Savage Love

Furry Road

Comments

1

Griz?

2

Thank you, Dan, for another excellent column. Like FURS and WATER, I did not have a sexual compatibility discussion with my (now ex-) spouse before foolishly getting married in my late 20s and military service years--half my life ago. If my head had been screwed on straight then I would have more readily caught the red flags in our highly toxic relationship more quickly (i.e.: his pushing to get married after only knowing someone for a week, showing jealousy towards anyone else around me--even blood family members and close friends, etc.).

3

WATER if you enjoy pain and degradation play, you are not going to outgrow those kinks. You are going to grow to resent the fact that your life-partner won't love you in the way that you need to be loved. Once you have successfully incorporated those kinks into a loving relationship in which you are also compatible concerning vanilla matters, you will never go back to a vanilla relationship again. It would be the equivalent of living your life in two dimensions after experiencing life in three dimensions. You should make very clear that exploring your kinks are non-negotiable part of your sex life, and that your fiance has a choice: explore them with you, give you permission to explore them outside your relationship, or mutually end your relationship. Importantly, make sure you fiance understands that even if he grows to enjoy degrading you and inflicting pain on you, so long as your kink play is consensual, it has no bearing on whether he is a feminist.

If your fiance agrees to explore these kinks with you, provide him some guides. Read or watch together the stories and videos of your kinks. During and after, tell him explicitly what is turning you on. Do this to establish a common vocabulary around your kinks and to agree on the scenes that you both agree to enact. Here, you should be even more explicit than what Dan recommended. For instance, "I want you to pee on me in the bath tub. The pee goes in my on my face and in my mouth." Or not, but be clear. Also, go to kink clubs so that he can watch and learn from experienced dominants. There will be plenty of dominants who are happy to explain their techniques to him.

Your fiance maybe wonderful man, and that fact won't change if he cannot pee on you or
provide you the pain you want to receive, but it will mean that he is not the man for you to marry. And that advice comes from someone who has met kinky women married to vanilla men secretly going to kink clubs on weekend trips far from their vanilla husbands.

4

@2; I don't mean that FURS and WATER have the same type of unhealthy marriage as I did----I'm just agreeing that I would have benefitted had I laid all the GGG / kink cards on the table first before tying the knot. But I was in the service, 1,300 miles from home, infinitely more naive, and isolated from family and friends.

Okay--Griz has said enough for a while. Next commenter, please.

5

@1, @2, @4 - Auntie Griz, are you two people? Inquiring minds want to know.

Sounds like a shitty situation. Well done for getting out of it.

6

LW: it's also possible that your partner's piss-talk is a clumsy way to "support" your kinks without expressly engaging. This could mean either that he wants to indicate he's okay with the idea of them but doesn't want to be party to them, OR that he's trying to indicate he'd be GGG, but to initiate play of any sort feels unfeminist to him, since to indulge your fantasies he'd have to be the dominant partner (which to him feels like the aggressor).

Either way, Dan's right. Use your words. Whatever his intention, he's skirting the issue by teasing you about piss-play instead of being direct. If you want something from him, you're going to have to be direct if he won't. Good luck - I hope it works out!

7

Alkmen @5: Agreed. Griz, I'm confused - you've never previously implied that your kinks were an issue in your marriage. Too much red, red wine?

FURS is a re-run, yawn. APC has the right first step towards cuckolding a man - being demanding. There are ways to do this without being rude, however. I look forward to Hunter chiming in, as the self appointed expert on all things cuck.

WATER, if you've been asking for kink for two years and not getting it, you ain't going to get it any time in the next 40. Unless you've been asking in the form of "jokes," which isn't really asking at all. Talk to your fiancé like the adults you both are. Though I don't think he's likely to be up for meeting your needs. You need to make a decision: life without kink or life without this man? Don't fool yourself, those are your options. (Unless you can get him to agree to let you get your kinks fulfilled elsewhere, oh but we're not supposed to mention "open relationships" as a solution for couples who want to stay together but aren't sexually compatible...)

8

100% you have to talk about kink and very specifically. e.g. watersports: not necessarily about humiliation. There's where (where the pissing happens, where on the body), how dilute, what kind of talk, if reciprocal. And maybe next time you want something different.

You have to do this with everything. Maybe that blow job doesn't feel good tonight or you want your pussy eaten a bit differently than usual?

Don't understand why people have such a hard time talking about this with their long term partners / spouses. In M-M world, the default with a rando on hookup 1 is asking "what do you like?"

(Well I do understand why it's tough esp. in M-F couples: heteronormative defaults, no sex education, the patriarchy, TV shows that show 100 ways of eviscerating someone and 1 type of sex, Religion, blah blah blah.)

9

Sublime @3, Bi @7 & delta @8 have all laid it on the line very clearly and successfully. The options for the LW are to negotiate kink in the relationship (difficult, as her partner doesn't have the inclination), outside the relationship (possibly--??--difficult, in that they seem to be assuming monogamy), settle for not having it (very likely, a grievous mistake) or break her engagement. At the moment, her mindset is that kink is a big ask--that having her fiancé satisfying her kinks is a big ask. No. Stop thinking like that. Being a feminist does not prevent a man from humiliating his partner in-scene during sex. (It may prevent a guy from passing up on adequate aftercare--'oh yeah, did I say that?'--or, for that matter, from failing to do his bit of laundering sheets or cleaning the fridge). But very many men would love to do what you want done to you. Your desires are not so anomalous, marginal or questionable that they have to be raised with tentativeness.

With the pissing, I feel WATER is again too tentative. It’s a joke, no more than a joke, that she thought R. Kelly notorious just for his peeing predilection, when quite possibly he's an unsavory predator whose name should not come up as an example in any discussion of consensual kink. Forget about that. The next time your lover brings it up, just say, 'I would like you to piss all me'. And I also have the sense that WATER would like 'pain and degradation' but is settling for watersports--because the last is the only one her fiance has expressed any interest in. Is she sure she wants this? Wants only this?

If the question is 'how high is sex on Maslow's hierarchy?', my personal answer would be 'high'.

10

@3 @SublimeAfterglow I disagree that someone who enjoys a particular kink can't possibly be satisfied in a relationship without that particular kink. I think that's highly individual and depends on many factors including how central the kink is to the person's sexual satisfaction and what other elements of the sexual relationship are satisfying. However, LW says "I've been very patient and settled for very vanilla sex for a couple of years now" and that suggests to me the sex they are having isn't satisfying to her. The word "patient" also suggest she anticipates this will change at some point, so I agree resentment is in the cards if/when it does not.

11

[(Well I do understand why it's tough esp. in M-F couples: heteronormative defaults, no sex education, the patriarchy, TV shows that show 100 ways of eviscerating someone and 1 type of sex, Religion, blah blah blah.)]

Add that Good Girls Don't.

12

@10/futurecatlady: In my experience, people generally don’t have a kink, rather, they have a collection of kinks. For some people, that list is small, while others enjoy a constellation of kinks. I don’t doubt there are people who are mildly kinky with a “particular,” which I take to mean “singular,” kink who might be satisfied in an entirely vanilla relationship, especially if they haven’t explored that kink to any degree. It is also true that people who enjoy a smorgasbord of kinks could be satisfied in a kinky relationship that doesn’t explore one or more of their kinks, while engaging in others. But I know no one who has successfully incorporated D/s and a variety of kinks into a relationship, who was able to happily enjoy an exclusively vanilla sexual relationship thereafter.

As for WATER, her kinks include degradation. While there are degrees of degradation play, it is not a mild kink. So if that is her kink, she should find a partner willing to engage her in that way or let her explore with other men, and not settle for a vanilla guy and vanilla sex. As @BiDanFan summed up WATER would be fooling herself if she does otherwise.

13

@12 @SublimeAfterglow You said: "I know no one who has successfully incorporated D/s and a variety of kinks into a relationship, who was able to happily enjoy an exclusively vanilla sexual relationship thereafter." Now you know at least one person (me). I would not feel sexually fulfilled without a certain degree of intensity and playfulness but I find intensity can come in many forms, including D/s and slow, teasing and passionate vanilla sex. And playfulness can happen for me in both vanilla and D/s contexts.

I do agree this particular LW is not satisfied, I was just objecting to the generalization.

14

Sublime @12: So what you're saying is, if someone finds themselves in a vanilla relationship but they are kinky and haven't had an opportunity to explore those kinks yet, the kind thing for the vanilla partner to do would be to give them a hall pass to explore those kinks with someone else, and not insist that they get to have vanilla sex with others in return?

15

@10. I agree! Establishing basic sexual compatibility doesn't mean "make sure you get every single thing you want and don't settle for anything less." Two people can be sexually compatible without each being into everything/anything the other is.

16

@14/BiDanFan: No. I think the right thing to do is love your submissive partner the way they need to be loved. Mr. Water should make his fiancée happy by peeing on her and degrading her. Conversely, I would not advise a vanilla person submit to an unfulfilled dominant partner. That person is probably out of luck, unless they can get a hall pass or are willing and able to leave the relationship.

As an aside, BDSM is not sex. I have flogged women to tears, but was not having sex with them, and the same can go for bondage and humiliation play, among other kinks. WATER could get peeed on without any contact (other than a urine stream) between her and her dominant play partner, should Mr. Water be open to that idea. That is different from telling your husband that you want to open your monogamous relationship up to have sex with women. If you want a hall pass to fuck other people, expect they are going to ask for the same freedom.

17

WATER put herself in a total sexually mis-matched relationship... I get it. She was optimistic and hoping for evolution, but it doesn't look like change is coming. She's got three options... 1) Struggle along like it is and be unhappy 2) Open the marriage (both ways) so she can get her needs met with somone else 3) Break up and find a better-suited partner. And, 1) really isn't a viable option.

18

BiDanFan @14: People engage in BDSM "play" outside of their vanilla relationship without having sex. If such an arrangement would satisfy LW, then there's no reason her partner should get a hall pass to explore vanilla sex.

19

The missing ingredient for WATERS is not BDSM, it's communication. And let's face it, communication is the magic sauce when it comes to sex and relationships. Who'd want to be in a relationship where communication happens by jokey semaphore?

20

Sublime @16: Fair enough. May I amend your first sentence to read, "I think the right thing to do is love your submissive partner the way they need to be loved, or break up with them if you are incapable of doing so"? It's perfectly fine for dominants, or requested-dominants, to have hard limits. A "need" for degradation may be psychologically damaging to the person expected to degrade someone they love, or even someone they like, or anyone at all. No one has the right to demand vanilla sex, and no one has the right to demand kinky sex; everyone has the right to say no to things they find distasteful.

Whether BDSM is sex appears to be a matter of opinion, as is whether one can "fuck" a woman when so many straight people define "sex" as PIV. But, okay, I didn't catch you out in a self-contradiction. Well played.

21

Agree with everyone who says communication is the big problem here. Mr. Water can be uncomfortable with degradation play (generally understood to be an intense kink), but hiding behind "I'm a feminist" is plain old avoidance. Doing exactly what your partner wants isn't oppressing her.

22

Apparently I'm the only person who read FURS letter and thought we've read this letter before, except with the genders reversed (and not the exact kink).

FURS states "we have sex regularly, but I always initiate, and his enthusiasm is middling until we get going, at which point I think we both enjoy ourselves." But being marginally interested at the start, then getting horny and excited during sex is considered completely normal - for women. So I'd say follow the advice Dan gives to couples in this: the husband should shoulder responsibility for initiating some times, the wife should be willing to accept that she will still do a lot of the initiation. If a reasonable balance can be worked out and the wife can focus on the parts where the husband is up, running, and really into the sex they're having to get the sense of being desired she craves, this can work nicely.

23

WATER was aggravating. How many BDSM doms does the authors man think are knuckle dragging MAGA hat douches? If he was a real feminist he would do his best to be a good fuck for his woman. If that means acting like you are a real nasty macho piece of work who is going to beat her up and wizz on her before you bang her that is what you do. Being a feminist does not mean you don't have rough sex, it means you only have rough sex with consent.

24

Unknown @22: Yeah, the rest of us just thought we've read this letter before.
https://www.thestranger.com/slog/2019/01/16/38025082/marriage-kids-furry-porn-and-the-price-of-admission
There was discussion in the comments about "reverse the genders and this is completely normal so she should suck it up." Many of us disagreed; that it's not just the garden variety one partner has a lower drive/doesn't initiate because of gendered socialisation. It's the fact that the husband IS very sexual, just towards his furry porn instead of his wife, that makes the situation different.

25

Drjones @23: Being a feminist also means you respect everyone's right to set sexual boundaries, including "I don't enjoy degrading my partners, that's a hard limit for me." HE has to consent too, you know. Surely feminism has taught us that no one should be expected to engage in acts they find distasteful.

26

@20/BiDanFan: Of course dominants are entitled as to have boundaries that their submissive partners need to respect and honor, including not engaging in kink.

But...I'm still going to say that vanilla partners should indulge their submissive partner. Yes, there are some kinks that are a kink too far, and some people may have entirely understandable reasons for not engaging in certain kinks, but in most cases I'm going to tell vanilla partners to satisfy there partner.

Is that position totally unfair, maybe, but I'm still going to tell Mr. Water to drink up and order Water to kneel in the tub to get peed on. And to all those vanilla men who can't bring themselves to spank their wives and girlfriends, I'm going to tell them to order their partners to pull their skirts up lay across their laps and get a bare-ass spanking. And to all the vanilla women whose husbands and boyfriends need them sit on their faces or lock up their cocks to do that too.

27

Nah, Sublime. It's different if the vanilla partner just isn't really into it or finds it neutral and can do it without negative emotions to please the kinky partner. Then by all means, play along. I'm with you there.

But if you are so vanilla that you find doing some kinky thing unpleasant, disturbing or gross, you should absolutely NOT be under any pressure to do it anyway to please your submissive partner. This is a case of sexual incompatibility and you should not be with a submissive partner in the first place.

It's also not just a matter of sucking it up and going along with it. If you really find an act distasteful (unpleasant, degrading, disgusting, etc) then the expectation that you have to do these things can cause wider anxiety in the relationship and also affect the way partners see one another. And these things are highly personal. It's all about compatibility between the partners, and it's pointless to try to rationalize it in this way when we are dealing with deep emotional responses.

I like to have my ass slapped in sex and in play, it turns me on. But the whole laying across a lap for a spanking? I have a primal deep fucking NO response to that. I'm not judging others for it but there is no fucking way I would lay someone else across my lap and spank them and there is no fucking way I'd consent to anyone doing it to me. And if this is something my husband wanted to do and he really asked for it (either being spanked or asking me to be spanked) it would actually disturb the way I feel about him. Like, it would destroy our sex life. This isn't rational because sexuality is not rational. For example, I have no problem with piss play. Doesn't turn me on and I've never been into it, but I'd piss on my husband if he wanted me to and I'd be pissed on if he wanted to do that- in both cases so long as it's not expected all the time. But bending over his lap for a spanking- no fucking way, makes me livid to even think about it. People can't just suck it up and do things that disturb/disgust them any more than they can just change their sexuality.

This sub LW and the vanilla partner are probably not compatible. I agree it sounds like they haven't had a real conversation about it, so perhaps if they sit down and discuss it, there is more the vanilla partner could do. But if the vanilla partner is actually bothered by these things, then they are simply incompatible. Get the kink elsewhere or break up- but in either case, figure this shit out before kids/marriage.

28

To clarify, it seems like it would be easier to tell a vanilla person to do something dominant to their sub partner than it would to tell a vanilla person to allow their dom partner to do something to them. But the whole reason they are vanilla is that they don't like those things by definition. People are more flexible than our identities allow for, so sure when someone finds a thing neutral, they should do it from time to time. Ideally, we'd hope to find someone who actually enjoys the things we enjoy, not just indulges us, but I get that this doesn't always happen in real life. This LW though says her partner STRUGGLES WITH DEGRADING ME which sounds like more than neutrality, though as I said, I agree they need a conversation.

Hence what I'm trying to say here. If my husband wanted me to bend him over my knee and spank him like a spoiled little boy, it would disgust me to do that. It would change the way I see him in real life. It would feel exactly like if he started ga ga goo gooing all the time or whining about cleaning his room. I would, in that moment, lose desire for him. And I'd struggle to compartmentalize it later and see him as the strong smart sexy grown ass man he is. No matter how irrational this is. That's how it feels. On the other hand, I could tie him up, no prob, without any of the same hang ups, probably because tying up (or piss play) isn't something we associate with naughty children.

Which back to the LW- she should sit down and talk with her partner. It might be he has an aversion to some dom kinks but is neutral about others and might even enjoy some. So I agree with Sublime that a vanilla partner should discuss these things and see what they are willing (or even happy) to do for their partners. But based on the way she's written the letter, it seems like his problem is with degradation in general, and that's her kink- not with any particular act. To me, that just sounds like basic incompatibility.

Also while I think rape jokes have no place in public, privately individuals should be compatible in what sort of off-colour humour they share. I would not want to be with someone around whom I'm always having to choose my words unnaturally.

29

Sublime @26: And what about those vanilla people who are with dominant, not submissive, partners? It seems your attitude would lead to a societal imbalance whereby submissives could expect every partner to meet their needs, but not so dominants, because I think we all agree causing someone pain/humiliation/etc is a lesser ask than enduring pain for one's partner's gratification. I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that you lean dominant. So spanking someone, degrading someone, tying someone up seem like easy things to provide. Not everyone would see it that way. I was talking to a kinky partner of mine at the weekend about how kinky sex -- which we both enjoy! -- is time consuming and requires a lot of emotional work on the part of the Dom. Now, if I think this -as someone who enjoys domming-, I can only imagine that a vanilla -- or submissive -- individual would hate and resent every minute. Sure, in theory, being GGG is positive. But the less one enjoys these things for their own sake, and the more the partner requires them to have enjoyable sex, the more I see this as a case of sexual incompatibility than something partners are expected to provide. Sex should be something BOTH partners enjoy. I don't see how most submissive partners wouldn't be viscerally turned off by the knowledge that their partner doesn't enjoy what they're being asked to do, at all, and in fact finds it distasteful. To me, the unhappy look on their face would ruin everything.

30

I'll go slightly farther, and suggest that the kind thing to do for the partner with a must-have, high-ask kink is to end the relationship if the partner doesn't take to it fairly quickly.

Similarly to Mizz Liz, there are things I don't like but would be willing to try, and there are things that may seem easy to many that I'd rule immediately out of bounds.

31

@29 I agree, anyone who is so very sensitive that they can't take one for the team now and then and help a partner act out a kink they like such as giving them a spank or peeing on them should definitely break things off with their partner. Then they can find someone as uptight as themselves and be bad lays together. GGG does not mean that anyone has to do everything they are asked, but if you can't bring yourself to play a little make believe or perform a bit for your partner (a favor they should return), if you can't be giving in that way, then you better be rich as hell because you are not good at this sex stuff.

32

@25 Of course you're totally right but if feminism keeps him from tapping into something he'd otherwise be into and would make his wife happy, well, that's just not a proper understanding of feminism. I do get it though, men know they have a legacy of cruelty towards women to overcome but then it's like oh I'm also supposed to play act cruelty? But it doesn't have to get that complex -just embrace that consensual power play is a big part of sex and do they like to have it, relinquish it, or both? And go from there without viewing their sex lives as some kind of political statement.

33

@5 Alkmenesankles: I am only one person (but sometimes I refer to myself, auntie grizelda--in the third person). Sorry about any confusion. Yes, I am very fortunate to have gotten out of such a shitty situation, and thank you for commenting.
@7 BiDanFan: I only meant that I agree with Dan about the importance about opening up first about desires and kinks to ensure healthy, mutually agreed upon sexual compatibility. My toxic relationship during my years of military service was basically pushed on me to spare another victim of my abusive BF-turned-abusive-spouse any further agony after their breakup and when I came along (it's a LONG story--if you want the sordid details, email me. I don't want to take up too much space here in Dan's SL thread). If nothing else red, red wine goes well with dark chocolate and helps me be a better typist.
@27 & @28 EmmaLiz: This is referring back to what you'd said in a past comment thread, so please forgive me, but I think you inadvertently nailed why I can't relate to my three much older siblings, anymore, at least in part---all four of us are too wrapped up in our own shit.

OOOH! Who's up for this week's Lucky @69 Award? By rights, someone else deserves the coveted honor since I made first post in this column's thread.

34

BiDanFan @29: "I think we all agree causing someone pain/humiliation/etc is a lesser ask than enduring pain for one's partner's gratification."

I agree with your statement, but it's worth pointing out that a Dom is not necessarily a sadist. Non-masochists should probably not partner with sadists, in my view.

As a practising Dom myself (practise makes perfect!), the pleasure I get from thrashing my sub with a cane is derived in no small part from the pleasure she gets from being thrashed. And a large part of her pleasure, she tells me (because we talk about shit), is derived from the idea that she's pleasing me, or "taking it" for my pleasure.

Now, I love being in control, and she loves pleasing (and endorphins), but this dynamic would really not work if she were simply being GGG and taking one for the team. I'd know it, and it would be no fun.

On the other hand, I really don't see why a vanilla guy couldn't give a kinky girl a few spanks. It's the decent thing to do.

35

LW1, FURS: Reading your letter, I found myself wondering how much had to do with your husband's cartoon furry kink, and how much had to do with the natural progression of any 10-year monogamous marriage. Many people with non-kinky partners experience your same frustration about always having to be the one to initiate, not feeling like their partner is fully in the moment while having sex with them, and spiraling into a negative feedback loop where one partner's passivity leads to the other partner's loss of libido within the relationship, even though they may both still have strong sexual feelings otherwise. (For your husband's furry kink, substitute an affair or various non-sexual physical or psychological fixations that cause sexual disharmony in purely vanilla relationships: work, money, health, addictions, etc.) My advice to you would be to talk openly to your husband, generally about your own waning interest in sex because you feel like you are not sexually desired by him, and specifically about how your current "meh" sex life makes you worry about his suitability, both as a life partner and the father of your future children. Then get quiet and truly listen to what he has to say, without interrupting or contradicting (this will take all of your willpower). What he has to say will give you your answer.

36

@17 DonnyKlicious: re WATER: "She's got three options:......1) Struggle along like it is and be unhappy, 2) Open the marriage up (both ways) so she can get her needs met with someone else, 3) Break up and find a better suited partner. And, 1) really isn't a viable option."
I fully agree. Well said. By the way, I hope you score the highly coveted Hunsky Award this week's go around. "Aack-oop!" to you and Mr. Bill.
re @2 & @4: Gawd, I can't believe I was little more than a mentally unhinged man's instant rebound while his previous victim at the workplace got all the protection. I know this is veering off topic, and that the film, The Lobster was part of a while ago SL thread, but I swear----if I ever societally "had" to go through a "Lobster" situation and have 45 days to get paired up or be transformed permanently into an animal, I wouldn't mind being a big cat. I'd opt out and become a cheetah. Fastest running land animal on Earth: 0 to 60 mph under 5 seconds (a slender Greyhound comes in second @ 0- 45 mph). I'd say fuck it and get the hell out of Dodge, even as a Decidedly Single. RUN, Colin Farrell and John C. Reilly while there is still time!

37

LW3, WATER: I have to say that your letter gave me the creeps. It reminded me of the woman who wanted her German lover to dress up as a Nazi officer and degrade her for being a Jew, a request that would appall most modern Germans. Dan is right in saying that many scenarios are OK in sex play even though they are not acceptable In Real Life, but there are some scenarios that are unacceptable in either - and it's a highly subjective judgment call on where each of us draws the line. If WATER's BF feels anguish or a loss of his own self-worth in playing out bedroom scenes that he feels are too compromising to his integrity as a feminist, IMO it is sadistic for WATER to continue to push him to meet her own desires for sexual subjugation. However, I do suggest that the next time he jokes about peeing on you in the shower...why don't you just smile and LIE DOWN! If he is The One (or one of The Ones) in all other aspects, and if the shower somehow "purifies" the act of peeing on you, this might be the compromise that lets you live together compatibly with a non-BDSM partner. The other alternative, which others have already suggested, is a vanilla relationship with BF plus BDSM play partner(s) on the side.

38

@27-28/EmmaLiz and @29/BiDanFan: It's not that I disagree with you and think you are wrong, we totally agree, it just that I disagree with you and think that you are wrong. But like Dan, I am not offering binding arbitration to people like WATER and Mr. Water, and just as Dan often pushes people to consider some degree of openness in an otherwise "monogamous" relationship, I lean towards having vanilla people top their submissive partner.

Why do I consciously put my thumb on the scale of satisfying a submissive partner? In part, the answer is in your own reasoning. Satisfying your partner's kink on occasion is "unpleasant." I think that sets the bar too low to avoid trying to satisfy your partner's mild, easy to provide kink, and permits people to hide behind a wall irrational fears, rather than require them to experience doing these things in reality. Of course there are lots of things one could say someone should try, but spanking your partner or peeing on them, compared to these other things is a small ask and easy to provide.

Separately, @EmmaLiz: I did not write so before, but I do appreciate that things are a bit different for women, who predominantly want their male partner to be more dominant. Spanking your man upends this hetero-normative dynamic, so I am not surprised to see that it would change your view of your husband and by extension effect your sex life to be required to bend him over your knees and spank him. But while I appreciate that fact, I would still tell those vanilla women to do it.

39

DrJones @31: Please re-read my post: "the less one enjoys these things for their own sake, and the more the partner requires them to have enjoyable sex, the more I see this as a case of sexual incompatibility than something partners are expected to provide." Taking one for the team now and then is on the low end of this scale, as is a five-minute spanking or peeing on someone. But being vanilla does not make one uptight or a bad lay. I've had extremely satisfying long-term sexual relationships with partners who were totally vanilla. But yes, if you equate vanilla with uptight, you shouldn't insult anyone who is vanilla by attempting to date them and then shaming them for their preferences.

Ladida @32: I agree, he should leave the feminism out and just tell her he finds the idea of degrading her a turn-off.

Fubar @34: That's why I said "pain/humiliation/etc" instead of just "pain." Trying to save words, which didn't go as well as I'd hoped! There are many ways to enjoy submission, but pretty much all of them would be anathema to anyone who is not a sub. I completely agree with you: I enjoy inflicting pain on subs who are into receiving it BECAUSE of the way they react, and would not get any enjoyment whatsoever out of flogging or pegging someone who was cringing and bearing it because they thought it was what I wanted. I personally agree that a few spanks, or holding someone down during intercourse, don't seem like a big ask, but read EmmaLiz's post @27: the only thing that can be presumed universal is that mileage varies widely.

Sublime @38: And that's just it: your "mild, easy to provide" kink is someone else's visceral turnoff. (What about the pee shy, for instance?) Kinky people rarely want to tick a fantasy off a list; they want ongoing fulfilment of their needs. As EmmaLiz describes, this can build into resentment and a loss of desire for even vanilla sex with that person. As with whether a need for dick is inherently different from a need for pussy and therefore something a partner should be willing to accommodate, we'll just have to agree to a difference of opinion here, and be glad we're not dating each other. My position is, if you're not willing to do it, that's your right, but you should let them get that need met by someone else. With that solution, everyone wins.

40

I wish Ms Erica were here, as this is reminding me of the LW whose male partner insisted on fulfilling her (similar, if not the same) kink himself and couldn't do it the way she wanted. I would not want to give odds on the chance that this couple would duplicate that path.

41

@39/BiDanFan: LOL. Why keep arguing? We agree entirely. Unlike when I press you on a point where I think you have a blind spot, we don’t disagree, rather I am holding a contradictory point in my head, which would still lead me to provide advice to a vanilla person to engage in kink, while totally acknowledging and accepting a vanilla person’s right to withhold kinky play. Again, this is advice, made fully aware of all the facts, not a binding decision of the Supreme Court of Kink.

42

@14. Bi. You're writing as if the big, binary-type division of people is into those who like kink and those who don't. Very tentatively, I think it's something else: between people who want to have sex lovelessly, and people who don't.

44

@16. Sublime. Oh. I think that is sex--the 'being flogged/flogging to tears' without, presumably, genital contact. 'The thing that really gets you going' is sex. Maybe just in a sheerly interpersonal context--like going to the movies isn't sex. But I've had lovers who have left me, saying, in effect, 'I'll leave you to your mind-fucks...'.

45

@26. But if they 'can't bring themselves', you are overriding their consent, strongarming them into consenting into something which they have a repugnance about doing....

46

@43: If you're going to refer to me, get my position correct: I have never said that cuckoldry involves deception (I mean, historically, it did; it referred to a cheated-upon husband, not a man whose kink it was to have his partner have sex with another man); I said that the cuckold kink/scenario includes the cuckolded man being humiliated in some sexual way. That is part of the kink: that some other man or some bigger/better dick is satisfying your woman more than you can.

Whereas hotwifing is simply about watching or knowing about your partner having sex with another man. Often it has something to do with a feeling of the man's giving his partner to someone else to enjoy, frequently because he wants someone else to experience the hotness of his partner. And I can't speak for anyone else, but I have never changed my opinion to "readily accept hot wifing under cuckoldry."

If you want to know what any of us said, it's easy enough to search for it and read our original comments. That way you can get it right.

But I'm not going to go around with you on this anymore. I just find it ironic and a bit hilarious--and more than a bit pathetic--that you are still doing the whole "you have never had the intellectual honesty to admit that you were wrong and I right," when no such thing is the case.

47

Separately, @EmmaLiz: I did not write so before, but I do appreciate that things are a bit different for women, who predominantly want their male partner to be more dominant. Spanking your man upends this hetero-normative dynamic, so I am not surprised to see that it would change your view of your husband and by extension effect your sex life to be required to bend him over your knees and spank him. But while I appreciate that fact, I would still tell those vanilla women to do it.

Ugggh where in the world does anything I've ever said support THAT bullshit?

As I said, I find it repulsive either way- if it's me being bent over for a spanking or me bending the husband over the knee for a spanking. I focused on the situation of me in the dom role for two reasons: first because it is the topic here- whether or not vanilla partners should be expected to take dom roles, and second because it is my natural tendency to be more of a dom than a sub (though in kink terms i'm not either).

And again, it has jack fucking shit to do with wanting my male partner to be more dominant because I am generally more dominant by nature. I get so tired of anything a woman says being interpreted by this fucking gender role nonsense. It has to do with NAUGHTY CHILD PLAY being something that makes me want to vomit. Like I said, I have no problem tying him up and likewise no problem being tied up, no problem with piss play though it's not my thing, or ordering him around, etc. But treating him like a fucking naughy little boy who needs a spanking? No fucking way. I want a grown ass man in my bed.

The analogy here is that my rational awareness that spanking someone being over your lap isn't really about children or authority in real life has nothing to do with it. Nor that it's a relatively minor thing to do. The point is that the visceral reaction is on a gut level- you can't just change it or push through it. And see what happens when you try to explore it- misunderstandings already. the assumption that it's about gender norms rather than listening to people's actual words or accepting their aversions for what they are. This LW linking her boyfriend's aversion to degradation play to feminism, for example, makes me wonder how much that is true and how much it is you assuming I'm concerned about upending hetero norm dynamics (vomit) because I don't like thinking of my husband as a fucking naughty child.

And yet you'd still tell vanilla women to do it. That says it all.

48

@31. drjones. So someone who won't piss on their lover once in a while is 'bad at sex'? Don't tell the world the SL commentariat thinks that, or we'll be written off by the Hillary Clinton wing of the Democratic Party as a jamboree of deviants...

@36. Griz. It looked as if you were saying, in the point about laying your kink and GGG cards on the table at the start of the relationship, that your GGG cards were that you were unwilling to gratify your partner's kinks.... Why should you retract and be unwilling to attest something like that--and say instead, 'oh red wine and chocolate...'? It would be an entirely reasonable position and helpfully say something about your sexuality.

49

There's trying to accommodate a partner and there's gritting your teeth and grimly trying to do the thing your partner wants, but which not only do you not find arousing, but which actual disturbs or disgusts you. If what your partner wants is simply a physical act or sensation that does nothing for you--ticking, say--that's a lot easier to give than if your partner wants to be dominated by you and you don't understand the dynamics of domination. I have had several partners who just don't "get" BDSM or sexual humiliation or control, and their attempts to do any of it to please me have all been dismal failures. It was obvious how foreign the concepts were and also how deeply unsexy they found them. That did not make for a fun experience for me.

I don't want to try to force my partner to do things that are so alien to his nature; I would rather find and stick to the things that we both enjoy to a greater or lesser degree. I can have extremely fulfilling vanilla sex if my partner and I are attracted to each other and have good chemistry, and are both getting off on getting each other off. If either of us really needs or feels the lack of something so acutely or so often that the sex is unfulfilling, then it's time to admit incompatibility and move on.

49

Harriet @42: No, I've been typing as if there is a sliding scale of kink. There is no "big, binary-type division of people" on anything, particularly anything sexual. Everyone has their own views on what's too kinky, what's the right amount of kinky, what's not kinky enough, what's a little ask and what's a big one. All of these views are valid. If Mr WATER thinks degradation -- whatever she means by that -- is a kink too far, he's no more "right" or "wrong" than Sublime who thinks it's "mild and easy to provide." I agree that people should be willing to push their boundaries, on occasion, to please their partners, but individuals get to decide where those boundaries are and how often and how far they push them.

I'm not sure how "having sex lovelessly" enters this discussion. These two love each other. Can you explain what you meant by that?

Hunter @43: For the nth time, no one ever argued that cuckoldry requires deception. The debate was whether it requires -humilation-, whether cuckoldry without the key ingredient of humiliation is better termed hotwifing. You've never had the reading comprehension to accept that you were wrong about what others were arguing. And you've never admitted you are wrong about why women cut their hair so hello, pot, meet kettle.

50

@34. Fubar. There is a world of difference between 'I can't bring myself' and 'oh, I'm neutral on it, it doesn't really do anything for me, I wouldn't do it myself left to my own devices'.

51

@49. Bi. In your discussion with Sublime @12 & @14, you were imagining a situation with a partner who wants to be kinkily-sub and a vanilla partner who can't/doesn't want to be Dom. The options were 1) apply moral pressure on the vanilla person to dominate (Sublime's preferred option), or 2) have the vanilla person issue the would-be sub a hall pass for kinky sex, and in return claim a hall pass for him/her/themself for vanilla sex.

My thought was that, usually or often, in that situation, the vanilla person doesn't want a hall pass. The reason 'he' (he here) isn't doing the Domming sex is that it isn't emotionally invested for him. He does not want to have emotionally uninvested sex. For this reason, he's not interested in sex outside the relationship.

52

@39. Bi. Agreed--it was a low blow for Sublime to say that Emma was averse (like, viscerally averse) to spanking because it would challenge her cishet norms. Cheers! Always good to know you're speaking to someone not ready with the box of stereotypes.

53

@49: BiDanFan: for the nth time is right! And still to get it so wrong!
I guess if one just focuses on the physical act (my wife has sex with another man), instead of the IDEA behind that act (for the cuckold: "look at that guy with his big cock. He's more of a man than I am. He satisfies my wife more than I ever can." For the man who is a hotwifer/married to a hotwife: "look at how much fun that guy is having with my wife; I know just how that feels. I love it when she -----, and clearly, he does, too."), cuckolding and hotwifing seem like the same thing.

Something tells me that that's all Hunter is doing: focusing on the number of people, the relationships amongst them, and the act(s) happening, although I get that if you only experience either or both through porn, the distinction likely disappears--you just see a woman and two men, one of whom is supposedly married to the woman, and the woman has sex with the man who isn't her husband. And therefore in the porn classification scheme, when searching for that configuration, there is no difference. So if one is basing all one's knowledge on the way pornhub classifies porn, it all falls under cuckolding.

It's part of the whole reduction of nuance, context, emotion, and psychology or mental processes that is representative of all commercial, and much amateur porn to me, and a big part of why I don't care for it.

Then again, I've been in a hotwife relationship, but not, by any means, in a cuckolding one in that my partner never got off on being sexually humiliated but wanted to share me with another and watch while another man took his pleasure from me--and gave me pleasure, too. I don't think Hunter has been in either type of relationship.

I see that now Urban Dictionary is distinguishing between what it's calling an "alpha cuckold" or a "masochistic cuckold" to refer to hotwifing vs. traditional cuckolding, respectively, but most of the definitions on that site still assume that the cuckold is weak or enjoys being degraded because his wife has sex with another man, though the dictionary has entries for "hotwife" (and not "hotwifing") which connote the lack of degradation. Going solely by the UD definition of "cuckold," one is subsumed in the other.

None of this changes the fact that neither you nor I have ever mentioned secrecy or deception. In fact, how could the kink work if the husband didn't know about his wife's having sex with someone else?

54

Harriet @50: I was being glib when I wrote "I really don't see why a vanilla guy couldn't give a kinky girl a few spanks. It's the decent thing to do" but... if the vanilla partner really is firmly in the "I can't bring myself" camp, presumably due to religion or some other trauma, and is not willing to work on it, then the kinky partner has the options that have been discussed above.

To be clear: I'm talking about spanks, which I consider to be a very junior kink. There are kinks that I'd decline to indulge (wearing an inflatable blueberry suit, for example).

To the point raised by EmmaLiz @28: the notion that OTK spanking is "something we associate with naughty children" is not one I share... I've been doing it for years, and I've never lost sight of the fact that I have a grown ass woman's lovely ass before me. It really is a more intimate act than bending her over a chair.

55

Harriet @51: Actually, what I was trying to do was corner Sublime into admitting that if a kinky person sought BDSM outside the relationship, that would not entitle the vanilla partner to seek vanilla sex outside the relationship, as a "gotcha" to his position that a bisexual seeking same-sex sex outside the relationship entitles their straight partner to opposite-sex sex outside the relationship, but it didn't work. Indeed, most vanilla people in this position would not use their partner's request as a way to get more strange for themselves, the way many straight men do. (It's generally men, hence no one ever hearing of a "one vagina policy.")

Agree that for some people, "you can go engage in BDSM with others" would not satisfy them, because they believe BDSM -is- sex and they only want to have sex with the person they love. In this situation, it seems breaking up is the only option.

Harriet @52: Interesting that you've replied to something that I was thinking, but did not say out loud! EmmaLiz herself did a great job of rubbishing those gendered assumptions. EmmaLiz, I was indeed silently in your corner, while honouring my vow to be less confrontational.

Nocute @53: Yay, YOU can read! Agreed, the conclusion was that there is no distinction between "cuckolding" and "hotwifing" in porn, it's all just called "cuckold porn," because of course there is no window into the supposed motivations of the participants, aside from getting paid.

56

WATER. Say 'I want to be peed on by a man. If you are not that man then I can arrange it where I won't be bothering you for it. And that involves a divorce lawyer.

57

EmmaLiz@28, piss play is often gotten into by children, by boys in my experience. Toddlers love to whip their dick around as they are pissing outside, sans nappy, trying to hit someone with the stream, laughing at themselves.

58

Fubar@18; kinks are part of a person’s sexuality, it is erotic for the kinkster. So to say, hey go off and be pissed on by someone else, as if it’s not an erotic experience, like sex is, is erroneous.

59

@48 Harriet_by_the_bulrushes: Okay. I recommended that BiDanFan @7 [in my comment @33] email me to spare my taking up a lot of additional comment thread space here in Savage Love by divulging further, but if you really want the sordid details, here they are:
I had entered an physically and emotionally abusive relationship back in my military service years, stemmed from a blind date introduction. How would you sexually respond to someone you'd only known for a few weeks into a relationship? I was holding back on sexual activity and kinks until I got to know him better, only to get backed into a corner upon becoming further isolated from family and friends. Everyone else around me within my chain of command was out to protect and shield his ex fiancee. They couldn't care less about me. The woman who had broken up with my then BF before he & I had unwisely dated, moved into off-base housing together and later married had set up our whole initial meeting up just to divert his controlling, manipulative attention away from her.
If left all by yourself for your own protection, health and safety in so unhealthy and dangerous an environment, what would you do, Harriet? Red wine and dark chocolate, however much or little I consume, can't possibly ever threaten to rape and forcibly impregnate me, either.

60

@59: And people wonder why Griz is so happily asexual.

61

Ms Grizelda - I'd phrase it that people just rejoice in your happiness with it.

62

Ms Cute - [Whereas hotwifing is simply about watching or knowing about your partner having sex with another man.]

Please tell me that that was just an example of your language selection being as inclusive as possible. If that is a female-gendred activity, I can give it FTWL. There are an insufficient number of lorgnettes produced each year to fulfill the numbers of how many I'd require with which to regard anyone gay who ever called the SSM version by that name.

63

@61 vennominon: Thank you, venn. Well said. You'd be surprised though, by the number of people I have had to deal with who were stubbornly insistent upon fixing me up with someone---particularly in my 20s, 30s, and 40s. Fortunately my 50s have proven to be a pleasant cutoff from anyone else's further "ticking biological clock" concerns. I hope this much healthier, saner trend continues.

Speaking of tick...tick...tick...who will get this week's Lucky @69 honors?

64

@62: Mr. Ven, forgive the presumption of heteronormativity. I was in a hurry and the comment was already taking too long to write so I cut corners. Surely FFF hotwifery exists, and the MMM version could be called many things, but the word "wife" would't be part of the deal. And there are doubtless M/F couples wherein the F wants to loan the M out to either another F or an M. I do think, though that the basic "hotwife" scenario differs from a threesome, although certainly the partner may often join in.

My real beef has historically been with the dynamic being subsumed in porn and Hunter's imagination under the standard cuckold dynamic which includes shame, humiliation, and degradation for the male partner in a M/F relationship, and now by Hunter's having distorted my original claim about the difference in nature of the two dynamics, substituting deception for I don't know what.

65

@65: auntie griz, it sounds like you have a much happier life now, and I am glad to hear it.

66

LavaGirl @58: What you say may be generally true, although I've been to lots of kinky play parties and seen very few boners, for what it's worth. And lots of people get their erotic charge, and go home to discharge it.

But regardless, the opinion I was trying to articulate is that a "hall pass" is warranted if a partner can't get needs met within the relationship. In this case, the vanilla partner is getting his met by LW, while the reverse isn't the case. Just my $0.02 of course.

67

@65 nocutename: Many thanks, nocutename, and bless you. I am still in VA PTSD therapy, but my passions of music, my beloved automotively eccentric classic Volkswagen, cats, and all the good people blessing our lives is what holds me together and keeps me out of trouble.

68

I line-jumping a kink? Asking for a friend.

69

How about bad aim? (sigh)

70

I will add, more on point I hope, that I can def see WATER's fiance's problem. It depends a lot on how he got where he is, and where he came from to get there. That may feel like calling up something he's afraid he can't put back down.

71

Given the incomprehensible content of 68-70, I'd like to dedicate the lucky 69 to Griz.

72

It's harder for newbies and vanilla people to navigate Dom actions than sub actions, because for a lot of stuff the Dom IS the one acting. The Dom spanks, orders, punishes, holds down, berates, hits, throws, decides, insults, hits, binds, disciplines. The sub is acted upon, and in many cases their role is to follow orders and please their partner by accepting whatever the top chooses to dish out. WATER's boyfriend might be thinking "she wants to me to hit her and cause her pain, but what if I cause too much pain? Then I've assaulted her. She wants me to degrade her and say cruel things, but what if I say something too hurtful or it's not what she wanted? Then I'm an asshole."
As others have noted, he might also have an active dislike of causing pain or seeing her degraded, even if she wants it. It can be hard to separate play from out-of-scene life. Certain things and images would deflate my arousal even if the other person was really into it.

73

Lava @57: I'm not sure what you meant by that, trying to get EmmaLiz to associate watersports with childhood and put her off them too? EmmaLiz admitted her kinks and anti-kinks aren't logical. And different people see the same activities differently. EmmaLiz associates across-the-knee spankings with misbehaving children. Fubar does not. I was viscerally drawn to pegging as the ultimate act of gender fuck; I've had partners who enjoy it because it's humiliating, though I never saw it that way. You may associate piss play with children, but people who don't have sons are unlikely to make that connection.

Venn @62: "Hotwifing" is indeed a gendered activity involving a man watching/directing his female partner to have sex with other men. This is not to imply that gay men can't enjoy watching their partners do the same, only that it would not be called "hotwifing" if all involved were male. It's a gendered activity because it subverts the traditional heteronormative dynamic where a woman is her husband's sexual property; the very fact that the word "cuckold" applies to a man who is cheated on, but not a woman, reveals the different gender norms. None of these dynamics are present in same-sex relationships, so while group sex may happen in many forms, it is not subverting those norms in a way that adds an extra thrill to those who enjoy cuckolding/hotwifing.

Fubar @66: 'the opinion I was trying to articulate is that a "hall pass" is warranted if a partner can't get needs met within the relationship. In this case, the vanilla partner is getting his met by LW, while the reverse isn't the case. Just my $0.02 of course.' Substitute "straight for "vanilla" and that's what I keep saying, to choruses of disagreement.

Slomo @69: I understood your meaning -- you were referring to things children typically do, as alluded to by Lava -- so I vote you should retain your Lucky 69 award.

Ankyl @72: As a dominant, I 100% agree with you -- that's what I meant by "emotional work." WATER, for instance, said she wants to be degraded. What does she mean by "degraded"? I wouldn't have the first clue where to start. We are fighting our instincts every step of the way by doing things we ourselves would hate. Yes, ideally, seeing the joy on our subs' faces (unless they are masked of course) helps us get over that, but many who are not inclined towards dominance hear cries of pain and feel compelled to stop, an instinct it's difficult to overcome. I do think that switches make better Doms, as they understand far better what a sub would like. People in WATER's position should understand this, be very specific about what they want, start very slowly, and give positive feedback. Subs should also provide their own equipment and "how-to" books/links for the prospective Dom, as it's a huge world and very daunting for the newbie.

74

Fubar @71, I second your dedication. Maybe slomo might return at a later time, and interpret.

75

Oh Fan, you understood slomo, now I’m torn.
A shared honour then this week?

76

Ms Fan - In a world in which women are allowed and even encouraged to call themselves "gay", thus leaving no word that clearly indicates an exclusively SS male, and in which masseurs are increasingly called masseuses, it would not surprise me in the least if people began asserting "hotwifing" to be the correct term even for an MM couple.

I imagine Ms Cute was accommodating unmarried MF couples, though I'd probably argue being married to be almost as essential to the activity as being female. After all, "wives" aren't really "supposed" to be hot, whereas "girlfriends" are. (I may have wandered into something interesting here, besides just remembering all the invective nouns Fitz hurled at Judith in Cracker before he pulled the For Sale sign out of the ground and hurled it through the rear window of her car.)

77

In case anyone quibbles, no non-slur word.

78

@76 vennominon
"In a world in which women are allowed and even encouraged to call themselves "gay", thus leaving no word that clearly indicates an exclusively SS male"

Very interesting. I'm embarrassed I'd never focused upon this problem.

Of course there used to be terms for gay men in common usage, but their usage was ugly.

It seems appropriate that we have an umbrella term (now "gay") for both gay men and lebsians. But it /is/ shitty that (I guess as a result of greater prejudice that made their terms so hateful) there is no single-word male analog to "lesbian".

Maybe Dan can be imposed upon to add another word to our language? (Even though it already takes the same number of characters to type "lesbian" as it does to type "gay man".)

79

Oh ffs Mr Venn. Have you found an inequality balanced on women’s side. Hotwifing could be used, gays already have stolen girls, a descriptor which doesn’t include the word men. Or male. Hence, all our own. Just stole it right offa us. Might as well steal hotwifing as well.

80

Speaking of Tennis Mr Venn, have you been watching? Rafa has been superb. Both finals are going to be good.

81

@54. Fubar. We agree as regards all practical purposes or mechanics (you're not urging someone to Dom if they just can't, and nor am I). There's maybe some slight difference of attitude between us, in that I think anyone has an unquestioned right to their hard 'noes'. (Sure, a partner can ask their lover to be GGG, can express incredulity, can suggest it wouldn't be a problem for most people--'are we always going to have the light off during sex?'; but if it's an absolute for one person that the light goes off, the other party has either to accept it or reject the relationship--on the most likely terms).

The things I'd say 'no' to aren't traumas for me, but are likely to lead to failure (to my not coming) through my finding them ludicrous.

82

@55. Bi. There is too much 'previous' between you and Sublime for me to follow the arguments. As it happened, I thought both you and he gave excellent--and substantially the same--advice to WATER. I would think that, when two people still profess love for one another, the main reason for their not having frequent sex is one wanting it to mean something, to be libidinally engaged, desire-suffused.

I thought you were making my point with your 'as with whether the desire for a dick is inherently different from desire for a pussy...' remark. You are not a confrontational person. Yes--you reply to people because you disagree or think they have the facts wrong ... but why would anyone reply to other posters otherwise? It can't all be supportive rah-rah-rahing.

83

@59. Griz. It’s a hair-raising story, and seems to be particular on account of people behaving as they did--ignoring your ex's manipulations--because they were in the military (something few of us can have had any experience of). I'm not one of those persons who thinks being GGG is about forcing yourself, overriding your internal prohibitions, in situations of vulnerability.

84

Ms Lava - Given that, in the case of gender-neutral language, I balked at the use of "hir" because using "hem" and "hes" would be more practical to indicate the difference between the objective and the possessive (take that, Mr Horstman!), I don't think I'm straying from my usual line. And I certainly don't approve of the appropriation of female language by Vichygays.

As for the tennis, my only lament is your country's decision to start both finals at 3:00 a.m. my time, but it has to be 3:00 a.m. somewhere. I shall also have to look back through the schedule to see if they ever put Ms Navratilova's Legends match on MCA. I did see Ms Goolagong in the stands; between herself and Messrs Laver and Rosewall, you certainly seem to have all the best ambassadors. The women's final could not be better (though I am rather hoping that, at some point during the year, Ms Svitolina obtains the #1 ranking, preferably before winning a major, and of course nobody but a member of Mrs Court's church would mind seeing 25 as the number of majors on top on the list). When Ms Kvitova's game is in full flight, there's no better watching; I entirely agree with all the praise Ms Davenport heaped on the 2014 Wimbledon final. Ms Osaka has effectively silenced all those claiming to be "on Team Serena" from the US Open. the vast majority of whom know nothing about tennis. On the other side, every number counts. Should Sr Nadal enter Wimbledon with a number of 19, the GOAT Debate should really warm up. I just wish Mr McEnroe had asked him what the difference was that he was winning majors at age 19 and 20 and now over 30 is thrashing the ascending youth squad. I just hope that love set doesn't scar Mr Tsitsipas after his nice breakthrough win.

85

M?? Harriet - The main cheerleading rah-rah around here is of the YGG variety, but I could refer you to numerous examples of things I've encountered. It reminds me of Mrs Woolf's novel Orlando, in which all the reputed wits get their noses put out of joint by Mr Pope's genuinely witty sayings. I remember a thread in which I once mentioned another site where one person might say something marginally original and then thirty people would post "QFT" after it. I made some comment about how one ought to be able not to take a one-sided view of Ms Dworkin, to which Ms Cummins responded "QFT". As this was pre-2016, happier times.

86

@69 slomopomo: Congratulations on scoring this week's Lucky @69 Award! May a golden abundance of riches smile upon you generously and soon.
@71 fubar: That's very sweet of you! Thank you for the nomination.
@71 fubar and @73 BiDanFan: Although I already did make first post this week, what would the two of you say to Griz's accepting a share of this week's Lucky @69 Award in a tie with @69 slomopomo?

87

Mr Curious - Far worse, we don't have an exclusive phobia. See or hear something lesbophobic, biphobic, transphobic, acephobic, or even transmisogynistic, and the other letters of the Alphabet Soup back away respectfully to let the letter with standing drive the response. But everyone rushes in to claim a piece of homophobia as a personal attack, even if the attack is not a general one but specifically targeting the G alone. If I were murdered tomorrow in a hate crime, while the obvious thing to predict is that the assembled company would be torn between rejoicing and wondering what took it so long to happen (see, I CAN have a sense of humour), the second most obvious would be that there would be LVBT voices asking for sympathy for their community. (There are those among the assembled company who might be considered more likely to give them that sympathy, but, like Ian Richardson, I couldn't possibly comment - which I really ought to abbreviate to ICPC).

88

@74 & @75 LavaGirl: I'll settle for a tie. Thank you in part for a shared nomination with @69 slomopomo.
@83 Harriet_by_the_bulrushes: The really crazy part was that everyone else knew damned well how unstable he was, having witnessed his previously dating and being engaged to the other gal in our division. Other than my spending one token night at women's barracks for my own safety, my chain of command did nothing more on my behalf to intervene. Even crazier: being across the highway from our parent command, there was no attended front gate or security back then where we were, making it easy for him to just stop by our unit from where he was stationed, across town. I'm sure this would not be the case, now, years later, and post 9 / 11.

89

@88: Craziest of all: my ex's job at his former base was in security.

90

Vinchygays, Mr Venn. I don’t mind the boys using girls in their language. To me gay means homosexual men and an overall word for homosexual people. Dual purpose word. Nothing to fret about, in the scheme of things to fret about.

91

Yes. That kid Tsitsipas took down Federer, and Nadal thrashed him. Not a happy boy. He’ll recover, he’s twenty yrs old. The editor of US Vogue has been here too, AnnaWintour, looking like someone else, her face newly done. Giving us lectures on said court name, and our govt.
They’ll all be glad to leave this heat.

92

I would like to associate myself with the comments of my esteemed colleague from Fubar @ 71. I decline the nomination and put my support to Miz Griz.

To clarify:
"I[s] line-jumping a kink?" was a weak attempt to simulate an on-topic post. Unfortunately, I was misinformed as to the correct number of posts at the time, and posted that at 68, which is either down to my bad "aim" at hitting the correct spot, or (and I wish I'd remembered this at the time) the old joke, "We could 68 -- like 69 but I'll owe you one."

The SloMoPoMo regrets the error.

94

@92 slomopomo: Many humble thanks for the Lucky @69 honors nomination, although you landed on it fair and square. Griz is ready to nominate you for the HUnsky (@100).

95

Shucks, with all the nominations I'm speechless, folks (like Bert Lahr's Cowardly Lion---'Baaaaaaah!'), but really--someone else rightfully deserves this week's Hunsky and Double Whammy Hunsky + @69 Award honors. No fair for Griz getting all the prizes.

96

Lava @79: Yes, good point. You don't see cis women getting offended that gay men call each other "girlfriend" and the like. "Gay man" even has fewer syllables than lesbian. Perhaps Venn should lead a campaign to remove the space, so they'd be called gaymen.

Harriet @82: Yes, it was an aside between me and Sublime that others picked up on. Thank you for your kind words, though others have disagreed, hence my trying to be less confrontational -- with a few well merited exceptions! And I do think it's important to rah-rah particularly good points, whether they be angles I hadn't previously considered or reactions I'd shared but could not have articulated nearly as well. As one of our sage regulars said recently (damned if I can't find it), if each of us replied in agreement with every post we agreed with, it would go on forever -- or, even more so than it does now!

Griz @86: You're the final arbiter of the Lucky 69 Award, as I recall -- the only suggested reason for disqualification is making multiple posts with the specific purpose of hitting the 69. Slomo @92, are you admitting to this? If so, I vote that the award reverts to Griz.

Lava @90: Indeed, many words have more than one meaning. Such as cuckolding ;)

97

@87 vennominon
That is worse. Particularly because gay/bi-male phobia is even more despicably virulent than (the one with a word) lesbophobia.

The suffix "phobia" still pains me more than anything, since it (calling it fear instead of hatred) praises with faint damning.

Ok I admit it, I'm sure I've gotten high and talked about grammar before.

98

Curious2 @97: Let's invent a word. English is awesome that way!

The greek prefix misos- means hatred, and so we have misogyny (hatred of women) and misandry (hatred of men) formed from misos+gyne and misos+andr. We can also add an affix such as -ia (for a noun, e.g. mania), or better yet, -alia (for a collection or group, e.g. genitalia).

Drum roll... Mishomoalia.

But wait! While we're at it, we should fix this whole "homophobia" misuse. It really means an irrational fear of uniformity. It should be homosexophobia, and our neologism should be mishomosexualia.

99

Venn @87: The word "transmisogynistic" would literally mean "on the other side of" misogynistic. I was going to propose "mistransgynistic" (a less awful linguistic hack), but a quick Google reveals that "transmisogynistic" has already taken root, and is loaded with more meaning that simply a hatred of trans women.

Up next: the Big Hunsky. Congratulations in advance!

100

@98 fubar
That's impressive! You'd be great at a weed & language event.

Too bad that I can't see "mishomoalia" catching on. And at this point I'm afraid the common usage of "homophobia" would cause it to become yet another umbrella term (that is, that it would include lesbophobia).

I wish this linguistic abuse of gay men were the only kind of abuse they face.

101

@100: "I wish this linguistic abuse of gay men were the only kind of abuse they face." Bravo.
I've been thinking about Mr. Ven's point as one of gay male erasure, rather than abuse, considering not "homophobia," but the fact that there is no dedicated, non-slur, one-word delineation for a man who is gay.

I admit that I have used the word "gay" in the past to refer to a lesbian, being someone who doesn't like what I think of as too many labels, the purpose of which I tend to think, is to confine people into small boxes with too limited room to be considered as "contain[ing] multitudes." But I can see that in allowing lesbians to be also "gay" or "gay women," we've added a second way to refer to one group, and taken away something exclusive to another. And that that hurts.

I can't change usage at large, but I will hereafter only ever use "gay" to refer to men. I have, however, a lesbian friend who routinely uses the word gay to describe herself. She also uses "queer;" maybe I can gently point her that way, but I'm afraid that it will be seen as an outsider dictating/explaining/directing her life experience to her.