Savage Love May 15, 2018 at 4:00 pm

Denver's Oriental Theater

Joe Newton



Stripper = sex worker? What's the dividing line anyway, and where would the firemen fall?


There is a spreadsheet of BDSM activities I used with a partner. It was quite comprehensive and we could fill it out separately and compare our interests. Finding something like that online could be a good resource to start a conversation with a newbie, or at least focus their reading and conversations on things that were likely areas of mutual interest. But definitely go slow, BDSM can unearth a lot of strong emotions, and with a newbie that can be disorienting and unpredictable.

I would also note that I presume the newbie in that question was a prospective sub/bottom or switch. If the person asking the question was a sub/bottom, then I think they can be more direct. I need you to spank, flog, tie me up, etc., and then walk their partner through what they need to do in a scene.

With respect to the question about performing oral sex, one thing a book cannot teach is enthusiasm. If your boyfriend isn’t excited about his lips and tongue on your pussy, he’s not going to learn that from a book. And his enjoyment of his lips and tongue on your pussy is what will make him good or great at performing oral sex on you.


What does the open relationship and the podcast have to do with the nut of that question? Glad their unedited podcast will never air.


As a guy in a poly triad where we don't all live together and the freakin' kids never leave the house, I can tell you, scheduled sex is some of the best sex! You have notice to get in the right mindset. You can make sure you are showered. You can get in some beverages. You can set the mood. You know what the cutoff is and you can lay around naked basking in the glory of it without worry. You can create a sexual "playlist" as I call it, and work out what you want to do during it all. It is've.ever.had. Period! And when you aren't "on the schedule" you can go to bed when you like, or sleep in, or take a nap...hmmm I'm seeing a pattern here.


Anal will become standard when poop stops coming out of butts.


All the best to the woman seeking a career as a sex-positve sex therapist. Chase your dreams.
EEEK about the Mike Pence guy with Kanye West sex fantasies.


Lethal asphyxiation?! Spot on, Dan, and thank you for not emphasizing NOT doing it, for obvious reasons. I would rank that along with Twitter on my list of what to avoid doing altogether. Slightly off-topic, but the less I see and hear of Mein Trumpfy, the better. I am SO glad I no longer have a Tee-Vee.
@6: Seriously, though--that recent image of Kanye West grimacing to look like Trumpzilla is just sick, no exceptions. Would Kanye do the same thing without all his millions as a rap star and publicity from being married with children to a Kardashian (who needs Twitter when one can just scope out glaring magazine headlines in the local grocery store)? My guess is no.


@7: Yikes!! Make that "Legal asphyxiation?! Spot on, Dan, and thank you for emphasizing NOT doing it, for obvious reasons." Dang----why is it my worst typos occur when I HAVEN'T been drinking?


How long before anal becomes standard? When straight boys are just as keen to bend over and take their girlfriends' dildos as they are to fuck their prostrateless arses.
In other words, never. Sorry dude.

Girl oral sex? The resource is you. Tell him what you like! We're all different. Don't be embarrassed to give him explicit instructions. And rewards for a job well done.

Orgasm gap? Easy solution: Make sure he gets you off before you engage in activities that will get him off. My question is why did he tell you about this statistic: is it because he's ashamed of his gender and wants to do better, or because he thinks it's reasonable for you to settle for unsatisfying sex? If it's the latter, I agree with Dan: Kick his pansy-assed male ego to the curb.

Monogamous without a reason: "That's just the way I'm wired" seems to work for most people. Tell partners up front that you don't do open relationships; their options are to take you or leave you.

Dan's "sparkling ass" answer seems counter to his previous "suspend your disbelief" advice when it comes to poop in butts. Sometimes anal sex is spontaneous, and in those cases yes, it is difficult to make sure one's ass is (completely) empty. In other words, yes, shit does happen. Keep wipes handy and roll with it.


Ankyl @5: No, anal will become standard when anuses are as stretchy and self-lubricating as vaginas.


BDF @9: "Dan's "sparkling ass" answer seems counter to his previous "suspend your disbelief" advice when it comes to poop in butts"

I don't think so: my interpretation of she "suspend your disbelief" advice is that he means: "pretend that poop doesn't come out of this hole", not "act as if there is no poop here" (there is not supposed to be any poop because the ass should be sparking clean).

I have (I think) more or less the same feeling as Dan here regarding assholes. I love rimming, but the asshole should be sparkling clean and odorless. Any whiff of poop is a boner killer. That is "suspension of disbelief" regarding butts and poop, made possible by cleanness.


Question #7 on stripping-- The question assumes that stripping is somewhere on the scale of sex work. I'd come out to the family by putting it somewhere on the scale of entertainment.

Take any PG rated romantic comedy that shows kissing, not fucking, with only the mildest insinuation that kissing leads to fucking. The actors and actresses are good-looking. That's on one side of the entertainment-as-sex scale. Hell, even a sports event with good-looking athletes is somewhere on the mild side of the entertainment-as-sex scale. Think of stripping with pole dancing on the other side of it with many steps in between.

I only know a few women who used to strip. They all went on to become exercise instructors as they got older. Something about liking to be active, having a good sense of rhythm and dance, being comfortable with their bodies-- but also about being comfortable with other people's bodies. They're compassionate kind people when working with people who are overweight and needing to exercise, working with people who have had strokes and need to exercise, etc.


Question #10 on sharing reasons for wanting to be monogamous. Dan's answer is nonsense! Do you need to share your reasons with your partner for wanting to have sex only with men or only with women? Do you need to share your reasons with your partner for wanting more foreplay or for wanting him to move a little to the left and rub harder? Does the person who prefers an open relationship have to go into why? If the answer to any of those is "I want it because I want it," then that's enough to share with a partner for why you want monogamy. And the consequence is surely not solo sex. Preferring monogamy is like being straight in this regard. Just because you accept that others prefer open relationships, just because you accept that some people are gay, just because you're not a homophobic asshole, doesn't mean you have to explain yourself and your preferences to anyone.


Dan, you just said that women are socialised to defer to men. But you then say that this woman should expose her reasons for monogamy to her boyfriend - who will probably do his damndest to convince her that she’s not being ‘logical’. And she probably will tell herself that she’s only entitled to feelings that would stand up to his logic, until years later when she realises what a sap she’s been. (Yes, I am assuming gender from the letter, but if she isn’t a young straight woman I will eat any number of hats.)

Feelings should be shared, yes. But not everybody is in a position to articulate their feelings in terms of clear reasons. ‘I don’t want to’ is enough of a reason for voters and lovers alike. In a perfect world we would all be in touch with our inner Socrates, but this most definitely isn’t it.


@5 Ankyl. What do you mean by your comment? That most people find the idea of anal sex offputting and that only those with a proclivity for it are likely to take it up? I prefer Bi's answer @10.

To me, by far the most interesting question is what kind of rationalisation the gf who 'just wants' monogamy is bound to give to her partner who likely wants something else. Whenever one side is given i.e. Dan's answer or Fichu's @13, I feel like arguing the other. The reasons for 'inquire into yourself and give an answer' would be, broadly, that an examined life, like an examined relationship, is a good relationship, and an unexamined relationship sunk in other people's conventions is benighted. Further, someone who wanted monogamy might understand that the reason was 'I'm culturally conditioned that way' and might (only 'might') be moved to challenge their cultural conditioning.

The reasons for saying 'you're not obliged to give an account of yourself' might include: 1) this would be uninformative; the reason is not going to change the attitude, which is that this person wants monogamy; 2) it is exhausting always to have to justify yourself, and it can conduce to a climate of distrust between partners; 3) (from a sex-negative viewpoint) having to explain yourself could have the effect of normalizing minority sexual practices or perversions, and of casting in doubt emotionally sound or healthy practices like monogamy, and 4) that, supposing an explanation always has to be given, power in a relationship would flow to the more articulate, or just educated, partner. This would be unfair. As a lawyer, I'm well aware of these dynamics (and counter-dynamics)--I can 'win' most arguments but in the past often ended up with nothing--with my having won the argument in terms of what was 'fair' or 'right' but my partner, lover, fuckbuddy giving up the game, feeling something different 'without having a leg to stand on' and no longer engaging with me. (Of course, I'm likely to fall down the rabbit hole now of being a bad lawyer and offering a poor, easily defeasible argument). But this is the reason ultimately that I don't think 'what's right' in a relationship can be decided on who is the most silver-tongued.


Nah, you don't need to justify being monogamous, just as you don't need to justify being poly or open. What, you must accept a relationship style you don't enjoy unless you can explain why you don't enjoy it? Fuck that noise.


@15 I didn't get the impression the LW had never considered nonmonogamy as an option. It sounded like she (probably a she, but who knows) thought about it enough to realize her boyfriend might like it, but she doesn't. I'm with the others here - it's enough to say that the basic idea of sharing her boyfriend simply isn't for her.


RE @11: I guess the amount of sparkle required depends on what you're planning on doing with the ass in question. The question referred to "fucking an ass." This is an activity I would expect to generate a bit of santorum, which wouldn't be the worst thing in the world to get on one's dildo or condomed penis. Rimming, I agree with you, would require a higher level of cleanliness.

Fichu @13: Applause. Dan, you dropped the ball here.

Harriet @15: There are people who are put off by anal sex because of the poop aspect. I wouldn't think this was a majority of people, though.

Regarding the justification issue, as open relationships become more common and accepted, it might be worthwhile for people who presume themselves to be monogamous to internally question why this is -- whether they are just conforming to social expectations or whether they feel monogamy is the right choice for them personally. One reason for this would be that people who commit to monogamous relationships because it's what's expected, and who are not themselves suited for it, often end up cheating. And previously monogamous people who find themselves attracted to a non-monogamous partner might consider whether dropping the monogamy could be a price of admission they're willing to pay. But no, no one should feel they need to justify their monogamy, or non-monogamy, to a partner beyond "this is the way I am."


@18. Bi. Well, I like it because of how it stimulates my prostate. With your saying 'prostateless' for women, I have to admit 'I just don't know' whether more straight women would like it if they tried it. My suspicion is that they would but are socialized into thinking 'eww'.


Fichu @13 beat me to it (and said it better). Good take by Aurora Erratic @16 too. Self-examination is a worthy cause, but "Because that's what I want" is a perfectly acceptable answer.


I'm not into anal play myself, so I was surprised to meet women who are. A prostrate isn't necessary, they have a ton of nerve endings too.


(Probably many who try it are dissuaded from further exploration by a bad experience, usually with an overeager or insensitive partner.)


@18. Bi. Since everyone is saying the same thing, I'll try to put Dan's side of the argument here. The LW thinks that, were she not disposed to monogamy, her (almost certainly 'her') bf would 'probs' want an open relationship. 'Probs'! So she hasn't asked. By asking, by communicating, she could clear up misconceptions: it might be that having other lovers is only a fantasy of his, maybe a fantasy he finds it hot for them to share, not something he genuinely wants to act on. So by asking, she could make things psychologically easier for her.

I think we have to accept the principle that 'talking is good'. Admitting that you don't know what you want; you're not sure about what future you see with a partner; that you aren't sure how far they have recovered your trust after a lapse; that you're playing it by ear--these are all healthy admissions to make to a partner. The alternative is fooling yourself that one of the culturally dominant narratives of a relationship--wedding bells; white picket fence; one hard-working earner--is a good fit for you, when you have doubts about the person, the relationship style, yourself.

From this--for me--it's only a small step to being willing to give a reason for your preference for a certain relationship style. Sure, it can be 'I've thought about it but find it intractable ... I just don't feel loved unless I'm the only one'. That's fine. But there's part of me that would find it ungenerous for a partner just to say 'because', rather than make the effort to soul-search and articulate their preference in this way.


14- Miss Piggy-- Yup, in my day it was guys logicking me into all the reasons I had to have sex with them. If I didn't have a good enough reason for not wanting to, i.e. a reason that they believed in, well then, I had to have sex with them by default or admit to being irrational, cruel, uptight, wrong, or whatever.

15- Ms. Bulrushes-- I appreciate your on the one hand/on the other hand analysis.

And Dan if you're reading this-- I don't always agree with you, but usually your answers don't make me angry. This one did. Your saying that someone who prefers monogamy needs to give reasons for the preference is exactly what the Far Right warns against. It's that give-an-inch mentality. Now we're expected to justify monogamy! That must have been part of the gay agenda all along.


I had the same reaction as 14&24. It also reminds me of a semi-recent letter writer who couldn't break up with her bf because she couldn't articulate a reason that he found acceptable. I agree that for her own self-awareness she ought to consider what about monogamy appeals to her, but if she says to bf "I've thought about it but I find it intractable...," I suspect he will not accept that as enough of an answer. But I used to have a manipulative partner who tried to convince me my feelings were wrong too.

LW may also feel like open relationships are the new normal and therefore bf is partially justified in demanding a reason (otherwise she wouldn't have asked the question of Dan). If you are a fan of Savage Love, and especially if you are young, you may get the idea from Dan and the folks around here that open relationships are generally preferable to monogamous ones. I'm old but when I started reading here I really did have to question my preference for monogamy because suddenly it seemed like not only Dan, but all the sex-positive, open-minded people in the commenting section, were preaching non-monogamy as the more sex-positive, open-minded relationship format.


Nah, I don't think people should have to explain or even understand their own reasons for wanting a thing. They just have to be honest about it, clearly communicate it, and find a compatible partner. I think it's weird that Dan implies otherwise for monogamy but he's cool with people having unexplainable kinks.


Anal penetration will never be standard. I kept my mouth shut regarding the doctor a few weeks back who said all the dumb things about the health problems associated with anal, but it's also stupid to go in the opposite direction. So long as anuses are associated with fissures, IBS, hemorrhoids, etc, then anal sex will never become standard. There are some people who just can't do it for a variety of reasons and others who find it too painful. It's different than performing oral which requires a person to perform something that might be somewhat tedious to them (if they are boring or selfish) but doesn't require them to allow something to be done to their bodies. If by "standard" you mean "common" well I think we've been there a long time already. But if you mean expected in the majority of sexual relationships with only very few exceptions, then I think the answer is never - at least for straight relationships and especially so long as it's only the women being penetrated all the fucking time.


"To open their minds, you'll have to risk blowing them first."

A person could take that two ways...


Everyone is assuming the worst when it comes to the partner of the monogamist. Yeah, they could be a jerk and try to manipulate them into nonmonagmy or she could just be wondering why she doesn't have a list of reasons and just more of a gut feelings. Lots of people have that gut feeling of monogamy just being "right" (my husband is one of them) and while he'll never convince me that monogamy is the only way to do things, we still had to talk it out before we fully committed to each other. I didn't try to manipulate him into being open but I did spell out my thoughts on the matter and how I'd consider it if he wanted to but he 100% is not interested so I knew that going into marriage.


Yeah Dan, watch it with your push for anal and telling people they have to explain their preferred relationship(s) structure. I have a perfectly fine and self lubrucating hole set up for the purpose and if that was not sufficient, then off you go brother.
Are young people assuming open relationships are now a real option, and they will just have the inner tools to navigate non monogamy? LW, you don't have to explain to anybody ever why you like what you like sexually. Pushy males try it on all of a woman's life and don't be fooled by it. If this guy wants open and you want closed then you're incompatible.

A side note: why has the format on this site been changed.. I can't access Dan's older slog posts easily now.


Anal can be mind-blowing even without a prostate. Some of us have some intense nerve endings there, plus the slightly transgressive bit does the rest.


I can imagine about five different briefs I could argue in the case of what constitutes OS "equity". If LW has to insist on equity, she should just give up on men entirely and take up with Ms Fan.


Harriet @19: I think more straight women would like it if their straight men did it properly, and they'd learn how to do it properly by taking it up the arse themselves. :-)

Harriet @23: You've seized on something important in the question, the "probs." Indeed, s/he's assuming that their boyfriend would be happy to be offered the chance to fuck others, and would not be too fussed if s/he were to do it too. But has it been discussed? Has he said he wants to fuck others? The "probs" indicates no. So I'll go the other way: Why bring up the idea of an open relationship if you are just going to say you don't want one? The current default, particularly for opposite-sex relationships like most commenters are assuming this one is, is monogamy. Saying "hey, would you prefer an open relationship? Sorry, but I'm not into that" seems pointless. If said boyfriend does want an open relationship, let him broach the topic.

Fichu @24: Kink is another area where this can be abused. If someone can't articulate why they don't want to be tied up and spanked, does this mean they're obligated to allow it? Of course not. "I'm not into that" is sufficient.

Ladida @29: I don't see anyone assuming anything about the partner of the monogamist.


In all fairness, I have never really tried anal sex, believing it would hurt like hell. I'm really tight, was at the time convinced my spouse would just ream me hard from behind, especially when drunk, and that we weren't using enough lube. The closest I've ever gotten to anal has been "doggy-style". Maybe I'm too vanilla for my own good and / or it's partially my upbringing. Dan mentioned clean as crystal asses only apply to anal sex.
I'm inclined to agree with Anklosaurus's (@5) comment. My fear of santorum is among my reservations for having anal sex and / or contributing to making it the norm.


@34: Or maybe I'm just a prude? I dunno.


@32: OS equity? What is this, the year of Linux on the desktop?

No problem with the orgasm equity. They guy is expected to go down on the woman first and give her at least one big O before they get to work on his.


Mr Holmes - Well, there you are. It all depends on what constitutes equity. You said it yourself - "at least" one. Who couldn't argue the case that one versus "at least one" isn't equity (or that an equal number every month isn't just because his are always once per encounter and hers are bunched up)? Then again, who couldn't argue the case that either of them who desires it isn't entitled to one on every occasion? And there's the consideration of labour invested. Who couldn't argue the case that an hour of his work is equal to an hour of hers, whether it's on one particular occasion or spread out among several? It's all in who determines what's "equity", which doesn't seem that easily applicable in cases of mixed sexes or even orientations.


Let me take another look at my analogy of men logicking women into unwanted sex with poly people logicking monogamous people into open relationships. I'm going into Harriet's idea that examining an idea can be a good idea. I agree.

Back when those guys weren't providing reasons why I should have sex with them but were instead demanding that I provide a good enough reason not to have sex with them, I was stuck. No matter what I said, they had a rebuttal. Funny, I never came out and said "You disgust me." I bet even that wouldn't have worked.

Thing is, it DID do me good, after a while, to ask myself why I wasn't interested in certain men. I learned a lot from the question. I learned to get better about spotting the creeps earlier on. I learned that even if a guy is "my type" (tall, lanky, blond, tanned) if there's something that doesn't move right about him, I can still turn him down. I learned that some of my dealbreakers can be negotiated. (I once slept with a man who smoked. It wasn't all bad.) I'm still learning, still changing.

Here's my point: I learned plenty from examining my reasons. I'm sure the guys who were putting pressure on me would not have. If the person (guessing a woman, but could be a man) who prefers monogamy wants to examine her preference for monogamy, more power to her. I just don't think she needs to justify her preference for monogamy to anyone who asks her for her reasons.


" my boyfriend would probs be in an open relationship.." sounds to me like he's already brought the subject up in some way unless the LW is psychic and can read his mind.
I'm so glad I'm over this shit. Next she'll be writing in asking if she should get pregnant. Yrs from now I mean.
Monogamy suited me because dealing with one man at a time felt like enough. Throw in half a dozen children, and where would I have had the time.


Venn @37: For someone who isn't even into sex with women, you sure have a lot of opinions.
"Orgasm equity" means, to me, "everyone gets a sufficient number of orgasms to feel satisfied afterwards." For the vast majority of men, this is one. For the vast majority of women, it's at least one. Some men take ages; some women come in under a minute. Is everyone making sure their partner is satisfied? Equity is achieved.

Fichu @38: This reminds me of an occasion, many many years ago, when my future ex-husband asked for sex and I wasn't in the mood. Instead of him asking me why not, I asked him why he wanted to have sex, and what popped out of his mouth was "Because I don't have anything better to do."
He did not get the sex.

Lava @40: "My boyfriend would probs be in an open relationship" sounds to me like she's assuming based on the popular understanding that men don't want to limit themselves to one partner, or his openly ogling other women in her presence, or perhaps offhand comments he's made. The "probs" implies, yes, psychic, or at least trying to be. She sounds young and insecure. I too am glad I'm over this shit!


Fichu @38: PS, I'm sorry you had to date such rapey creeps. :(


Griz @34: You were right; anal sex DOES hurt like hell when it's not done properly, and from your description, I have zero confidence that your fumbling ex would have done it properly. First thing is that you do not jump straight to PIA. Anuses ARE tight; their job is to hold poop in, and their instinct is to close up when anything tries to penetrate them. And attempting to penetrate a closed anus is going to be either futile or extremely painful. Anyone wanting to penetrate an asshole should start -- very slowly -- with a well-lubed finger. Once the ass in question relaxes enough to find the finger enjoyable instead of uncomfortable, a second finger can be added, perhaps working up to a smallish toy, and then, only then, should one attempt to (again, very slowly) stick a well-lubed dick in. And one should be prepared to withdraw it at the first sign of protest.

If more men understood this instead of watching porn and thinking that typical women's asses behave like porn star asses -- or indeed like vaginas -- anal sex would indeed be more standard. Though there will always be those -- of all genders -- who prefer their buttholes remain exit only, and, like monogamy, there is absolutely no reason to justify this beyond saying "That's just not my bag, baby."


42- BiDan-- Thanks. Your sympathy is appreciated. I'd also say that it wasn't as bad as all that.

The argument hurt, but it would have hurt worse if they'd won.

Days before we got to sex, we were just talking, and we got to a particular book I'd read, and I remembered the author's name. He corrected me as its being by some other author. I was sure I was right. He was sure he was. We went around that loop for a few times until I conceded that it didn't matter, and maybe it wasn't by my author, but I was sure it wasn't his. I named other works by his author, recalled their plots, made it plain I knew what I was talking about. He stuck to his guns that it was by his author. He offered no memory, no other evidence, just his surety. The loop became one in which I became conciliatory again, wanted to let it drop again, and then brought up other books in the genre I'd read, how I remembered why I read the book, how old I was when I read it, became sure before, in the face of his steadfastness, conceded a bit that maybe he was right.

This was the days before looking it up on one's phone. I swear to this day I am more angry with him and with myself when I was in the library in front of the card catalog (where of course I was right, duh) than I was when I'd gotten up from the bed where he was pressuring me to have sex.

Looking back, I can see how he'd tested the waters in how to win an argument with me. We didn't have sex. He didn't succeed in raping me. He was the worst of them, and it didn't turn out that bad.

I wonder what happened to him. I'd google if I could remember his name.


Ms Fan - I wasn't expressing opinions. Being an admirer of Rumpole, I said I could easily argue multiple sides of the question. I don't care who's "right" and only care who wins if I have a client in the case. My first thought on reading the letter was that asking for equity might be a mistake, because equity might be all she gets. Would we not wish for our friends partners who hope and attempt to provide them with far more than mere equity (with the possible exception of those who prefer selfish partners, as that part of the question can, again, be argued either way)?

The bit about time was to balance two prevailing stereotypes against each other. While your Not All is correct if one were being comprehensive, you do agree, perhaps, that the evidence of the mailbag suggests that it generally takes longer for women - not that it really matters, as it could easily be argued the other way. But there does seem to be a generality, which offsets an opposing generality on the subject of housework. This letter, as many letters about OS sex do, reminded me of chore complaints, and letters I've seen from wives whose husbands do the laundry or some form of cleaning to an acceptable standard twice as quickly as they do, and accordingly they think that deserves only half credit because it would advantageous to measure by time spent instead of by chores. My crystal ball graced me with a vision of someone of either gender who resented a partner's superiour chore speed, but liked not having to work so hard to get that partner to climax.

But, if you want an opinion, I can expand upon my first paragraph here and say that concern over equity as opposed to concern over satisfaction strikes me as the wrong focus. Now there could be a possible exception in cases where a couple (or unit, if we are to be particular about inclusion) expects a period of less than full satisfaction for various life-related reasons for both (or all) members (or other parts) involved, only, by some quirk, fate finds (at least) one partner fully satisfied and (at least) one not. That might merit special consideration.

You might at least have thanked me for trying to send you a pursuer. Even if you don't want this particular LW yourself (I don't think I'd care for the gay version, even if I were not RFR), she would at least be useful in the way that a less-than-desirable suitor can just by one's mere presence assist in the attraction of one more upmarket.


Venn, you're being ridiculous. The context of the question about orgasm equity is that women only have orgasms at all 60% of the time versus the man's 90%. You're making things up beyond that. I'm sure there are all sorts of random individual preferences and arguments that are irrelevant. One could argue that orgasms only count of they do / do not have toys. One could argue that they only count if you say a hail mary. So what etc. None of this has jack to do with what they are talking about: the 60/90 split.


Ms Fichu - That does sound dreadful, and I congratulate you on your happy escape.

I nearly always try to look things up rather than rattle off all but a few quotations from memory, as I find that all too often I substitute a word or mix up the order of things. Perhaps even Mr Fry finds himself prone to something similar or knows of such; I can recall without having to look it up that, in the beginning of his novel The Liar, he has his protagonist paraquotaphrasing the start of Emma, only using the word "disturb" instead of "distress".


Mizz Liz - You're thinking too prosaically. (It's tempting to let my crystal ball lead me into reciting Mr Darcy's speech about how the power of doing anything with quickness is always much prized by the possessor.) Remember, Mrs Woolf is one of my role models. Even if I say nothing that the (overly?) practical-minded find to be of value on this particular letter, one of more of the ideas thrown at the wall will stick and be of use at a later time.

I shall delight Ms Cute by quoting Henry Tilney when he agrees with Mrs Allen that Catherine's muslin dress will likely not wash well, and will fray. "But then you know, madam, muslin always turns to some account or other; Miss Morland will get enough out of it for a handkerchief, or a cap, or a cloak. Muslin can never be said to be wasted. I have heard my sister say so forty times, when she has been extravagant in buying more than she wanted, or careless in cutting it to pieces."

Now this actually may prove an interesting comparison, and I thank you for inspiring it. It is possible I may be a little more scattered than usual this week. The assembled company is warned.


@44 - Your author story reminds me of an ex. We had been discussing movies, or Star Trek. I can't remember which. He promptly went on a rant about a particular ST movie, I can't even remember which one, about how awful and horrible it was and blah blah blah. I hadn't seen it, and told him so.

"Okay, but you agree it's terrible, right?" Um, no. I haven't seen it. I have no opinion. "No, you have to agree with me." Literally, over and over. Everytime I tried to change the subject, he'd drag it right back. He was literally angry at me for not immediately conceding to his superior opinion. He just had to be RIGHT, no matter the cost.

Thankfully, it was a LDR, and ended shortly after we each visited our respective towns.



Harriet, part of it is that women are already being fucked. Anal sex is a greater hassle than vaginal. It can be painful, it requires lube, you can't do it all the time because of poop, you have to be sure to be extremely clean, then you can't do it as easily in any position, you have to start out slower. It's way less convenient- it's harder to be spontaneous. All this work and no prostate play when there's a perfectly good wet vagina on the ready.

I'm not someone who is opposed to anal. It's fine, I've enjoyed it sometimes. I'll probably never do it again, don't see the point unless my partner suddenly takes a huge new interest in my asshole.

There are plenty of women who are really into anal. There are plenty of men who are really into fucking women's butts. And of course every variation thereafter- including pegging, etc.

But I think the reason anal will not become a norm like oral among straight people is a combo of what BDF said above and what I'm saying here- it's just more work and less convenient, and as women don't have a prostate but do have a vagina, the more work and less convenience can be a little pointless for many of us once the novelty of trying something new wears off and as the taboo disappears even the excitement factor of doing something forbidden is reduced. (Again, not all women- as plenty love it and prefer it- but we are talking about it being a norm here, not an exception).

Finally I think BDF is correct about it becoming a norm when straight guys want to be pegged (or at least anally stimulated with toys and fingers)- they are the ones with the prostates and they can lead the way towards making this a norm. I think it would improve their hygeine and their sex lives in general and take more focus off of just getting to the PIV- all around I think it could be good. But to most straight men "anal sex" just means they get to fuck a woman's ass now as well as her mouth and vagina, and the way it works out for most straight people is you try it a few times and then maybe revisit it off and on over the years, but it's never an expected regular feature like oral, and I don't see this changing.


@48 Have no idea what you are talking about here, Venn. But orgasm equity means (as stated in the exchange) correcting the problem that men almost always have orgasm(s) during sex while around 40% of women do not. That's all it means and it has nothing to do with laundry or tv shows or anything else.

I have no problem with you choosing that as a jumping off point to talk about something else. This is what the internet is for after all. Go ahead with yourself as you like. I was responded to what sounded like feigned confusion up above: "orgasm equity? how could you possibly define that? any number of things could be considered equitable for any number of reasons in any number of couples" etc when actually it simply means everyone has an orgasm and when it actually specifically addresses as specific problem- right now, women only have orgasms with men 60% of the time.


Here's what I can see being an expectation/norm (and in my opinion, we should already be there)- expecting that a sex partner will play with your sparkling clean ass if you want them to do this to you. Like anything else, obviously there are going to be some people who don't want to, just like I'm sure there are some people who don't want to do oral, and of course you'll have to be appreciative and reciprocal to your lovers's desires/pleasures as well if you want them to be mindful of yours. But I think "play with my butt" is as reasonable a request as "go down on me" for those that enjoy it. It's asking someone else to do a thing for you, etc. This is different from "let me fuck your ass" which is instead asking someone to let you do something to them and which is what most straight men think about when they hear "anal sex".


On question #1, the one about how soon before anal comes standard, you have to wonder if that was a straight man asking about fucking women in the ass or a straight man accepting that, if anal becomes standard, it should, by rights, be about women fucking him in the ass with a dildo. I can't imagine a gay man or straight woman asking the question.


Kanye should shut up and dribble!

Seriously, if you don't think a black man should be able to make their own decisions about politics and such, you might not be the progressive you think you are.


I dislike the "orgasm equity" arguments. Be responsible for your own orgasm. If you need X or Y, speak up. Don't expect someone else to break their cultural conditioning because your cultural conditioning tells you not to ask for X or Y - that's abdicating any responsibility for yourself and your individual wants/needs. As a friend told me when I was first hooking up in high school: "If you can't talk about it, you shouldn't be doing it"


Kanye can have whatever political opinions he wants, and as he's a celebrity, he will use his platform to promote them. And as a member of the public, we will voice our opinions over his opinions. Griz did not tell him to shut up. She questioned to what extent his wealth and fame have influenced his political views. Personally I think the more interesting question is if Kanye is a genius or a fool, and it's one I've been wondering about him for years.

As for a black man's right to make his own political decisions without need to justify them, of course that is all true. Have heard Kanye express any political opinions at all though? I've just seen some nonsense about dragon energy, free expression and love- not a single political opinion in the mix. Also I don't know why people are so surprised- this has been going on since the primary at least.


Sporty, that works both ways. I actually agree that women's lack of orgasms with men are not entirely the fault of their male partners (Dan is wrong to conclude that it's just because they are lazy) but it is the fault of cultural conditioning that makes a rush straight to PIV the default for what sex means to most people. This is why women in relationships with other women are more likely to have orgasms- that default option does not exist- despite the fact that surely there are plenty of selfish and shy and lazy partners among lesbian couples too.

And it also just so happens that PIV works most of the time for men and it is men who push for it- especially in those early days that you are talking about- and yes this is culturally conditioned and yes men must play as big a role in breaking this cultural conditioning. And also they are less likely to do so because it's easier for them and they are the ones getting off this way. So... it seems stupid to say "everyone must be responsible for their own orgasms and learn to speak up" as if that's not something requires men (and women) to re-examine their cultural conditioning.


The orgasm gap reporter may well have a POS boyfriend...BUT, in a culture so sex negative that women are likely to develop their first eating disorder before they have their first orgasm, it isn't reasonable to expect men to become 'good at' anything sexual except by communication FROM THEIR PARTNERS.

Of course, a POS boyfriend will be uncommunicative and not listen. Or will have his ego completely invested in being 'good at' some crap he read in a lad mag.


@56 I'm contrasting to the reaction from when Lauren Ingraham implied LeBron James should shut up and dribble rather than espouse on politics (and yes, the furor over Kanye is entirely political, even if his comments didn't directly relate to ongoing policy debates). Whatever arguments made against Ingraham/for James should apply just as well to Kanye (and not many people on the left were like "Laura Ingraham can have whatever political opinions she wants, and as she's a celebrity, she will use her platform to promote them")

@57 well, for the purposes of argument I'll concede that the orgasm gap is strictly a performance issue (straight men not doing what it takes to get their partner off - because men are conditioning to focus on PiV and women are conditioned not to speak up for what they want). Essentially the question comes down to "who's responsibility is it to break their cultural conditioning?" - I don't like that it's implied that men should be able to readily drop whatever conditioning they've had while also concluding that women are powerless and helpless to break their conditioning. In light of such a stalemate (I believe everyone should be held to a relatively similar standard when it comes to breaking with what our culture tells us, assuming we're talking about americans here), the simplest answer is put the onus on oneself to change, rather than hoping that the rest of the culture changes in your favor around you.


@2 - I would be interested in seeing such a spreadsheet and/or a website that accomplishes the same if you have ones to recommend, as I’ve never found one I like.


Sporty, let alone the rest of it, can we all please stop saying "the left" to mean "not Republican"?

As I'm not following this tempest in a teapot, you'll have to enlighten me here. You are saying that people "on the left" defend James when he is told to shut up and so Kanye should receive the same defense. Well, in the first place, for Kanye to receive that defense, first someone would have to tell him to shut up, right? So has anyone told Kanye to shut up? Griz didn't- I thought you were referring to people in this thread. It appears you must be referring to something that happened in the Twittersphere and I know nothing about that. In the second place, I think you mean "liberal" and not "left" as leftists are not in the least concerned about being fair and balanced centrists that treat "both sides" equally and have never pretended to be. So while I don't give a shit what any celebrities say personally, I will defend what Kapernick says and not what Kanye says and the reason is that I'm defending the content of their statements, not simply the manners of people who respond to them. I don't really give a shit if people are polite on Twitter or not- that has nothing to do with anything and I don't feel it makes me hypocritical to not give a single flying fuck if people tweet "shut up" to Kanye. What he said was ludicrous and deserving of ridicule. It wasn't political (even if the response has been) and I have seen no indication that he has the slightest understanding of politics. Just as he has every right to tweet to millions of people about his brotherhood of dragon energy, millions of people have every right to respond by saying how stupid he sounds.


I wonder if Dan might have reacted to one kind of "low-information fucker" and written about another. It's one thing to be low information about a yes: yes, let's have sex, what do I like oh I don't know, you figure it out. Not really holding up one's end. Or to be low information about a maybe: I don't know if I want to, I don't know how I'd know, look I just don't know. Annoying.

It's another thing to be low information about a definite no: no, I just don't like wearing a diaper. No, I don't want to date you. No, I don't want to try non-monogamy. What more do you need to know?

For a yes or a maybe, reasons are actionable: we can use them to figure out what to try or how to decide. For a definite no, the only questions are are you sure, would that ever change, and am I okay with that.


As Fichu mentioned earlier, the problem with expecting explanations is that they are often an open invitation to endless negotiation. The reason has to be good enough. Why don't you want to wear a diaper? Because I think shit is gross. You don't have to poop in it. Because it is bulky and uncomfortable under my pants. You could just wear it at home for me. Because it makes me feel stupid. You are just socially conditioned to feel that way. Etc.

Why don't you want to be non-monogamous? Because I'm worried about STIs. But we could use protection and get tested regularly. Because I don't want to open myself up to that drama or jealousy. But this is just your social conditioning and insecurities. Because I don't want to spend so much time balancing so many other people's emotions. But this is more efficient than dealing with frustrations in our own relationship. Because I want the security of one person. But half of all people cheat.

Etc forever.

Anyone who has ever raised children know that parents often end up with "no means no" and "because I said so" because the constant negotiation is exhausting. As Mtn Beaver said, the correct responses are "are you sure?" "do you think this might change?" "tell me if this changes" and then to go off by yourself and consider to yourself honestly "am I ok with this?" and if not, move on to someone else.

The person who said the hard unreflective no will have to deal with the fact that their nos limit them to a certain number of people just like a person who doesn't like the no will have to deal with the fact that their need for a yes will limit them to a certain number of people.

This was a very bad take for Dan.


@61 You're being massively disingenuous here: Plenty plenty plenty of people were calling on Kanye to shut up ( Just because Slog poster X didn't say the words is immaterial. And I'll continue to call out "the left". You are free to disassociate yourself if you wish not to be included in that, but otherwise, you've gotta live with these folks if you want to be in the club. I will, at least, cop to using "liberals" and "the left" relatively interchangeably, however. I don't know what your working definition of the two is to say that one group is concerned about fairness/balance and other is not. I'm concerned with fairness, but not balance - we don't need political balance in society (we need effective politics, not balanced politics).

I'll also add, that in general I don't think we should use "content" of speech to determine if someone should be 'allowed' to say something or not (outside of "fire in a crowded theater" type statements). I might think Kanye is wrong and Kaepernick is correct and most folks may agree with me, but those are simply opinions and there's no type of objective rubric that can tell us that one is wrong and one is right. We all know that what's true and obviously correct today might be untrue and obviously wrong tomorrow for what are essentially arbitrary reasons. They used to execute people for saying the Earth revolved around the Sun, you know? So right/wrong, true/false etc are simply not axes to determine if someone should be "allowed" to (safely) say whatever. Judging by content is hopelessly confounded with our personal biases and our cultural biases - the only way to avoid them is to not consider it at all.

So what you are left with, (IMO) are two options: to conclude "well, freedom of speech does not freedom from criticism" and that more or less any amount of online anger directed at someone is OK and appropriate (even if it's directed at someone you like); or to conclude that it's important to respect the right of expression that other people have to have views that you disagree with - because that protects your ability to have views that others may disagree with (without having to receive death threats in the process). I personally choose the latter - it seems to be a better world than the arm-for-an-hand attitude we have today.


@43 BiDanFan: Thank you for your kind and supportive comment, verifying my gut feelings from way back when. That was exactly what I thought at the time (and still do). I guess I am indeed lucky to have a tight ass---and a reliable gut.

Congrats in advance to this week's Lucky @69 winner!!


@16 Came here to say this. As far as I'm concerned, "I like to be monogamous/non-monogamous because that is what I'm happiest and most comfortable with" is an answer.


Sporty, I dont know if you know the definition of disingenuous, but it means insincere or pretending insincerity- so which is it that you are accusing me of? Especially considering that I told you that I don't follow Twitter drama, asked if anyone had told Kanye to shut up, and explained that I thought you were referring to this thread until you clarified. Do you assume I'm lying then?

As to your second point, you are free to say whatever you want (see how easy that is?) but I can't be bothered to care even a fraction as much about the manners people use to say something as I do the content of what they say. If Kanye wants to believe in Brotherhoods of Dragon Energy, he has every right to do so, and unless someone arrests him for it or puts him in prison, I don't see how his free speech is being hindered. If people want to laugh in his face and tell him what an idiotic thing that is to say, I also don't see what that has to do with free speech. Likewise with people telling Kaepernick to shut up. I don't defend Kaepernick because I think people were being meanies to him. I defend him because I agree with him. Which is exactly why I don't defend Kanye. I don't know anything about LeBron James which is why I'm not using him as an example.

Freedom of speech is about your right to say something without state authorities intervening. It doesn't mean you don't get called an idiot by the public.

I bothered to learn the difference between a libertarian, a religious right conservative, a neonazi and a fiscal conservative- I bothered to do so because it helped me to understand politics better. If you want to proceed in ignorance of similar divisions between leftists and liberals, that's up to you, but it's nothing to brag about.


BTW Sporty, remember that we are discussing whether or not people should defend Kanye against people telling him to shut up, not whether or not it's a good idea to tell people to shut up. I might agree that it's rather pointless and perhaps even harmful in the long run to verbally attack people for having unpopular opinions. But it's absurd to say that I have to choose between defending them against people telling them to shut up even though I disagree with what they say or else I'm condoning death threats. Don't be hysterical. It's perfectly appropriate for me to watch this spectacle and shrug it off as Kanye saying something remarkably stupid and therefore getting attacked for it on Twitter, and that's not at all hypocritical with my active defense of someone like Kaepernick.

And I disagree that the truth is so flexible and culturally bound that I have to seriously consider the possibilities of Dragon Energy, my god. Like I said, Kanye is either a genius in the Andy Kaufman performance sense (it's all a calculated act) or he's a blooming idiot. I spend a lot of time wondering which it is, but if it's the first, then I feel no sympathy for the flak he's getting and if it's the second, then the best I could muster up is "let's don't make fun of the limited man" which I'm sure he would not appreciate. Generally though, I just assume that multi-millionaires who CHOOSE to express their ideas to millions of followers on Twitter don't need my defense.


Dan is perhaps confusing socially conditioned monogamy (the belief system) with an actual urge / desire to be monogamous.

Yes, some people are raised monogamous (when they're not particularly so, at heart), just as some people are raised straight (when they're something else) or are raised in a gender that's a bad fit.

But the existence of socially conditioned monogamy is a shitty, shitty reason for making someone give a reason for FEELING monogamous and DESIRING monogamy. Just as the existence of socially conditioned heterosexuality is a shitty, shitty reason for making someone defend having hetero-sex attractions.

Serious Fail.


@69 EmmaLiz: Congrats on your coveted Lucky @69 win! May an abundance of good fortune smile generously upon you.


@56 EL, Kayne said something about black people choosing to be slaves otherwise why did it last four hundred years. He married into the plastic Kim family, he's obviously a narcissistic idiot, just like his wife and her family.


@38 Fichu: Thank you for sharing your moving story. I can relate, and am sorry you went through that.
@41 BiDanFan (re: Fichu, @38): Your sharing of an occasion whether to have sex or not with your future ex-spouse reminds me of one with mine, when he tried, unsuccessfully, to convince me we "needed" to have kids. He listed what have to be among the stupidest and worst reasons ever to conceive on the face of the Earth:
1. "All our friends* (mainly, his) have kids!"----If "all our friends" had wanted to go bungee jumping naked off the Deception Pass Bridge into Puget Sound on New Year's Eve, was I supposed to do that, too?
2. "I want to leave a legacy."-----There are plenty of meaningful legacies out there besides having children.
3. "I'll hold your hand (*in the delivery room)!"------Well, gee, my future ex-hubby wouldn't have been the one going through the nine months of pregnancy, labor, and delivery, would he? As if that was supposed to have been the deciding factor right there, and, my personal favorite:
4. "I'll just put it in a little." -------Sorry, but the rhythm method is among the least effective in preventing unwanted or unplanned pregnancies (I, myself, was an "oopsie baby"). Even if a man pulls out, if he's not using a condom a woman can still get a "little" pregnant! I'm so glad we never had any children during the course of our toxic marriage.
Moral of your story and mine: Neither future ex-husband got what he'd wanted from either of us because their rationalizations were totally lame.


Venn @45: I found this article interesting:
My experience is that it does not take women longer to come, generally speaking -- assuming the appropriate kind of stimulation is being provided. What does take longer is for women to become aroused. Men can go from neutral to horny in seconds, but for women, desire originates in that large sex organ the brain. Once aroused, a woman can come quite quickly, but one needs to plan for some time to get her aroused in the first place before starting to stimulate her, hence the need for foreplay aka kissing, breast play etc. Going right for clit stimulation before one is aroused is not just futile but can be painful.

If the woman in the letter is asking for (mere) equity, it stands to reason she's currently not even receiving one orgasm to his one, so numerical equity would be an improvement. It's certainly not the maximum a considerate lover should aim for.

But yes, thank you for your vote of confidence in my ability to satisfy women like our LW. :)

Emma @50: Yes. Many women don't have anal sex because they have no need to have anal sex. They have a hole that is not just perfectly serviceable, but superior to their assholes when it comes to being fucked. The question to ask is not why AREN'T women having anal, but why WOULD they? Straight men obviously aren't answering this question very well, which is why it's not happening as often as it might.

Emma @52: I agree that "play with my sparkling clean butt" should be a GGG basic. For those who are squicked, there are toys.

Fichu @53: I agree there's a 99% chance LW1 is a straight male. A 1% chance he is a gay male who has been frustrated by some of his partners not wanting to bottom to him.

Sportlandia @55: I agree that women are sabotaging their own orgasm equity by not speaking up for what they want, by just letting men stick their dicks in without having gotten them off orally or with their fingers or toys first. Women, you are in control! You can demand an orgasm; very few men will say no if the consequence is that they don't get what they want either. I agree with Emma @57 that cultural conditioning has made this easier for most women than it sounds. This is one great thing about being older and realising there is no benefit to coddling men's egos at the expense of one's own pleasure. Young women should learn to demand better!

EmmaLiz, congrats on the lucky 69!


*correction to @74: cultural conditioning has made it HARDER for most women than it sounds.


In defence of the young women who don't ask for what they want, on top of the societal conditioning of "you must please your man, and don't hurt his ego whatever you do" are the unrealistic expectation that the woman should come from PIV and the fact that it takes time and practice for women to figure out what does get them off, let alone develop the confidence to ask for it. So the impetus is on both genders: women to ask for what they want, and men to care more about what women want whether or not they're comfortable enough with themselves to ask for it.


Everything EmmaLiz says @27 about why taking it up the ass is unlikely to become standard for straight women is true. I think it deplorable there appear to be so many straight men who want to top their OS partners anally without reciprocating.

But nothing that Emma says is an argument against being willing to penetrate assholes becoming standard.


Ms Fichu @53 - The statistics I've seen run from a low of 1/5 to a high of 1/3 of the G who Never Anal. While Q1 would likely be straight due to statistical superiourity, the question itself is much more gay than straight, and could come from either end.

Ms Fan @74 - Well, again, it sounds as if it comes down to who controls the definitions or the parameters. It's a Humpty Dumpty world.

Ms Fan @42 - I'll give you a mulligan on [Fichu @38: PS, I'm sorry you had to date such rapey creeps. :(], but I could take the brief either for or against your use of HAD TO.

Mizz Liz - I think you try to give almost everything in your dictionary exactly one definition. This is often admirable, and it would clarify many things. But, as your discussion with Mr Landia shows, Humpty is Dumptying hard. You may be too young to recall when Mr Limbaugh had HD control of the definition of "liberal" as Anyone He Wanted His Dittoheads to Despise. It would seem that now in the HD role is Mr Rubin, with his tag line, "Defending my liberal beliefs has become a conservative position." He has apparently succeeded to his own satisfaction in redefining "left" to include "regressive" before it, as apparently he finds that saying "regressive left" has become a tautology and leaves off the long adjective. He now simply refers to "the left" with assurance that people will understand the entire left to be regressive.


@33. Bi. I've been having anal sex for all of my partnered sexual life and I'm not sure I know how to do it 'properly' (or sure what you mean by 'properly'). If you just mean negotiating sex with courtesy, listening to your partner, respecting their hard and soft 'no'es, then of course; and if you mean well-lubed, tender if wanted, playful if wanted, nibbling beforehand (though that's a gay standard), then of course, as well. As to the mechanics of it, a jabbing stroke hits the prostate (hits my prostate, at least), but I'd be at a loss in suggesting refinements of technique for anal with women.

A lot of heterosexual women seem to be of the view, 'that's a form of sex for the gays', which to me is a pity.

Re communicating that one wants monogamy, what people say about 'what they'd really like', 'what they will have to be satisfied with' etc. fall under the umbrella of 'games people play'. I can believe that the LW's partner has tried to get the upper hand in the relationship by hinting he'd like variety. Why? Who knows? Just to dominate? So he can get her to be more compliant generally? Be crazier in bed? I think we all do this all the time, even if it is regrettable (sometimes); and I'm not expressing any blame (nor professing any insight into a particular situation). It would seem that if she feels backed into a corner by him, even slightly, she might well ask, 'are you serious about being up for an open relationship?'


@43. Bi. Oh, that's what you mean. A finger, then a finger. You see how unaccustomed I am to sex with people whose arseholes aren't old pros, in a manner of speaking? Personally I like it quite rough.

The ultimate answer to why someone in a relationship doesn't want something is that their partner doing it, or wanting it, or even sometimes being it, makes them feel unloved. But I don't think one gets what one wants (from a partner) in a relationship by winning arguments. Rather, the person who cares most accedes to the person who cares less. This is in general.

Of course no one should be compelled to nonmonogamy or some unwanted form of sex or sex itself, in the classic example, because they can't articulate a reason against it.


@50. EmmaLiz. Well, you beat me to it. I agree with what you say without reservation.

I can't see that there can be too many bi tops initiating women into pleasurable anal if women's experiences are (in the round) something like what people are projecting. (I'd say I was bi, though predominantly gay in the orientation sense, and it's absolutely not something I'm rushing out to do). Maybe there are just relatively few bi men who want this? Since, in gay contexts, they are more passive than penetrative?

So unless a straight woman wants to explore (many do, and many love it), there doesn't seem so much of a compelling justification for looking for it from her current partner(s)?


Harriet @79: You seem to have a reasonable understanding of "properly": so that it's enjoyable for the recipient. Most gay men have the advantage that they understand what this is like from the receiving end, so they have a better idea of what to do when on the giving end. Most straight men have never taken a penis or dildo up the arse. What they have done is fuck vaginas, and many make the mistake of thinking they can fuck an ass in exactly the same way. WRONG.
I don't think women think anal is "for the gays," but "for people who lack a vagina," which in practice may be the same thing, but without the undercurrent of homophobia.

Venn @78: It would be interesting to compare statistics for women who regularly engage in anal, those who have tried it but only occasionally, and those who have never and would never try. I'm surprised to see such -- from my perspective -- high figures; I'll bet most of those up to four-fifths are in the "have tried" instead of the "engage regularly" category. An inept straight dude can ensure that most women don't proceed to "engage regularly" status. But yeah -- I see more tragedy in the fact that more straight men aren't bending over for their women, given that they have prostates, so anal would be even more enjoyable for them than for the women they're trying to convince.


Griz@73 ~ I’d LOVE to go bungee jumping naked off the Deception Pass Bridge into Puget Sound on New Year's Eve. Meet me there?


Sort of a change in perspective but still on point, according to formerly religious friends of mine, anal sex (boys penetrating girls) is common among young conservative Christians who are obsessed with technical virginity. So there's that...


@83 Omnipotent Comment God, DonnyKlicious: Aack-oop! Be careful what you wish for. You've never seen me naked, and remember, that would be on December 31st, typically one of the coldest days of the year.
@BiDanFan: I hope my comment @73 wasn't too long-winded. I just saw similarities between your past marital situation and mine.


@56 & @61 EmmaLiz: Thank you for coming to my defense. I'm surprised that the mention of Kanye West in this week's SL escalated into a heated debate.
@59: Holy shit, Sporty. My comment @7 torqued you off THAT much?
It's Friday, dude---go enjoy your beverage of choice and chill out.


I'm always a little surprised that all BDSM answers refer to the community. Surely the majority of kinksters are otherwise boring monogamous couples, not munch attending polyamorous city folks? Just statistically speaking. I'm sure it's a good way to get introduced to edgy stuff, but the internet exists now, the BDSM community is a tumblr away and the basics of safe words and spanking are not rocket science.


"What resources are available—which do you recommend—to share with my male partner so he can improve (learn) oral sex? (Girl oral sex!)"

I'd have recommended her own words instructing him regarding what feels good to her or not. Even if the listed guides are great, personal guidance communicating one's specific preferences will be better. OYMSYP


@1: Sex work is any labor with the primary function of sexual stimulation or gratification for the customer (that "primary" bit is important - the existence of people with medical fetishes don't make medical professionals sex workers). It's work of a sexual nature, which is right there in the name.


Griz@85 ~ "...You've never seen me naked, and...that would be on December of the coldest days of the year..."

I'll just keep my eyes closed, and, remember, I live in Minnesota where we KNOW what cold really is, and people still go water skiing on New Year's.


There is also a spate of annual New Year's Polar Plunges where semi-sane people cut a hole in the ice & jump in the water (sometime to raise money for charity, but often just for the hell of it).


"LW may also feel like open relationships are the new normal and therefore bf is partially justified in demanding a reason (otherwise she wouldn't have asked the question of Dan). If you are a fan of Savage Love, and especially if you are young, you may get the idea from Dan and the folks around here that open relationships are generally preferable to monogamous ones."

Non-monogamy is the always-normal (always has been, always will be, because people who experience sexual attraction tend to experience it for more than one person on the planet, and humans generally don't engage in self-denial), though it's not normaTIVE in some societies. That said, for one's relationships, something not being normal or normative dorsn't actually demand a better reason than, "I do/don't want to," because other people are't OWED anything more than the basic decency demanded by the social contract.


Ms Fan - You inadvertently boosted one of my major recent points - "without the undercurrent of homophobia" doesn't really work. If you had used a word that indicated prejudice specifically against gay men only (with perhaps the inclusion of gay-presenting bi men; I could argue that brief either way), I could accept it as a working proposition (though I'd disagree with it; I shall spare the assembled company a lengthy analysis of how people who loathe Gs benefit from being able to claim they aren't "homophobic" because they like Ls, Bs or Ts). Not that I'd say that instance rises to the level of "homophobia" anyway, but I think you wanted a word to specify anti-gay prejudice and there isn't really one.

I can perhaps approve of the spirit of "tragedy", though am forced to disagree with the invited inference that a toy or a tool is as good as the Real Thing. This is not (necessarily) to cast aspersions on your capacities in the Studly line, and in theory a toy or a tool might often provide advantages, but, having always had an extremely low opinion of my own attractions for anyone, I doubt I'd have had the capacity to maintain a working level of feeling sufficiently attractive to sustain a relationship with a partner who lacked something that would spontaneously provide abundant and incontrovertible evidence that he really liked me.

I could probably argue any of a wide assortment of briefs about mixed-sex topping, but am not in a sufficiently touristy mood at the moment.


Can I add a #notallprostates to the conversation here? I enjoy (every now and then) being the recipient of anal penetration, but stimulation of the prostate is unpleasant to me. The only thing it does is giving me the feeling that I need to go to the bathroom.


Yes, my husband liked a finger up his arse.
Maybe this is God's way of saying he's cool with homosexuality, giving men prostates. And nature's way of keeping the population down.
I'm sure they work in unison, eh?


male homosexuality.


@90 & @91 Omnipotent Comment God, DonnyKlicious: Ah. So you're from Minnesota, the Land o' 10,000 Lakes. No wonder you're so warm blooded. Doesn't it get down to at least 40 below by New Year's Eve over there? Brrrr! I dunno---as for my actually partaking in the Polar Bear Plunge (we have them here in Western Washington, too), I may need a wetsuit after losing 40+ pounds. I USED to be able to jump in the bay----in my youth. But I sported a natural "innertube" back then. Our neighbors up and down the beach thought I was nuts. At least I'm a lot healthier approaching 54 than I ever was at 34 (and you're still willing to join me?? You're brave even with your eyes closed!), and still a devoted VW nut and beach bum with my beloved. Sending you a big hug, VW beeps--and an Aack-oop! for you and Mr. Bill.




@100: I couldn't help myself.


@83, @90 & @91 Omnipotent Comment God, DonnyKlicious (re my comment @73): For the record, I've never actually bungee jumped naked before, especially on New Year's Eve, and don't recommend doing it. The Deception Pass Bridge, on SR 20 is an aging 80+ year old suspension bridge over treacherous waters with a dizzying drop below to swirling undertows. I'd be afraid of acquiring hypothermia and / or frostbite, and possibly much worse. The risks far outnumber the perks. My comment was really to demonstrate how my ex was prone to blindly go along with what everyone else around him wanted to do (even random people on a city bus), while he tended to diss and marginalize anything I had to say.


Congrats Grizelda. God oked lesbians too, not wanting to imply otherwise.


Griz@102 ~ WHAT?! You were only joking? Now I'll have to cancel my Amtrak tickets!

    Please wait...

    Comments are closed.

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

    Add a comment

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