Really good point about "fronting" a nice facade when first dating. How many letters begin, "I'm dating an amazing man... except for this one terrible thing, he's my soulmate."

SOS already commented to death as a LOTD.
SUBB~ As Dan said, how does your partner feel about the level of sex in your relationship? As for “accidentally violating someone's boundaries”, use your words first and you will know what lines not to cross. Also, if you DO accidentally step over the line (and how do you “accidentally” do that if everyone is clear beforehand?) a quick, “Oops! Sorry, I was distracted by the cat!” will smooth things over.

I really don't understand the fetishization of sex without condoms. They just seem convenient to me. Less messy. Safer from both an STD and pregnancy point of view. And I really don't buy that the receptive partner can tell the difference. Find a condom that fits and use it. Ooh, Magnums, stud.

Fletcher,
As the receptive partner, I definitely can tell the difference. At one point a long time ago Dan liked to often say that no one ever had a condom break and suddenly noticed it felt way better, but the one time we did have a condom break, it definitely did feel way better and we both noticed.
That said, it is also definitely less messy, which as the receptive partner I definitely appreciate, and much better than an STI or an unwanted pregnancy. Still, we prefer it bareback, and given our longstanding monogamous relationship and his vasectomy, we don't use condoms anymore.

SUBB: This is not a submissive issue, not even necessarily an autistic issue (though that may contribute - we don't automagically internalize social norms the same way as allistics, thanks to our more limited neural pruning, but allistics in aggregate are not nearly as good as intuiting subtle social cues as they think they are, especially when those cues deviate from normative expectations; what leads to the perception that autistics are bad at social cues is not actually that autistics have a harder time with consciously recognizing non-verbal cues but that we don't internalize norms as readily, so we're less likely to respond as expected to NORMATIVE cues from allistics). This is a "my partner won't express what they want in a way that I can understand (words)" issue. Dan's advice still applies.

@2 "and how do you 'accidentally' do that if everyone is clear beforehand?"

Allistics actively resist clearly stating what they think with an astonishing degree of frequency, even in cases where one actively solicits their opinions*, hence Dan long ago coining the initialism OYMSYP (and hence 90% of answers to letters to advice columns essentially being, "have an honest, direct conversation about [problem]"). They (you?) also have a greater tendency to project and read subtextual meaning without evidence. These tendencies are advantageous in small social groups where norms ARE effectively universal, where much CAN be left unsaid but still understood, much less so when dealing with thousands or millions of people from different (sub)cultural backgrounds in close proximity (or even just contact range via telecommunication). In allistic-autistic relationships, the autistic partner may be more likely to overstep a(n assumed) boundary because the allistic partner will tend to expect that boundaries be clearly stated, while the allistic partner may (falsely) assume zir personal boundaries are universal norms that ze doesn't need to state or that zir indirect cues are universally intelligible when they are not.

This is why I encourage people dealing with unwanted attention or harassment to clearly and directly state preferences and boundaries if they have not done so: while alliatic harassers like to hide behind the plausible deniability of Shrödinger's Autist when encountering deflections or soft no's, the plausibility can be removed by clear communication, and one then knows whether one is dealing with a well-meaning-but-bad-at-indirect-cues person who will respect boundaries once ze understands them or someone who is willfully violating boundaries (whatever the person's neurotype - there are autistics who violate known boundaries as well as allistics who don't pick up on indirect communication) and can deal with the person accordingly. As an added bonus, a clear (and loud) assertion of a boundary in a social situation gives bystanders license to intervene if that boundary is not respected; lots of people think that their distress in response to an unwanted interaction is much more visible than it actually is to other people (see: Illusion of Transparency and Spotlight Effect).

*Consider the classic: "You seem upset, what's wrong?" "Nothing." The reverse also causes problems, where an allistic explicitly or implicitly solicits a response ze doesn't actually desire: I've inadvertantly upset plenty of people who asked for my opinion by being honest when they were not actually seeking my opinion but were instead seeking uncritical social validation. I've learned to ask what kind of response people want when soliciting my opinion or talking about problems they face; in the latter case, people may be looking for help brainstorming solutions or for commiseration or for distraction. I actually had a courtroom judge threaten me with contempt of court one time because I was a witness for a trial (for the defense) and the prosecutor was bad at asking questions that literally solicited the information she was trying to obtain. Unfortunately for the defense, the defense lawyer wasn't much better, despite our witness prep discussions, and I was just generally considered an uncooperative and unreliable witness by the judge, while from my perspective I was simply trying to not perjure myself and following the directive, given by the judge earlier in my testimony in response to my attempts to be clear and complete when I thought the questions weren't properly soliciting the desired responses from me, that I only answer the questions asked and not introduce unsolicited testimony.

Ugh, the above should read, "because the AUTISTIC partner will tend to expect that boundaries be clearly stated".

@SOS: I know I will most likely have at least one commenter after me for saying this, because it's so obvious and frequently said, but DTMFA. Thank you, Dan, for again covering SOS's situation so beautifully. The new guy was wonderful (cooking, massages, bringing gifts, etc.) until her guard was down and then he violated her. That is indeed, unforgivable after she made it clear where her boundaries were. The only thing I can add is that, if nothing else, SOS found out early into the relationship that he was a dickwad without dealing with STIs or unwanted pregnancies.
Move on, SOS, and all the best.

Griz @8, nope, everyone said DTMFA when this letter ran as a SLLOTD.
For those who missed it: https://www.thestranger.com/slog/2019/07/31/40917656/he-seemed-like-a-such-a-great-guy-until-the-morning-he-stealthed-on-her

Re SUBB, I have some experience with autism and polyamory and it adds an extra layer of challenge, because allistics are indeed so used to communicating subtly and find it difficult to talk about uncomfortable feelings in a way that's blunt enough for autistics to pick up on. SUBB may need to take the lead on this. Does he want to be having more sex with his spouse? That wasn't clear from the letter. Does he not initiate sex with his spouse because he isn't into them or because "as a man, I might accidentally violate someone's boundaries"? SUBB, the word "no" exists. If you ask your spouse for sex, verbally or non, and they don't want to, they can just tell you, "I'm not in the mood for sex right now." The same goes for your partner. You might be stuck in this weird catch-22 where you both want sex but both of you are waiting for the other person to initiate, or indeed your partner's attempts to initiate are too subtle and they're feeling rejected. You will need to tell them that they need to be more overt. Like Dan says, one can initiate sex in a submissive way. If they really are uncomfortable using their words, you could agree a signal that unambiguously means "I'd like to have sex," like putting on some lingerie or your jointly curated "sexy" playlist.

Of course none of this was actually the question; the question is whether it's possible for one's primary romantic relationship to be with a different person than one's primary sexual relationship, and the answer is absolutely yes to that one. It seems a bit unusual in this case given that LW (and presumably spouse) are so young, but having more sex with the newer partner (the "new shiny") is common. If you're all happy, it's not wrong!

Also, SUBB, regarding your fear that "as a man, I might accidentally violate someone's boundaries," safewords are a thing. Even Doms can use them to signal when something has gone too far or they are uncomfortable. Good for you for being conscious of this incredibly common problem, but being "kind of terrified" is probably an overreaction. If you're conscious of this possibility, you're probably already exercising enough due care to avoid doing this. And don't forget -- people make mistakes! If, for instance, you are having sex with your spouse who sometimes enjoys having their butt slapped during sex, and you slap their butt and they say "Please don't do that," don't (ha) beat yourself up about it. Apologise and move on. If you're doing something with a partner and you're not sure whether they're into it, it's absolutely ok to pause and ask. There is a huge difference between being a caring Dom who sometimes miscalculates and a selfish asshole who makes assumptions and ignores consent. If you're the former, it will be obvious. You sound like a caring and thoughtful young man, and I wish you the best in all your relationships.

Fletch3r @4: I can tell the difference. It isn't a huge difference; it isn't a big enough difference to override STI and pregnancy risk. But Back In The Day when I was doing serial monogamy, it was one of the biggest incentives to find someone to be monogamous with, so you could get tested and stop having to use the things. Without condoms, sure there is more cleanup, but there is also more convenience -- you can move directly from foreplay (or even skip foreplay if you're horny enough) to penetration without the need to pause and put one on. Yes, sure, you can make the act of putting the condom on part of foreplay, but it's nice to not have to. Again, though, this should be a nice little bonus reserved for committed and tested relationships -- one's reward for forsaking or using condoms with all others.

DarkHorse @12, true. (And welcome back, I've missed you!)
In the comments on the original letter, some troll appeared to state that the letter had been shared in stealthing forums, with the members laughing at our outrage. This just goes to show that stealthers know only too well that what they're doing is wrong and don't give a shit. I hate people sometimes.

@fletch3er @4: I can certainly feel the difference between sex with a condom and sex without. It's distinct, and yes, condom-on is less pleasant. That said, I wouldn't mind so much except that condoms make it harder to switch up activities. I dislike the implication that once a condom is on, it's PIV from there on out. I like to mix up what's happening, frequently--PIV to oral, oral to masturbation, back to PIV, etc.--and although you can keep the condom on, it's less pleasant for oral, hand jobs, etc. But if you take it off then you have to pause again and put another one on to get back to PIV. They're a pain. They happen to be the best option for STI protection, but that doesn't mean they're not annoying.

Stealthing is still fucking horrible, though.

Re: Condoms or Not

I have used condoms, especially with new lesser known partners, but I, like many, prefer not to use them if possible. My wife and I never did, not the first time, or ever really. We started dating in the 80's and it was a different time in terms of many people's sexual education. But we also knew each other for a year before we had sex that first time, we were friends first. So when we took that leap, and considering that she was on birth control, we never felt the need. She trusted me, I trusted her.

When we started swinging we added condoms to the mix since we often had very little time with our new partners to get to know them. I was fine using them as a protective measure for STI's (I'd already had a vasectomy so birth control wasn't necessary). I definitely felt a huge difference in sensation though and in all our swinging experiences there was only one time that I was able to make it all the way to orgasm using condoms. Still fine, as it is the overall experience that attracts me to swinging, orgasms are easily had at other times. I do think in my lizard brain the use of condoms, and the lack of orgasms when using them, led me to fetishize NOT using condoms and naturally to get into the "fluid" aspect of sex.

When my wife and I started dating our girlfriend, we continued using condoms, but soon after we discovered that our girlfriend also fetishized that "fluid" thing. My wife and girlfriend are both squirters so that helped meet that need, but not long after that we came to the conclusion that there wasn't much point in me using condoms with all that female ejaculate flying around. I totally understand the comments here about cleanliness and convenience, but damn messy sex that requires a shower after is pretty damn good too.

As it happens that couple, the one that I was able to get there with, became friends and somewhat regular swinging partners. We basically only have sex outside of our triad with them, and only a few times a year. Not long ago just through conversation we discovered that they also had that same fluid fetish (or preference, fetish might be too strong a word) We talked about it as a group and decided that since we are basically a closed 5 some sexually (not in the poly sense) that dropping condoms with the 5 of us didn't present much risk and came (see what I did there) with a lot of reward. There's enough time in between our encounters that testing can be done and be valid for incubation periods, so that provides an additional level of comfort. Although after having known them for 3 years now it doesn't feel necessary. I trust them, they trust us.

Ultimately it does come down to trust. I also think the sex gets much better with that trust, and comfort. I really don't have any desire to "swing" in the traditional sense anymore. Going to clubs, meeting new people, profiles, web sites, all the endless chatting and meetups. Shit man I have a life! Since we don't see our "friends" every month they still present variety and novelty and with 5 people just about every group scenario is possible. Except a gang bang...hard to do with three gals and only two guys...hmmm.

I don't get how he planned to get away with the stealth bit. If you come without a condom then there's going to be cum in her vagina and gravity being gravity would surely make the evidence of his transgression pretty damned obvious later on. Unless his normal routine was to remove the condom right before coming and come on her back or whatever.

@auntie grizelda and @LavaGirl, I left you comments on last week's thread.

Coolie @15: Gang bang: two guys, three girls, two strap-ons. Problem solved.

Yequalsy @16, good point! Perhaps we should check these stealthing forums to see how these scumbags are hiding their ejaculate. Are they faking orgasms? Odd indeed.

ciods @14 - if you want to mix things up, try some sessions with the internal condom (aka "female" condom). Allows hand jobs, blow jobs, anal, spanking, and whatever you like, before returning to PIV.

Dadddy @19, SOS says, "only when I see someone's STI results and know we're 100 percent monogamous will I go "bareback"." That sounds like a sensible, not at all rigid, approach to safe sex to me. (I did query what she meant by "against hormonal conception" in the original comments.)
If she couldn't take hormonal birth control, her future serious partner could get a vasectomy, given that said hypothetical future partner would already be agreeing to no kids as a price of admission.

EricaP @21, good suggestion. Using several condoms in a session does sometimes feel wasteful!

As I said in the previous post, hormonal contraception is not the only kind of contraception. We have no idea so we are only speculating, but there are non hormonal IUDs. Also getting one's tubes tied. It is possible that she is willing to consider the cost/pain of either procedure if she finds herself in an established relationship. It's also possible that she's willing to do pull-out in an established relationship with someone she trusts.

As for the rejection being a matter of principal rather than a personal choice, then yes she is being rigid, the conclusion we came to last column as well. But there is nothing in the letter to indicate that. And there is nothing in her letter that indicates she has not already tried both IUD and the pill. She's in her early 40s- I suspect she's given enough thought to the various options available to her since she's been having sex for decades.

@18 BDF creative solution! At least in my girlfriends case she is looking for the effect of multiple guys and all that semen. The great thing about a strap on is that it never goes soft.

and @20 Daddy, its true not everyone gets everything but I'll be damned if I give up trying just because it isn't easy.

@16, I don't think he was planning on hiding it... wasn't planning at all, just seeking immediate gratification come what may (sorry). Some people just ask for forgiveness, but never permission.

Letters like this are why personal pronouns are bullshit. In the name of respecting someone who'll never read this letter, LW has destroyed a significant amount of meaning and context in their letter. Language is a tool for communication, use it like that.

Sportlandia @28 - what meaning & context is missing from the letter? Do you mean that the LW's situation would feel differently to you if you knew he was married to someone who was assigned male at birth, versus someone who was assigned female at birth?

@29 yes.

If LW is the sub, is it really a concern about violating someone's boundaries accidentally? Wouldn't the Dom lead the scene? Or is he saying that this is what he likes about subbing- it liberates him from feeling like he might unknowingly (due to his spectrum difficulties in reading nonverbal cues) violate someone since the other person is the Dom?

Also it reads to me like he's already decided he wishes to stop having sex with his spouse, but I agree with BDF above that this is left up to interpretation and it might be a communication problem. I wonder if he and his spouse could play together with the Dom, both of them as subs?

I'd never seen the word "allistic" before and I'm having trouble understanding how it is different than neurotypical. Allistic means not autistic, but might be neurotypical or might be something else? Which seems similar to neurodiverse except that this would include people who are autistic as well as those who are not NT but are something other than autism. Right?

Sportlandia -- the kind of person who prefers "they/them" pronouns is probably also the kind of person who never fit their assigned gender role very neatly. Whatever "significant" difference you're picturing between the LW's hypothetical AMAB spouse and the LW's hypothetical AFAB spouse is probably not accurate.

I prefer the sensation with a condom, generally.

@33 I'll rate who's penetrating who and the potential for transmission of std's or impressiv impregnation as significant. Please go bother someone else thanks

SUBB - It is important to remember that Dom and sub are roles in D/s play, not immutable character traits. Like all roles in all play, we become them by first imagining them, and then using our personalities and experiences to become them for a period of time. In other words, it is possible to play both roles. (Do I need to tell you I've played both? Of course I have. I'll try anything if I'm asked politely enough). Most people find it easier to play the sub. After all, nearly everyone has experienced powerlessness and humiliation at the hands of a cruel and arbitrary authority figure, although we mostly call that work, not play. It is also amazing to experience this powerlessness as pleasure, and no longer responsible for our own needs and desires. It is much harder to play the Dom role - we get far fewer opportunities to prioritise our own desires openly, and if you've tried it outside of play, I expect the adjectives "arrogant" and "selfish" are often used to describe you.

There are any number ways you and your spouse could experiment with both roles and see if you can imagine yourself to be both a a submissive bottom who will fulfil his master's every need and a Dom top who not only deserves this, but much, much more. But, like all roles, you need to practice lots to get any good. If both you and your spouse prefer aubmission, you might need to assign the roles for, say three months, then swap.That way, you can explore both the pleasure of submission and of power.

EmmaLiz - I too had never heard of allistic before today, but, at a guess, some people prefer it because even a fairly mild term such as 'neurotypical' still implies that autistic people are not normal (typical and normal are synonyms, although typical is much less loaded) like everyone else. Allistic inverts the implied dynamic, positioning autistic people as central and the rest of us as diverging from it. I kind of like iit.

Dadddy @24, I'm sure SOS would be heartbroken to learn that you would not date her. Lol.

Sporty @28: "LW has destroyed a significant amount of meaning and context in THEIR letter."
Enough said.
I don't see any significant difference in the situation based on the spouse's biological sex. However, because this male identified person is married to a non-binary person, that gave me more insight into the sort of person the LW himself is. So the "they" pronoun DID shed light on the situation for me. STIs? LW has a penis. He can penetrate anyone of any gender, so his current partners' genders are not in fact relevant in the way you claim justifies your bigotry. "Bother" someone else? You're the one who initiated an NB-phobic tangent. LW has GIVEN meaning and context in their letter; we know, for instance, that he is nothing like you.

EmmaLiz @31, I read that SUBB was concerned primarily about violating the boundaries of the spouse, who is more submissive and initiates sex rarely and subtly. It read to me like the alternative of him initiating more felt awkward to him, because if he initiated and the spouse wasn't keen, that might be a violation. This is why he has discovered he enjoys being a sub with the new partner -- they do the initiating and take the lead and this frees him from worrying about whether he has violated any boundaries. That's how I read it, anyway.

EmmaLiz @32, I understand "allistic" as a synonym for neurotypical which does not imply that autistic people are not typical. Kind of like the word "cis" was coined to describe people who aren't trans without positioning the cis folks as "normal" and the trans ones as divergent.

@37 BiDanFan - I wouldn't necessarily assume the LW's spouse was non-binary (although they certainly could be), but only that the LW considers that gender inclusivity (particularly when gender has no bearing on the issue, which is to say usually) is important. Also, 'cis' is not a coinage - in Latin, it is and always has been the opposite of trans (the prefix meaning 'on the other side of'. A cisgender person is, in Latin, on this side of gender.

PS - The Latin origins of 'cis' and 'trans' is a good reminder that most of the people crying that political correctness ruining language are complaining about language being used correctly.

Pan @38, "adopted" rather than "coined" then. The term cisgender was not used until the 1990s.

BiDanFan @37 "LW has a penis. He can penetrate anyone of any gender, so his current partners' genders are not in fact relevant."

Exactly. I still have no idea why Sportlandia thinks it matters whether Mx. SUBB was assigned male, female, or intersex at birth.

BDF - I honestly didn't reply to you because I am joyless pedant who long ago replaced any hope of happiness with the a cold determination to be always right (or, at least, not just because). I hope my postscript makes it clearer that I am also a joyless PC warrior who delights in enforcing radical ideas like respecting people's right to present themselves in whatever way they feel comfortable.

EricaP @41: Obviously, because he wants to gauge the level of contempt he should be feeling towards SUBB based on SUBB's sexual orientation, which he can't know if SUBB doesn't reveal his partners' gender(s).

Mizz Liz/Ms Fan - I didn't know whether LW was inadvertently being more insulting to men or women by inviting the inference that women never violate boundaries accidentally, but I had both your thoughts. Being in a charitable mood, I eventually went in Mizz Liz's direction that that was what LW liked so much about subbing.

As for allistic, it just struck me as one of those terms that is rarely used because not many people find any subtleties it may contain to be of particular use. There are terms for almost everything if one goes deeply enough.

Ms Erica/Ms Fan - While the partner's gender doesn't seem to matter, will you accept a suggestion that the couple's potential navigation of various gender and orientation divides may make a difference? The closer LW's journey has been staying to the Wainthropp side of the gender and orientation divides, the less concern I'll feel, as that would explain more of LW's naivete, which I don't like to see in combination with his slight quality of general submission that seems typical of a number of OS men these days.

Mr Pan - That's a possibly powerful advertisement, but too conversion-like for my tastes.

As for your response to Ms Fan, you are incorrect. That upon which a joyless PC warrior (or at least a confirmed SJW) would be insisting would be the "right" of people to have their self-presentations interpreted in the way that made them most comfortable.

(This time I am using "incorrect" nearly in the way Miss Brodie did when the response, "Leonardo da Vinci," to her question, "Who is the greatest Italian painter?" didn't suit her. "That is incorrect. The answer is Giotto; he is my favourite.")

I owe you a debt of gratitude, Mr Venn. Until I read your reply, I would have sworn that the adjective 'joyless', at least, would be an unquestionable description of my fate. And yet your invocation of Miss Jean Brodie has, on this terrible night, given me the tiniest fragment of joy. I am almost tempted to expand on my Latin lesson. However, it is a quarter past 3 in the morning here, and I must try to sleep. I have a motherfucker in urgent need of dumping in the morning.

The question of "allistic" vs. "neurotypical" is an interesting one. I don't have a vested interest in which to use, nor do I have a personal preference. My gut reaction is based on my brother's reaction to another question of language.

My brother is on the autism spectrum. He has Asperger syndrome (which I know is not a thing in the DSM anymore, but it is still a useful descriptor of his symptom cluster). He has a strong opposition to the terminology that autistic individuals are "differently abled" rather than it being called a "disability." He feels that the newer term denies the reality of how difficult life can be for a person on the spectrum, and, in his experience, it has been used by people who downplay his need for reasonable academic accommodations. I suspect my brother's reaction to "allistic" would be that it downplays the reality of how different the life experience is of people on the spectrum. I don't speak to my brother anymore, though, for reasons I have mentioned here before, so I have no way of asking him.

I have a severe visual disability (long, long story there), and I have similar feelings about the term "differently abled;" I feel like it glosses over the difficulties I experience on a day-to-day, moment-to-moment basis. "Disability," to me, conveys more of the burden my condition places on me and, I feel, makes it easier for people to "see" (ha) the world from my perspective and empathize with me.

I have a similar feeling about the recent rejection of the term "mental illness." Calling them "illnesses" conveys that they are diseases, burdens that the sufferer has little control over -- conveys that in a way that no other term I have heard does. Having a "disability" or an "illness" is not just being "different" -- it can be an immense burden that makes life harder for an individual. It can be frustrating when people try to minimize this -- "You're not disabled, you're just different" -- often in an attempt to deny the necessity of changing their behavior to accommodate me.

Again -- how all this relates to autism is not my purview. In my brother's opinion, for him his autism functions as a disability, and calling it such has led to the best results for him. If he is the only one who thinks this way, I will of course defer to the majority. (I certainly have little reason to be blindly loyal to my brother, anyway.) But I just want to provide a different perspective. Autistic people are not a monolith, just as people with metal illness are not a monolith and people with physical or sensory disabilities are not a monolith -- different individuals have different opinions.

Dadddy @ 48 - "A person's pronoun choice need not have anything to do with their gender, and from what I've seen, it often doesn't."

Well, that's not surprising, since everyone agrees you're the authority on other people's gender! Oh, wait, everyone doesn't agree on that.

I'm old enough to remember being told that "fireman" and "policeman" and "chairman" and "mailman" were the only correct terms (along with "Miss" or "Mrs." as the only honorifics for women) and anyone who argued otherwise was a man-hating feminist.

Times change. Live and learn.

@52: Heart emoji

Ms Muse - How do you stand on sherbet?

@54 vennominon
How indeed; don't your feet get cold?

@54 vennominon Not sure what the question is. If you're asking whether I like the food sherbet, sure, I like it well enough. I usually prefer sorbet. If you're asking where I stand on sherbet vs. sherbert, I don't really have a preference. "Sherbert" as a variant spelling has existed since the word "sherbet" entered English in the early 17th century. I think it's perfectly fine for people to say and write "sherbert." I often say "sherbert" when speaking and have never had occasion to spell the word until now.

Unlike Callipoe @51, I don't have the cred to make any political or person arguments about the use of allistic rather than neurotypical. But I will pipe up anyway and say that I wish we, the society, would stop pretending abnormal/atypical means the same thing as bad; that it's furthermore a bad sort of bad, a judgmental bad; that we therefore must get round even the implication of it somehow in order to prove how not-bad we think it is and therefore how not bad we are. Sheesh. It means it's not normal. And that's true. Moral connotations left to the user. All this circumlocution is both awkward and transparent.

I shall go sit in my joyless pedant chair now.

Ack, Calliope, sorry!

@51 *mental illness, not metal illness. What is a metal illness? Ideas, anyone?

@59: Lead poisoning?

@17 nocutename: Sorry for the late reply from last week's SL, but many thanks! :)
@54 vennominon & @55 curious2: LOL! Thanks for making my day. :)
@59 CalliopeMuse: Too much head banging?

Who's up for this week's Lucky @69 Award? Tick...tick...tick...

Agree ciods. Though what constitutes normal is up for debate. Take a person as you find them, that’s my motto. Everyone is weird as, labels get in the way.

Not to say labels aren’t a guide to a person, they can’t be used to define people.
Autism is not one set of behaviours, skills, etc, it’s on a spectrum. The LW sounds high functioning, he’s not an autistic person having to wear boxing gloves so they can’t tear at their skin.

Pan @ 36 - "It is important to remember that Dom and sub are roles in D/s play, not immutable character traits"

Actually, no, not always. Some people have a submissive personality, and some others have a dominant one. I'm not saying it correlates directly to their sexual activities - they might be very vanilla, for instance, so they would not take part in any D/s play. But for them, it's still an immutable character trait.

@37 in this case, their is explicit. The problem isn't the word, it's the meaning. You know that. Why are you making an argument you know is worthless?

Ms Muse - Thank you for not being too annoyed with my avoiding making it a leading question. I toyed with the idea of mentioning that my mood had gone sour over the weekend when I'd heard an otherwise precise speaker voice the two-R pronunciation in a way that suggested he thought it the only pronunciation, but in the end thought it better not to suggest a response. It's noble of you to give the two-R pronouncers a technical out, but I put it down as another of those great dividers of humankind, and almost rank the two-R people with those who substitute "lay" for "lie" or "loose" for "lose", unless (as I have seen happen in the case of duct tape) they happen to be seeing the alternate spelling. If it weren't for sorbet, I might not care either way.

For a reference that will please Mr Pan, I refer interested parties to another Brodieism, the matter of how, in telling Sandy about the policewoman who questioned her about her flasher, Jenny in her imitation pronounced "nasty" as "nesty", which bothered Sandy despite Jenny's descriptivist defence that a lot of people said "nesty". "This gave rise to an extremely nasty feeling in Sandy, and it put her off the idea of sex for months."

Hunter @61 in case that's a real question, it is respectful to use a person's stated pronouns if you know them.

When one doesn't know someone's pronouns, it's okay to use social cues to make a guess. If you see ambiguous social cues, it's okay to guess "they" (but not required, since women and men sometimes dress androgynously.

The LW (SUBB) is referring to his spouse, so I presume he knows his spouse's pronouns.

Hunter @46: Ha! Exactly. These straight men want to know what SUBB's spouse's gender is so they know whether to view this situation through their narrow gender stereotypes. The rest of us are happy to treat this person as a human being.

Hunter @61: It depends on what that specific transgender person prefers. Ask them. If you don't know someone's pronoun and aren't in a position to ask, "they" is a safe bet. It's like saying, if I don't know whether someone is a man or a woman, is it offensive to refer to them as a person? If you must guess, err on the side of how they are presenting. It is far more hurtful to presume a trans woman is a cross-dresser than the other way around. If you call a cross-dresser "she" he will be overjoyed; if you call a trans woman "he" you will ruin her day.

Sporty @66: Worthless because you'll never learn? Dunno, just seems less important and stressful than debating gun control yet again, I guess.

Curious @55: Ha! Well played. :)

Well, it has cost me the home I loved, more money than he was worth, and far too much stress and anguish, but the motherfucker is dumped already, and he will be out of my life within the week. I am now working on replacing my little anxiety mantra "As long as he loves me, I'll be ok" with "As long as I love me, I will be ok."

@65 Ricardo - In my experience, personalities are a little too complex to neatly categorise as dominant or submissive. And, despite it being me who dragged the word in, they are rarely immutable. In wider social situations, whether we are dominant or submissive is dependent on our position in a power relationship. This, of course, will almost never be as obvious as within a play situation, because real power often conceals its coercive nature in the language of consent. A police officer may politely request that I accompany her to the station to assist with her inquiries, but I do not have the power to refuse, so I must submit. This is not a question of personality - I must submit to the most timid and shy of police as surely as I must to the most confident and assertive of his colleagues. In play, of course, the power relationship is consensual, but appears coercive. Obviously, individuals will have preferred roles - in my experience, more people enjoy the sub role, which rewards submission with pleasure, rather than punishes disobedience in the manner of real power (plus, it's less work - I always sleep better after Domming). But, again, there is no particular reason any person cannot play either role, other than preference.

@57 ciods - we use a stool, dear.

Three cheers Pan Sapien, stay strong.

@Pan Sapien, I'm sorry that it cost you that much, but you really can't put a price on freedom! Congratulations!

Pan @71, congratulations and enjoy your newfound freedom! Waving DTMFA pompoms.

Pan @ 71 - I disagree. Throughout my life, I have met people with a clearly submissive personnality who never asserted themselves in any situation, and also a few clearly dominant ones. It's a bell curve. Most people will be closer to the middle and be able to switch according to circumstances, but there will be extremes who are always one or the other. You can't just deny it.

Mr Pan - While I congratulate you on a well-executed dump and am pleased if Miss Brodie or her set made it any less unpleasant to perform, I must own considerable concern over "immutable". That makes it sound as if there is intent to apply pressure from outside. This is too close to Julius King territory for my liking.

In other news, figure skating coach Richard Callaghan, whose most famous long-time charges were Tara Lipinski and Todd Eldredge, has been charged with sexual abuse by someone I can't recall becoming very well known. (This is not any sort of comment on the veracity of the charges, a matter on which I have no opinion, simply a statement that there won't be much of any sort of reference point.) If I'd been guessing from that era, I might have predicted Frank Carroll, who guided Michelle Kwan's unexpected Olympic loss to Ms Lipinski and then Evan Lysacek's unexpected win eight years later.

@55: Nicely done, curious2!

@69 WA-HOOOO!!! Congratulations, BiDanFan, for scoring this week's much sought after Lucky @69 Award! May luscious extravagance come your way very soon. :)
@71 Pan Sapien: Congratulations on your newfound freedom! Stay strong and all the best. :)

Who's up for the Hunsky?

It'll probably be a spammer at this rate, Griz!

BiDanFan:

Well, as long as no blood sacrifice is required!!! I couldn't believe what I read.

But, back to SOS, thank you for providing the link to the LOTD. I've been so busy, I haven't been keeping up with regular SLOG traffic.

@83 BiDanFan: True, but I'm hopeful that LavaGirl will snag the Hunsky. She loves the U.S. slang term for 100, apparently synonymous in Australia with sexy men. :)
@LavaGirl: Sending bigs to you, your mother and family. You're all in my thoughts.

@85 LavaGirl: Correction: Sending big hugs to youm your mother, and family. You're all in my thoughts.

@85 & @86: Good grief, Charlie Brown--look at the typos (youm?!?)! I must remember to consume red wine first BEFORE entering the comment thread.

Best of luck to Ms Lava with her mother. I had a double dose of death last week - an occupational hazard when dealing with so many people over eighty. Last Tuesday, I was told that a woman who'd played three weeks earlier had died that Sunday. And Friday I saw one of my seasonal players for the first time since her husband died in March - they'd been a regular pair for the last few summers.

@9 BiDanFan (re my comment @8): "I know I will most likely have at least one commenter after me for saying this...." The one dissenting commenter I meant was Hunter. Usually he rabidly goes after who he calls "D-birds".

In the How Time Passes category, gender warrior Michelle Wie has just gotten married. Some among us may recall how, at age twelve or thirteen, she was given a sponsor's exemption into the PGA Tour's Hawaiian Open on her home course and missed the cut by one stroke. After nearly ruining her game by pursuing success against men (she did eventually make a cut in a small PGA event, I think played opposite the British Open), she finally had a successful but non-dominant LPGA career

Dadddy, the point is, one way or the other, either SUBB or SUBB's spouse doesn't think their gender makes a difference, and if they don't think it makes a difference, then why should you or Sporty be able to muscle in and demand that it does? (And why does not knowing make Sporty literally angry?) Have the gender dynamics contributed to the situation? Most probably, among many other factors. Do they make any difference whatsoever to the next steps SUBB should take? Not at all. Whether SUBB's spouse is too subtle in initating sex because they've been socialised female or because they've been a victim of abuse or because they're just shy, the answer is the same: Have a conversation about what you (both) need and what each of you can do to help improve your communication and fix the problem. Can you honestly say you'd answer an OS-married man differently to a SS-married one? I can't see how.

Sure, Dadddy @93, those two situations are completely analogous. You didn't answer my question. How would your advice to SUBB be different if he were married to a man versus to a woman?

Anyone who's ever dated someone with autism knows that the autism is a FAR more relevant factor than gender. Particularly to the person with autism. SUBB included all the info that was needed.

I can see at least one part where the advice would change based on biological sex:

"The problem is, my spouse is also pretty subby. When they do try to initiate sex, it's often so subtle that I totally miss the signals."

Since the LW is autistic, the most effective advice is likely to be very literal and direct, e.g.: does your partner have a penis? If yes, and they're able and willing to use it as part of their sex life, then an erection is generally a green light to initiate or reciprocate. (Pointing out things that are seemingly obvious can be incredibly helpful to people on the spectrum.) If not, then the next step is to talk about other kinds of signals.

My guess, between "they" and the reference to pegging, is that the partner is biologically female and genderqueer. I also see a possible "gotcha!" lurking in this letter, though: you'd think a person who consistently refers to his partner as "they" might also take the time to refer to themselves as a cis-gender man.

That makes me wonder whether the LW is a transman -- which really would change our advice, if only because the reality is that transmen tend to be physically smaller and don't have to adjust as much for the inevitable intimidation factor that comes with being 6'2" and 200 lbs. Physically large/imposing people with autism really do have to be more careful in all their interactions.

Anyway, the LW's evasiveness about the gender identity of his partner is irritating, because it feels like an attention-seeking stunt that the LW doesn't own (easy enough to do simply by saying something like "I'd rather not disclose their gender because I think it's irrelevant").

The more info we get, the better a picture we can have of possible dynamics. For example, it's unusual for a cis male partner to ejaculate only 1x/month, so the question of whether their excess sexual energy (if any) is going toward masturbation and/or Internet porn becomes relevant.

Not as much of a concern if the partner is cis female, for both statistical and practical reasons, and I think the same applies if they're biologically female but identify as genderqueer. And if both parties are biologically female, then the "lesbian bed death" phenomenon seems relevant even if the exact name doesn't fit their gender identification.

"don't have to adjust as much for the inevitable intimidation factor that comes with being 6'2" and 200 lbs"

Sorry, that should have been "...are less likely to need to adjust" or something along those lines. Point being that autistic people born biologically female are, regardless of their subsequent gender identification, much less likely to have to worry about unwittingly physically intimidating others.

@ LavaGirl, I left something for you at last week's comments.

@Harriet, I left something for you and the other battle-axes (BiDanFan, EmmaLiz, and maybe EricaP (or was it auntie grizelda--I can't tell) over at last week's comments. Perhaps, knowing my power, everyone else wants to read it, too.

Ytterby @98, there is no question about the autistic person (SUBB)'s gender. He did not say that the spouse was also autistic.

Honestly, we readers fill in blanks all the time. If a LW seems naive, we presume that they are young, even if they haven't given their age. I don't see how this situation is different, how it would be difficult to use a mixture of probability, context clues and projection to surmise a character's gender, if it is that important for one to know. I mean, if Sportlandia can fabricate a childhood for me, surely he can take a stab at Mx SUBB's likely gender? Again, acknowledging that probabilities and guesswork may be wrong, and adjusting one's advice accordingly. I don't see that there is any adjustment to make here, though.

FWIW, I read the spouse as most probably being AFAB and non-binary, due to:
A- due to his age, it's likely that he's correctly gendering his spouse, versus trying to hide their gender;
B- the far higher numerical odds that a man is married to someone who is AFAB;
C- the fact that the secondary partner is female (reference to pegging);
D- that people who are socialised female, not male, are taught not to be overtly sexual;
E- SUBB's concern about violating boundaries seems more pertinent in a male/female dynamic than a male/male one.

So, having made a guess, I then re-analysed the letter to think about whether it would be different if the spouse were AMAB, and concluded it wouldn't. Could Mx SUBB be a queer man with past trauma, shyness, or a low libido? Sure, he could. Therefore any good advice would have to cover both/all bases. (It hadn't occurred to me that SUBB might be a trans man, which would explain why he's more concerned than most men about violating boundaries, but again would not change the advice.)

NoCute @99, ugh, skimming what happened after I tuned out, I decline to rejoin that conversation, I think you can guess why!

@100: "there is no question about the autistic person (SUBB)'s gender. He did not say that the spouse was also autistic."

Just to be clear, I agree with both of those things: SUBB's gender is male -- whether cis or trans, we don't know -- and the spouse isn't autistic as far as we know. I didn't claim the spouse might be autistic in my post, so I'm not sure why you felt the need to point that out.

We're also agreed that the spouse is probably AFAB, and I agree with your statement that non-binary is likely -- probably more likely than genderqueer per se. Agender is another possibility.

That said, if the spouse were AMAB, it would affect my advice, at least. Again, an autistic person benefits from very literal advice -- so since SUBB specifically identifies his inability to read signals as a problem, part of my strategy would be to identify things that show arousal and interest, so that the frequency of the sex he has with his primary partner isn't further reduced by unrecognized signals. And those things are different physically for AMAB and AFAB people, and are performed differently by different genders (the classic woman's gesture of touching a man's arm, for instance).

And if the LW is a transman, again, my point is that most transmen aren't as likely to unwittingly intimidate someone as the average guy with autism. If SUBB is 6'3" and 250 pounds, he has to be a hell of a lot more careful about that than if he were 5'3" and 110 pounds, and a transman is several orders of magnitude more likely to be the latter than the former. His physique goes a long way toward dictating how he should act (especially around women), just as it does with all men, for better or worse.

Respecting personal space and identifying another person's discomfort/anxiety are boundaries that come long before any specifically sexual negotiations, and people on the spectrum often struggle with those things at the best of times. But physically large people represent a far more concrete threat than smaller types -- so potential partners may be less tolerant of a larger person who's still trying to understand boundaries. If you're a big guy, you need to back off that extra foot or two, and you need to work harder to ensure that the other person feels safe in situations where two people of equal size might be able to leave more things unsaid.

When seeking advice in sex and love, biological sex and gender are always relevant, because they sculpt everything about every romantic or sexual interaction we have. That doesn't mean there aren't good reasons not to disclose them, but SUBB's treatment of his partner's gender just seems "off" to me. If your partner is non-binary, just say so; if you'd rather not disclose anything that reveals which sex they were assigned at birth, just say so. Leaving it out draws attention to the very thing that we were apparently meant to view as unimportant.

Mx. SUBB may be intersex. Mx. SUBB may be AMAB and have gender dysphoria which mean that using an erection to determine interest would be counter-productive. Mx. SUBB may have edited the letter to their taste before authorizing SUBB to send it.

We might always change our advice given other information (health, wealth, age, employment status of the various people, history of good or bad relationships, etc.).

The rules of the game here is that we get what we get and we work with that information.

@103: "Mx. SUBB may be AMAB and have gender dysphoria which mean that using an erection to determine interest would be counter-productive."

A point I address explicitly in my post #97, when I ask "does your partner have a penis? If yes, and they're able and willing to use it as part of their sex life, then an erection is generally a green light". The "able and willing" part was meant to anticipate exactly that objection (and of course all this is said in the context of an ongoing sexual relationship).

"The rules of the game here is that we get what we get and we work with that information."

Yup, and yet people constantly accuse LWs of leaving things out -- sometimes wrongly, sometimes rightly, and sometimes because every letter is a canvas for those people to project their negative feelings about men, women, or whomever.

Here, we have empirical evidence that something potentially relevant has been omitted. It doesn't make it impossible to comment on the letter, but it's still distracting and hard to parse. It's irritating to be told that the only way we could possibly be put off by such coy language is if we covertly wish to do harm.

That said, I do find your theory plausible that Mx. SUBB may be the editor responsible. If so, fair enough, it's somehow easier to accept when the person themself directly chooses what to disclose.

Dadddy @93 "I saw an interview with a transwoman who just shattered some record in female sports insist that having been born male provided no athletic advantage over women."

How informed are you on that topic? I'm not very informed, nor very interested in sports, so I haven't the energy to explore the various ramifications of dividing sports up by gender rather than weight-class, height, strength, or other relevant factors.

But here are some interesting tidbits from a quick search:

https://www.athleteally.org/tom-blunt-trans-women-sports/

"Rachel McKinnon, the first trans woman to win a major women’s cycling tournament last week, is their latest wedge. Though she fits squarely within the contest’s guidelines, the fairness of her victory was called into question by the woman who placed third; on Twitter, McKinnon has pointed out that this rival, Jennifer Wagner, has won 11 out of the 13 races they’ve competed in together. 'This is what the double-bind for trans women athletes looks like,' she commented. 'When we win, it’s because we’re transgender and it’s unfair; when we lose, no one notices (and it’s because we’re just not that good anyway). Even when it’s the SAME racer. That’s what transphobia looks like.'"

"Transphobic women and men in sports should be cautious about demanding that gender category should be based on the result of chromosomal testing. Many of them are likely to end up being surprised by the results of their own test."

https://jme.bmj.com/content/45/6/395
"The recent International Olympic Committee (IOC) (2015) guidelines allow transwomen to compete in the women’s division if (amongst other things) their testosterone is held below 10 nmol/L. This is significantly higher than that of cis-women. ... We conclude that the advantage to transwomen afforded by the IOC guidelines is an intolerable unfairness. This does not mean transwomen should be excluded from elite sport but that the existing male/female categories in sport should be abandoned in favour of a more nuanced approach satisfying both inclusion and fairness."

https://sportsscientists.com/2019/03/on-transgender-athletes-and-performance-advantages/

"We know from the work of Joanna Harper... that when she transitioned from male to female, her performance dropped off by roughly the normal difference between men and women. In other words, she went from being a near-elite male, ranked say, in the 93rd percentile among men, to being ranked about the same, 93rd percentile among female. She has documented other cases showing similar reductions in other athletes, a case series that suggests that lowering testosterone impairs performance enough to ensure fairness to women."

"This was for running performance, mind you. We don’t know how power events, or contact and team sports performance might be affected (much more difficult to measure). And hers was not a prospective, controlled study where training and other performance-affecting factors are controlled for (then again, how could they be perfectly controlled?)."

"The performance reduction may not be large enough to prevent the theoretical scenario I discussed above where some sub-elite men are able to win women’s events, and that individual variation and sporting variation will make it unfair in some instances. That said, neither side has good evidence for their position."

Ytterby @102: "I didn't claim the spouse might be autistic in my post, so I'm not sure why you felt the need to point that out." Sorry, I must have misread "Point being that autistic people born biologically female are, regardless of their subsequent gender identification, much less likely to have to worry about unwittingly physically intimidating others" as referring to the spouse, the only character whose gender is in question.
Beyond not identifying as female, I have no opinion on whether spouse is non-binary, genderqueer, or agender -- to me there is insufficient difference between these terms for me to ponder them. I use NB as an umbrella term for those who do not identify as male or female, I think this is accepted common usage?
Fair point that if the question is, "How can I better recognise my spouse's subtle signals?", the examples might be different depending on their gender. Asking the spouse to use their words and tell SUBB, "hey, when I do this it means wanna fuck," seems a better approach in either case.

I dream of the day we can just drop a "they" into a conversation and no one loses their shit.

@100 BiDanFan: WA-HOOOO again!! Double coveted honors for you this week--first the Lucky @69 Award, and now the Hunsky! Bravo, kudos, and savor the envied status. :)

Thank you, Griz! Bicycle bell rings to you!

@106: "Sorry, I must have misread "Point being that autistic people born biologically female are, regardless of their subsequent gender identification, much less likely to have to worry about unwittingly physically intimidating others" as referring to the spouse, the only character whose gender is in question."

Nope, referring to the LW himself, and not to his gender (which we know to be male) but his biological sex (which we don't know).

The whole thing came out of the question of how gender or biological sex would change our advice. If the LW were trans and not cis, I'd be less likely to say "You really do need to be super-careful" because autistic people tend to have a poor sense of physical boundaries (always relevant when you're into BDSM), and that has way more impact when someone has a large frame: a big guy with autism needs to have heightened awareness of that at all times, especially if he dates women.

But most transmen are relatively small-framed, so I wouldn't push that angle as hard, and growing up with biologically female equipment may also have given him more perspective in other ways.

Again, my only point in all this was to establish that, when it comes to sexual or romantic advice, withholding information about your or the other person's gender identity and biological sex -- or their birth-assigned sex, if you prefer -- is likely to be unhelpful. And those things are all the more relevant when talking to someone on the spectrum, since advice that helps them is usually concrete: look for this specific thing, remember to do this specific thing, the exceptions are these, etc.

Non-binary is a fine umbrella term, and we NEED umbrella terms, not finer and finer distinctions, to be the basis for conversation about gender. If the niceties of the difference between genderqueer, agender, and non-binary are mostly lost on sympathetic folks like ourselves, it's probably not a useful distinction to make in the public sphere. Men, women, cis, trans, non-binary covers most things pretty well.

Thank you for acknowledging my point re: SUBB recognizing his spouse's signals. I really think all the poly stuff is almost an afterthought in the letter, especially since that angle is going very well. His real worry is boundaries and the situation with his spouse.

"They" is fine with me, can't speak for anyone else.

Late to the party again. Though most commenters seem to have tired of SOS after a repeat appearance, it seems there were a couple points that were missed, even though I find them significant.

First of all, I believe both parties are flawed and SOS seems to be desperate for male attention. He appeared to be her perfect Mr. Nice Guy and, even though they'd known each other only for a short time, she felt free to call him whenever she felt the need ("... listens to me at any hour of the night"). Sounds as if she didn't have a good support system or friend network.

In turn, the last time they were physically together, he behaved as if she were his personal sex toy long before the stealthily discarded condom and selfish comment ("He woke me up in the morning clearly aroused and ready for sexy time. He asked if he could enter me"). Wow! The polar opposite of someone who truly respected her unless he now felt entitled to her body because he'd been SO nice before. After all, if she could make him endure her phoning at any old time, didn't he deserve to have sex whenever he wanted it? Especially if he sensed that she was relying on him exclusively to meet her emotional needs?

She's learnt a hard lesson, that superficial acts of respect are not respect.