanking is clothed, or what difference it makes. What if it's taking place in thong underwear? Why does--or should--that make a difference?

I see several possible working scenarios whenever one partner wants something, but none that involve lying and secrecy. I think the partner should do his/her/their best to make it clear how much ----- means to him/her/them. He/She/They can ask the partner to provide it. If the partner won't (or feels h/s/t can't), then I think the partner who wants the thing can bring up the possibility of opening the relationship, maybe only to get that specific need met, or maybe in general. Perhaps the reluctant partner can find a way to grant this by being included, or by the partner getting h/h/t needs met by a professional sex worker. But if the spouse says that that's off the table, too, I think the person who really wants ----- has to decide if it's worth ending the relationship for. If h/s/t decides that this is a need is that necessary and understands that the relationship might end, h/s/t should say, "Then I'm going and getting this elsewhere. You can stay, which I would like, and hope you decide to do, or if you can't do that, you can leave and I'll be sad and miss you. But this is too important for me to do without." At this point, the ball is in the reluctant partner's court. H/S/T can decide that the relationship is too important and meaningful to abandon, and come to terms with the announcement, or h/s/t gets to decide to leave the relationship.

Now, I realize that a lot of people would rather lie and sneak than end a relationship that is good and working on so many other levels, especially if children are involved or it's not financially feasible to separate, or any number of persuasive factors. And I'm actually not as judgmental about these things as my comments here suggest. Most of us want our cakes and want to eat them, too. Most of us don't want to throw away a whole lot of good things for one small thing--except to some people, that "small" thing, becomes enormously important. And no one else can really know how important something is to someone else. We each have to decide for ourselves how important all sorts of things are: stability, excitement, a particular act/ the love we feel for a particular person, whatever.

So I get that lying and secrecy happen and I try to reserve judgment (and for the most part, I succeed). But I think people should at least be honest with themselves, and acknowledge to themselves when they are behaving unethically for selfish reasons, however justified they feel them to be.

@115 The clothing does not make a difference. I shouldn't have said clothed. I was trying to emphasize that there was no way to pass STDs.

I don't disagree with anything you've said. I was referring to the conversation above about how there actually is a difference between lying about something that does not cause tangible/physical harm to another person (it could still cause emotional harm and be disruptive to someone's life) and lying in a way that violates someone else's bodily autonomy.

@Lava, I think Cap is right. The LW did not say that his wife was under the impression that they were monogamous, just that she has no interest in sex. I just assumed that the wife, not wanting to have sex anymore, was part of this arrangement, and so I also started talking about the more interesting (to an outsider) question which was about submissiveness and oral sex. But on revisiting, I think you are correct too. The LW did not say he had an arrangement. Instead, he said was frustrated with his wife's lack of interest in sex plus her inability to talk about it, and they have children. So there's a whole lot there going on that shouldn't have been side-stepped, I agree.

However, the difference in the focus of our comments is only because of what the two letters were asking. The spanking one is very short and simply asks how guilty the LW should feel for getting secret spankings on the side. Monday's letter was longer and asked about bi guys who are subs and blow jobs. So we responded to the questions (though I agree that normally doesn't keep us from going off into other things ).

Capricornius @113 -- We don't tell our teens about our kink or polyamory. Mr. P and I are explicit feminists while also talking about the challenges everyone faces in trying to build a satisfying life, whatever their gender.

Our boy is a "people pleaser" like myself so that's the stated framework for why I follow Mr. P's lead. We talk about the work of figuring out and advocating for what one wants in life, even as a lifelong pleaser.

nocutename @115 "But I think people should at least be honest with themselves, and acknowledge to themselves when they are behaving unethically for selfish reasons, however justified they feel them to be."

Yes, I agree.

Thanks for sharing, Erica @118. I wish more parents would focus on purposefully transmitting feminist messages and shared values to their children. To quote the late great Sam Cooke, what a wonderful world this would be!

@118: I think modeling "people act in ways that make them happy" as long as those actions aren't at anyone else's expense is a great way to parent. Moreover, you and your husband are showing that feminism takes many forms and isn't a monolithic behavior. It seems like you and Mr. P are very conscious and conscientious parents.

@118 EricaP, @119 Capricornius, and @120 nocutename: Wonderful parenting views from all three of you. Kudos!

Happy Easter/Happy Passover/Happy Spring, auntie grizelda!

Thank you Capri @ 112, because that disconnect was doing my head in.

True nocute @115. At least don't lie to yourself.
The letter on Monday, nobody queried how old his kids might be and if perhaps his wife has been breastfeeding and is still recovering... my blood boils when I see the rearing of children as some off hand task a father might you know help with. That LW pissed me right off, and no body else said boo to him.
Now this woman, getting a few smacks on the arse, and felling confused and guilty about it, no mention of children, and she gets the full on is it ethical treatment. Mondays letter, he just assumed it was fine to be off playing daddy to young men ( oh the irony of it), and nobody called him on it. Till now.

I do agree with Capri and nocute and others, smacking, like going off with young men, crosses the line. That's why you wrote in LW, you know you've crossed the line.
My suggestion is to stop being deceitful, wait a few months.. going without, your punishment/ penance. Then straight up tell your husband if he can't smack you, you'd like to go elsewhere to have it happen. Or, go without.
Don't lie about getting sexual needs met by others, to your spouse, it undermines the whole relationship. And if you have so little respect for that tie with your husband, get out of the marriage.

EmmaLiz @64: that idea of chastity belts sounds much more sensible!

I was going by what a German academic said: the first references to chastity belts were possibly satirical drawings in books in the Renaissance, largely pointing out how uncivilised medieval times were. Later physical examples appear to have been for pervy rich men: many/most in museums have had their provenance changed from "quasi-medieval" to "a rich man's folly, later".

Yes, without the long-term use it sounds halfway reasonable, especially since I hadn't considered the woman herself using it as a sort of vagina dentata or anti-rape device. Where was this museum? I might look it up on the Internet to further educate myself if the German chap's information was incomplete.

Auntie Griz @66:

I found out about FGM largely from a book called "Cut", can't remember the author's name. It can range from part of the clitoris to all of the clitoris to all of the clitoris plus vaginal stitching. She had it done to her in the old-fashioned African style, using a thorn to stitch because a) it's traditional and b) since it's illegal in Western countries people who want to do it pay the air-fare for the old woman who's a professional cutter to come over from Africa. In some cases, and in some richer countries, people have it done as a surgical operation. This is not good (obviously) but the medical complications are less. The woman who wrote the book had persistent pain and urinary infections until she came to the UK and had surgical intervention/antibiotics. (Strangely, cutting doesn't always fulfil its ostensible purpose of removing desire: the woman may well be hurt, but the deep structure of the clitoris still exists. In the least destructive cases, a ceremonial "circumcision" of a tiny part of the external clitoris, the woman is reasonably likely to have normal libido).

Having found out about that, I couldn't imagine a woman being kept in some sort of cage or it covering her nether regions without its affecting her health. When EmmaLiz said that the women were allowed to take off the chastity belts that made a lot more sense.

And In my opinion, a lot of dicks really should be caged, however---particularly the one currently stinking up the White Trashed House. (splutter!) No argument there!

@126

I saw it in San Diego in that beautiful museum/garden area that they have near their zoo. I tried to google it to see what it might've been. When I google about it, I find references to the Museum of Man 2012 exhibition. This is not what I saw as it was nearly a decade before then- I don't remember exactly the year. We were living in Tijuana at the time and came up to San Diego sometimes. It was in the very early period of the Iraq war because we came up for some of the bigger protests so must've been 03-05. I was under the impression that it was a traveling exhibition but maybe memory has misled me and it's always there?

I hope this helps you locate it. The things that stood out most in my mind were the guillotine, the chastity belts, various instruments used for impaling people, and a wheel. It was really horrible but also fascinating and I felt guilty for being so interested. I went three times. They also had an iron maiden but if memory serves, it was a replica and they weren't certain that iron maidens weren't in fact apocryphal. The chastity belts were presented in this light. Yes, these are real things that were used either as self-defense against rape (which is used as torture) or as short term protection of property (by men). Whether or not they also cause health issues is not a primary focus of people using instruments of torture, control, etc. Interestingly, I don't recall seeing chastity belts made for men?

BTW around the same time, they had an exhibit of relics of saints which included the actual fragments of bloody hairy skull of various early Christians who were said to be crucified upside down. That one fascinated me too. Taken altogether then, my experiences with San Diego are very morbid. Bits of skull, torture chambers, Iraq war. Somehow they are all linked in my nightmares. When I think about young EmmaLiz's fascination with these things, I realize how jaded and cynical I am now, ha ha. Wouldn't blink an eye at any of them these days I'm afraid.

I'll agree with Ms Cute's opening sentence of #120 and give Ms Erica credit for presenting a reasonably consistent model, which is more than what is done by many. I shall also credit Ms Cute for offering praise that encompassed more than pleasure at the spreading of the "True Religion."

That phrase alone always makes me think of Jane Lapotaire's portrayal of Mary Tudor, which may not be that bad an analogy for my not being totally at ease with the idea of existence under full feminist rule. More, though, if we can take the scene the way it appears at the time (for I have not done Ms Erica a private wrong that would require a duel), I am reminded of Sense and Sensibility, when Marianne and Willoughby are calling Colonel Brandon a man whom everyone is delighted to see and nobody remembers to talk to. They go on to scoff at anyone's submitting to the commendation of Lady Middleton and Mrs Jennings who could command the indifference of anybody else. Elinor replies, "If their praise is censure, your censure may be praise..." and then presses Willoughby for particulars of his dislike. I trust my differences with Ms Erica are more substantial than Willoughby's reasons for disliking Colonel Brandon (predicting bad weather, finding fault with the hanging of his curricle and declining to buy his brown mare). It seems my acknowledging her (I am not quite so sure of Msr Erica, who, if memory serves, sneakily resumed smoking some time ago) to be a consistent parental role model is on a par with Willoughby's admitting to Elinor that he believed Colonel Brandon's character to be in other respects irreproachable. On such basis, I shall adapt his conclusion, "And in return for an acknowledgment which must give me some pain, you cannot deny me the privilege of disliking him as much as ever," merely exchanging for "disliking him" the less extreme "differing with her" - as I cannot recall being entirely in agreement with Ms Erica on any point of strongly serious substance since the occasion on which Mr Rhone seemed quite ready to die on the hill of defending the phrase, "Man up!"

@61. EmmaLiz. You're saying you find it hard to identify with someone who doesn't want to get his cock pierced but countenances the idea, quite fully, to please his partner. Idk. That is, I don't know whether I can identify any more than you. To some degree, what's arousing to the LW in his relationship is that his partner pushes his limits erotically. That's fairly common, no? (Sex in public and semi-public places, rimming, lots of things--all these were things I overcame a sense of diffidence, reluctance, even shame to start doing; and what was hot was going through this conflict). By contrast, being with someone who tramples all over your boundaries doesn't strike me as arousing at all.

I'm not sure how far it's right for people who don't engage in certain forms of kink to try to inhabit the mindsets of practitioners. It could be taken as domesticating, mainstreaming, rendering banal. At the same time, we're all one human family; and it can expand our sympathies to suppose we have urges we don't have so immediately. Or we don't take those urges as far. And this effort of identification can prevent the political exclusion of minorities.

@101. Bi. I'd take the 'ethical' thing to do as the 'best' course of action, all things considered. That is, I would take a less hard line over 'what is ethical?' than you and nocutename.

There may have situations where there are no ethical choices, only options that break a promise or violate a rule or fail a duty e.g. of self-actualization to oneself. This is theoretically consistent; but I'm unsympathetic and say instead that the ethical thing is the best course, all things considered.

@127 WoofB: Thank you for the further information on the procedure of cutting. I was curious. I had a uterine ablation four years ago (long story short: for me, it was a merciful blessing, ending a monthly nightmare for 37 years of my life far too long). I have read a little about countries in Africa practicing genital mutilation as a ritual.
Agreed: here's to caging Trumpzilla and its swamp creatures instead.

Ethics is about not harming other people as well as not harming yourself. Some ethics is encoded in law, most killing of people and stealing from them is right out. And we need to pay taxes and serve on juries and stuff, duties as well as punishment.

EricaP, apparently you think the law doesn't cover enough ethics.. physical violence and financial hurt are especially bad FOR YOU. Those are your _morals_, fine. But ethics is about harm in general, not just the harms cherry picked by government or individuals. Whether that harm comes from physical violence or theft or verbal abuse or deceit, it's still covered by ethics. You can deny your porn, or you can tell your boyfriend that you're not going to stop watching porn. One is unethical, one is ethical, both are common.

Everyone is unethical sometimes but it's silly to start calling common selfish behavior "ethical".

Pauses, you are a bad sub, showing off how you bend Her rules. (PS just checking you know how a safeword works I hope)

Shin, just tell her about it, tell her everything you feel.. If you're scared she can't give enough, dial it back, don't just bolt before you know, if you love her. Dialing it back can be telling her you'd like to try long distance again until y'all get a better game plan together.

Redbum, why not tell hubby that if he won't spank you you'll find someone else who will.. Maybe it can give you something to do while he browses his porn..

Oh shoot there were a lot more comments. I don't agree risk of stds is worse than deceit. I really value a very realistic perspective. There are FOUR LIGHTS!

Oh and I think that the idea of an unethical PERSON is monstrous!

@ Harriet 132

I agree entirely. I meant that more as a statement of my own lack of qualifications to apply advice given my inability to really empathize in the situation- I guess I was trying to have my cake and eat it too here by admitting my bias and yet still proceeding to give my opinion. But if I stopped doing that, I'd almost never post on Savage Love, and then I'd either have to find a TV show to watch or else argue about politics somewhere. It's so much more fun to get insight into people's lives.

I'm not sure what you meant about preventing the political exclusion of minorities though. You lost me there. As a human, worker and activist I try my best to understand other people's points of view and this often requires first admitting/being receptive to my own biases and the fact that I'm simply never going to understand other people. But defense of political rights is different from that (though it's sometimes helpful) as you don't have to like/identify with/understand people to consider how resources should be allocated etc. Even shitty people should have health care and basic human rights, for example. As for comments in this forum, well at my best I try to understand other people, but also it's just fun to see how others live and how other commenters think and to hear about people's varying experiences of the world. It might be techinically "wrong" to try to engage in inhabiting other people's mindsets since we'll always fail, but it seems to me that humans are going to continue to try to do it anyway, and doing it this way (participating in speculation on this forum) seems a fairly harmless way to do it at worst and a way that leads to potential insight at best- similar to reading a novel only easier= actually more similar to watching soap operas. And like good easy fiction, there's always the element of "whoa!" that keeps us coming back, and so I discover that people will get dick piercings they don't want to please their partners, people like funnels in their ass in which others piss, people like to have gummy worms shoved up their vaginas. There's certainly an exploitative thrill here, but isn't that baked into sex advice columns in the first place?

Oh wait, on second thought, they were real worms, not gummy worms. See how my memory protects me.

@Philo

Beating a dead horse again maybe, but my point in that argument was that it's not a matter of comparing deceptive behavior to behavior that could cause STDs. As the second is also deceptive. So it's not an either/or but an either/and. Which I think does objectively make it worse since there are two wrongs.

It's simple if you put it this way. Lying to your partner about where you've been that night. This is wrong. Lying to your partner about where you've been that night and then slapping him/her in the face when they ask about it. This is doubly wrong. I don't think this is hyperbolic as STDs cause bodily harm against the deluded person's will. (Except that cheating exposes the other's person's body to RISK not INTENT so it's a slight exaggeration, but I don't think it's to the point of hyperbole.)

Grizelda, hi honey. How you doing? I've been listening to Carole King, Tapestry and Patti Smith, Horses. I found Tapestry in a $10 bin and listening to Carole again,a pleasant time warp.
And Patti, Queen Patti.
How's your music going?

@138. Emma. Always a bad idea to shove sugar up your vag.

With the 'political exclusion of minorities' I was gesturing to that very common process whereby one embattled group seeks to rehabilitate themselves in the eyes of the majority by abjecting a subgroup within their ranks. So 'gays' will be fine, but camp gays suspect or shameful; or 'kinksters' well-adjusted but worm-enthusiasts pathological. I was speaking against this. Making allowance for some exceptions, and trying to disavow symbolic appropriation, usually an enthusiast for a minority taste is just another variety of fetishist (and so someone we should stand up for).

Hey Emma Liz, I agree with you. I was pointing out that extreme deceit can hurt as much as extreme physical or financial harm, like in gaslighting, crazy making, brainwashing spirit crushing torture. I'm most scared of that sort of violence.. Physical or financial violence just seems more straightforward and easy to deal with. For me.

Everyone is different.