I don't think LW2 is snooping on her calls if they share the bill. That's not an invasion of anyone's privacy because it's knowingly exposed. He seems to think it's snooping am I weird in this?
SPANK: Tell your FWB "I prefer tight condoms. The sensation is much better." Then leave it at that. If he shows up with a wind sock, politely decline. You could also buy a box of regular condoms, and put a bow on them, with a note saying "Xmas is coming, but you're not unless you use these."
The kink scene is just like the vanilla scene. You have to kiss (or at least talk to) a lot of frogs. Let people know what you want (and don't explicitly mention sex per se, or you'll be inundated with dick pics), join local groups, and try to interact with local people. In the before times, we had munches. Hopefully, munches will again be a thing.
My favourite advice to women new to the scene is to find yourself a dominant woman or two to look out for you. They seem to hang out in the newbies groups, trying to beat off the predators and assholes (no pun intended).
@1 Dashing: WA-HOOOOOOOOOO!!!!! Congratulations on scoring this week's highly sought after Savage Love FIRDT Award honors! Bask in the glory of leading the comment thread and savor your riches. :)
LW3 presumes everyone will do everyone else.
Thank you, Dan the Man, for beating me to it on your advice to SPANK, who asked about what to do about her sex partner's questionable use of loose, oversized XXL condoms on a medium sized penis. Agreed and seconded. He's being unbelievably irresponsible and inconsiderate, especially during a global pandemic! If he doesn't switch to a condom size that actually fits, and SPANK very understandably doesn't want the increased risk of STDs or unwanted pregnancy, she should dump him.
cont. Venn @5: The presumption also seems to be that wanting to fuck person A and wanting to fuck person B means being happy to fuck A and B at the same event. Speaking for myself, um, like I usually do, that is in no way a standard corollary. Different people have different vibes and all that.
Half empty grocery store bag! A man with delusions of size, LW1. Best way to deal with this is to open your mouth and tell him.
Fubar@3 for the win with the “Xmas is coming” comment :-)
SPANK... Boyfriend with the magnum condoms is thinking what? A) “Boy, if I buy these and leave the box out for her to see, she’ll ignore her own eyes and think I’ve got a dick that would make a donkey blush!” B) “Ever since I got these 40X reading glasses, my pecker has gotten HUGE! Better get the magnum rubbers.” C) Trump-logic dictates that “if you say it enough times, it must be true” so if I keep getting the St. Bernard brand condoms my cock will BE big enough to choke Linda Lovelace. D) What’s the problem? Your wiener is SUPPOSED to slosh around in a condom like a mouse in a bushel basket! No matter what his delusion, this guy is either a little on the “slow” side or a bit of an egomaniac. I’d look at him with a more critical eye. As commenters have said, he’s putting you at risk and that’s NEVER a good quality in a fuck buddy.
I'm going to give a tiny bit of benefit of the doubt to SPANK's partner and say maybe he tried a normal condom, it was super tight and killed his boner. So maybe he thinks "I'm too big for normal condoms, I must need Magnums!" And proceeds to buy Magnums... to find that they kind of work, he's able to keep it up and get off, but it's obviously not ideal. Better than the alternative, however.
I say that as someone who was in that same position, thinking I was simply "between sizes," because I didn't know that it wasn't only "regular" and "Magnum" sizes, but that different brands and even specific condoms within brands are all different sizes.
So I would recommend not buying a box of condoms, but a variety of condoms and suggest playing a game of "what feels best" to find the best fitting condom for him. And then he can stock up on those from there.
I totally agree with Dan that LW1’s fuckbuddy is being inconsiderate and needs a serious talking-to. If she wants to go the nonconfrontational route, though, she could start by buying some regular-size condoms of a different variety (like ribbed or “for her pleasure” or whatever) and claiming to be super into them. (But then she should really say something, so he stops menacing the community with his half-wrapped dick.)
l-dub 1, you are approaching dating like you are 4 years old. you want something far from the norm. you want it now, and you don't want to have to work for it, but at the same time you are dating someone who you can't ask to wear the right size condom...? that's a bad look. time to fix what's inside.
l-dub 2, man what a shit show. just cut yourself loose.
l-dub 3, you can't always calculate your way to the truth.
IGNORED, sorry this woman is giving you the run around, the red flags sure are flying high.
My suggestion is DTMFA. Even if nothing is going on with this man, big If, she is being dismissive to you and not nurturing this relationships. Count your losses and say Bye.
Did you write that last letter, Mr Venn?
I want to go to Singapore, after watching Crazy Rich Asians, which was such a watered down version of the book, and they did a reversal of the ending. What a place is Singapore.
Quiet around here tonight.
Dashing- 1 That's what jumped out at me too. Funny how out of all the things in a letter it will be some little extraneous thing that strikes me. Looking at your own phone bill is not snooping. Looking up an address and phone number online is not snooping. Suddenly realizing that you're being treated horribly and wanting to know what's going on is not something to feel guilty about. Catching someone in a lie and having that someone become accusatory is a reason to feel sad, not a reason to blame yourself. I can't imagine why Girlfriend is such a horrible person that she'd use you in the first place, then not even make a clean break of it after that, but it will help if you could muster up a bit of hate for her. That's to say that I understand, I've been there. I know that if bringing yourself to hater her involves blaming yourself for being naive, blaming yourself for being so hung up on such an objectively horrible person, and that's hard to do. No one is saying this is easy, but go put on some sad music and wallow in some self pity for a while until you realize that you dodged a bullet and feel like dating again.
And for the sake of pronouns, IGNORED, are you male or female? My initial reading was that you're male, but I've been wrong in the comments column before.
Spank - “ How can I find a guy that wants a life partner and a fun and kinky sex life?”
Which do you care about more? If it’s the sex, then focus on kinky sites, and negotiating good sex that you want to repeat (and mention that you are looking for something more long term in your profile). Then try to persuade successful sex partners to think about sharing lives in general too. If you care more about trying to find a life partner, focus more on mainstream sites, and the sort of life you hope to grow together (and mention that you are into being spanked/spanking him in your profile). Then try to persuade the ones you click with to try the kinkier things you crave. You are more likely to find one thing you want most, and try to make the other things you want appeal to their interest, than to find an app or site for kinky people trying to settle down IMO.
“ How do I tell him regular condoms would be soooooo much better without making him feel bad?”
Your main job is not to make him feel good.. Because it seems like you’re trying to find compatible partners, not charging them for a service. So your main job is to try to be honest about who you are, what you want from your partners, and what you are comfortable doing for your partners, and kindly let them go if they want very different things. If you can’t tell this guy nicely what you need to be happy with him, then you’re not able to make yourself happy with him, so you should start charging or find someone else to try to be happy with together.. unless you truly, considerately want to be a volunteer sex worker.. or you’re able to start treating this guy like he mostly cares about making sex good and safe for you, and risk rejection by setting the boundaries you need to feel happy.. it helps if you can learn not to take rejection personally.. for that, it helps to reject others because you believe they will find a better match with someone else who wants more of what they want.. for that, it helps to recognize that others will appreciate things that you don’t..
Ignored - I think your story is weird. Why do you think it’s tolerable that your girlfriend says “fuck you” our calls you crazy? Why do you think it’s ok for your girlfriend to live with her employer, or rent from her employer, or refuse to discuss basic parts of her life with you? If you felt very seriously about her, why didn’t you move with her, or ask her to postpone her plans until you could, or try to find a way she could pursue her dreams where you are? If the only reason you decided to stay with her after she decided to move was because “communication nowadays is pretty easy” then why didn’t you call things off when the poor communication started? It doesn’t sound like you were seriously into her, it sounds like it wasn’t a big deal that she moved away, or developed an oddly close relationship with her new employer.. but it should be a big deal that she was unkind to you.. if you care about being a kind person, I think it helps to try to develop a reflex to avoid those who are being unkind or speak up if you see unkindness directed at others.. to protect yourself and even others from unkindnesses..
Math - Anyone can make simplifying assumptions so the math is easier. For instance, in a traditional harem at least the man is attracted to the women, so it involves (n-1) attractions. It’s harder to negotiate real sex. “I think that the math is more complicated by the fact that most people have drastically different levels of desire to participate in threesomes, foursomes, and yes twosomes.”
IGNORED - Hurling accusations and blaming you when you ask about questionable behaviour is a very common tactic of liars. And it worked - instead of you digging into what's going on, you're confused and off balance and wondering if you did something wrong.
It's a pretty safe assumption that if someone blasts off at you when you ask a reasonable question in a reasonable tone, they are hiding something. It took me far too many years of questioning myself and my judgement, and of feeling guilty for being lied to, before I caught on to this.
“for that, it helps to recognize that others will appreciate things that you don’t..”
A man who wears loose condoms should be told it is unsafe. But he may find a partner who finds the risk thrilling, or a fun way to try to get pregnant, then I guess it’s a good match so long as he is aware and consenting to the risk too..
Maybe SPANK's FWB has a buddy who works in a condom factory and gives them away by the gross.
Tell him a "tighter fit"* will feel better to, and be safer for, everyone.
*OK not to say: "than his nearly empty trashbag"
The hundredsomes I've attended are mostly a series of frequently changing up groups of 3 or 4, even when it's so crowded like the Black Party "play area" that technically a lot more people are in flesh-to-flesh contact.
The most I've counted truly actively engaged was an all-gender event with 6 at once: 5 skinny guys servicing 1 Jabba-the-Hut sized very happy woman, which I described in last week's comments:
PS to Dan: if you attended, you participated! Albeit contactless participation. A lot of us go to watch and yes, it's mostly vanilla stuff even at the black party.
If anyone brushes up against your skin, even if you just push their hand away, you can get an STI. Google image herpetic whitlow! Fortunately rare.
The pandemic is really sucking for us event-o-sexuals!
The condom question.
Buy the condoms! When he goes to put one on, tell him "use this one." Or put it on for him. If he doesn't object, problem solved. If he does, he'll tell you why he prefers the giant size. That's your opening for the discussion. It might have something to do with risk taking or preferring the feeling he gets with the large one or thinking he's impressing the checkout clerk at the drug store or maybe just not understanding how condoms are supposed to work. (That last sounds bizarre, but I wouldn't be surprised if that's it. Man hears that he's supposed to wear condoms and doesn't know that they're supposed to fit snugly. With no one to tell him, with the state of sex ed these days, he really doesn't know.)
First, listen to what he says. Second tell him how much better the sex feels for you with a properly fitting condom. Then, make your position non-negotiable. Imagine if you were having casual sex with a guy who didn't want to wear a condom at all. You'd say, "no condom, no sex." (At least I hope you'd say that.) In this case, explain that the too large condom isn't safe and isn't comfortable. Do your best to educate him, but if he thinks that he's right (he isn't), if he wants to negotiate that he likes the big ones and you like the little ones and you're both coming to the table with that, revert to the "properly fitting condom or no sex" position.
Lastly, make good on your word. Be prepared to get up and walk out if he tries to keep arguing.
Dan wrote "When you meet a guy on Bumble, SPANK, you establish baseline emotional compatibility first and then eventually you have a conversation about sex," but SPANK, there's absolutely no reason to date a Bumble guy for a month before you bring up polyamory and kink! You should bring that stuff up way, way sooner!
As I've become more experienced in dating, I lean more and more towards disclosing early. Disclosing BEFORE you form an emotional connection, and therefore before the stakes are high. The exception might be some very sensitive conditions where you really want to minimize the number of people who even know that you have that condition at all, like for example trauma from past sexual abuse. But an interest in open relationships and BDSM are not that sensitive. I don't actually predict they'll be that much of a relationship obstacle (and I predict the polyamorishness will be more of an obstacle than the kink) but you have to stop wasting months (whole MONTHS! really!! are you some kind of DEATHLESS IMMORTAL? Where do you get that kind of time??!??!) of your life dating vanilla people! Disclose sooner!
I'm so glad SPANK included the PS, otherwise her letter would have been the most boring letter ever. "How can I, unlike every other single person on the planet, magically get exactly what I want from a relationship without having to kiss a bunch of frogs first?" Not possible, hon, so pucker up. Honestly, a month is not that bad, it's a third the standard money-back-guarantee period, so keep looking until you find that needle in the haystack. As for the condoms, that made me laugh but yes, loose condoms are ineffective condoms. I don't think Magnums come in ribbed/dotted (much the pity) so why not get some ribbed/dotted condoms in regular size and tell him you like these better? Or just tell him straight, honey, you ain't that huge. With a side order of too much is too much, yours is just right.
IGNORED, even if she isn't cheating, which she is, she "called me crazy and hurled more than one “fuck you” at me and threatened to call the cops on me." Are you a doormat? Move on, this relationship is over.
Re MISTY, we could argue that there is an inverse relationship between the number of people in a sexual encounter and the need for them to all fancy each other. In a twosome it's imperative; in a threesome, very important; in a foursome, since it's mostly swapping it's fine if Person 1 isn't terribly into Person 4; in a five-or-more-some, you're probably not going to directly have sex with everyone, and you're doing it more for the experience than the people, right? So you are not going to put your pants on and leave if even -several- of the participants are not to your taste.
I realise MISTY was talking about effort to arrange and I agree with Dan: It might be paradoxically harder for a single guy to find one person for a hookup than to learn the location of a sex party, turn up and join in.
It’s possible that the man LW1 is “currently enjoying casual sex with” prefers oversize condoms due to sensitivity and friction issues, as opposed to impressing his partners, and is not necessarily public enemy #1 as some may think.
I don’t see why she can’t tell him that this is not working for her in a casual, informative manner. Her hesitance to do so may allude to the communication issues she is having with potential long-termers.
Dashing @1, he refers to "her section of the bill. So apparently Phone Number 1's calls are itemised separately from Phone Number 2's. Is the person on Phone Number 2 entitled to privacy on what numbers they are calling? Perhaps; less so if Person 1 is paying said bill. If you want privacy, maybe don't get a joint mobile phone account. I think this is a minor snoop and justified by her behaving suspiciously. She has him (presumably a him, though the letter doesn't say) gaslighted into thinking he's the one who's behaving unreasonably. Let her go, trash just took itself out.
Donny @9, E) too many sex workers told him "you're so big"?
Sarah @24, yes. Just put "kinky" and "monogamish" in your profile somewhere, in amongst all your other good qualities such as liking dogs and long walks on the beach. Honestly, a monogamish, kinky man does not seem like a very tall order to me.
CMD @26, I agree. I don't think any berating is necessary in this case, or presuming he is actively sabotaging safety. The worst motive I'd ascribe to him is wishful thinking and I think that can be gently addressed -- "how about we use these instead" -- without the assumption that threats will be necessary.
Exactly what @23 said. Just buy (or get for free, they're free everywhere) some condoms and keep them in the nightstand or wherever. It's super hot when a girl puts a condom on for you. I can't imagine anyone objecting.
I KNEW Wannafuckmath was a real thing! Maybe I'm going back to school after all!!
Lava @ 8 - It probably won't be necessary to open her mouth that wide, either.
(That's a stupid joke, I'll be the first to admit, but I think I better remain on that level instead of getting into arguments; I may not yet be totally over the things for which I chose not to comment these last 8 months or so.)
Fichu @ 15 - "...it will help if you could muster up a bit of hate for her." "... go put on some sad music and wallow in some self pity for a while until you realize that you dodged a bullet and feel like dating again."
Excellent advice. By which I mean: that's the method I've used in those conditions for the last 30 years, and it really works. (The question is: why did I find myself in those conditions over and over again?)
Pedantic comment incoming, but since we're already on the subject of math:
"I also think you need to ask yourself what’s more likely, IGNORED: your girlfriend...is living with and working with a guy she knew before moving away or that your girlfriend is living with and working with and fucking with a guy she moved across the country to be with? I think the latter is far more likely."
With the way the question is worded, the former is by definition more likely (or at worst, equally likely), since adding the additional condition "and fucking" can only decrease the probability of the whole statement being true.
@26 Completely agreed here.
I met my husband in a semi-traditional sense, at a bar meetup for a shared interest (albeit, an internet-interest so quite nerdy). I'd guessed he was kinky from jokes he'd made online prior to the event so I flirted with him. He guessed I was because I laughed at his jokes and said I wouldn't tickle anyone without their consent.
He later told me he had a hard time connecting with people through kink-related sites because he would not find women he met compatible outside of the bedroom. There's also, in my opinion, a higher level of objectification involved in kinky dating apps. It's harder to see people as people amid all the sexualization. Not impossible, just more difficult. He thinks we had a better chance at connecting because we were in a friendly, human environment vs a group whose main interest was sex.
Kink can just go on your list of interests in your profile. (If you're in a profession where you need to pretend to be sexless, like education, try GGG). I found when I was single that entirely vanilla people just didn't do it for me even if they seemed lovely otherwise. So even if I didn't talk about sex before a date, I would bring up general sexual interests after if that first date went well. I also wasn't putting off sex for more than a date or two so if I thought we might go to bed I wanted to get some idea of their preferences anyway. Most reacted well and those who didn't were politely rejected.
Good luck, there are great guys out there among the many frogs!
Dang it, I meant @24 (though I also agree with @26 nicely tell him it isn't worth the risk.)
Oh PUHLEASE Dan. You went to a gigantic orgy and only watched?
Not to tell all my dirty secrets, but I may have attended similar events, and you gotta be naked and participating to remain in the room. No one showed up to be gawked at, they got naked to fuck. Sheesh.
withabandon @ 32,3
I was wondering why I deserve such an elaborate recognition. Thanks regardless.
Fichu @ 15, Ricardo @ 30 and others
Wonder what's your sad music playlist looks like. For some reason my number one is still the 30 yo "Twin Peaks" soundtrack CD.
The first two multi-layered subtle instrumental tracks set the tone for loss and trauma; a feeling David Lynch conveyed so well with minimal use of words in the opening episode(s).
Once Julee Cruise sings The Nightingale on track #4 I’m already in tears.
Aunt Zelda- wonder what’s yours list made of considering your music background and knowledge of movies and other shows.
Also realized I forgot to respond to your hunsky offer last week. (Is “hunsky” a cross between “hundred” and husky?”)
Since venn didn’t respond either I now claim it to be all mine.
It would be shitty for SPANK to /not/ inform the BF that wearing a giant trashbag is unsafe.
Tim @34, you know Dan is a journalist, right? A sex journalist? Observing things like this is part of the job description. Would have been unprofessional to indulge if he were on the company's dime on that occasion.
Good one , Ricardo @30, you’ve always brought a certain classy smut to the SL table, along with your sharp intelligence and sudden lapses into French etc, and I’ve missed you.
I’m sorry you’ve had a hard time these last months, and more hugs to you.
/ Music for break ups, heart aches, Bob Dylan, ‘Blood on the Tracks.’ Every song drips with grief and it’s many facets.
I think LW2 is much younger than this woman he’s been dating, whose 20 yr old son he hasn’t met. Snooping or not, she gave him no choice. What a nasty woman, to set him up like this. Sure hope money hasn’t been part of it either, him being conned because she sounds mean.
Ms Lava - Had I written the letter, I might have tried to rank the least unlikely Austenian threesomes and foursomes (in no particular order, Isabella Thorpe, James Morland and Captain Tilney; Robert Ferrars and the Miss Steeles; Frank Churchill and the Eltons; Lydia Bennet, Mrs Forster, Wickham and Denny; Elizabeth Elliot, Mrs Clay, Miss Carteret and Mr Elliot; Henry Crawford, Tom Bertram, William Price and Mr Yates).
Ms Fichu/Mx Wanna - Yes, if LW1 wants to be nice, she can acquire an assortment in various sizes and make an experiment of trying them. Not that there's any special reason not to be direct, but it did remind me of the time Poirot ventured to Bond Street to buy nineteen pairs of the finest French silk stockings (making an impression of great depravity on the shop girl) so that, when Anne Meredith (whom he suspects of having the temperament of a petty thief) and Rhoda Dawes visit his flat, he can tell Anne he has fifteen or sixteen pairs and ask her to select six to give his nieces while he shows Rhoda a murder weapon. Sure enough, when they leave, he has seventeen pairs.
Ms Fichu - Yes, again - L2 makes me think of a horseshoe, as the process of evaluating LW and the situation would go one way or another only for both to end up in basically the same place. It's interesting that there's likely to be consensus or near consensus on what LW2 should do, but that there are a fair number of answers to why/how LW2 reached Point Z from Point A and that that's where LW's gender probably matters more.
I may be wrong, but it seems like some of the comments on SPANK’s letter were offered with an unnecessary side order of exasperation, implying the letter writer needed to get over herself and stop having such unrealistic expectations of hitting a home run the first time at bat.
I didn’t read SPANK as entitled or unrealistic or demanding. She started by saying “I’ve always been excited by BDSM but I’ve only minimally explored this side of myself until very recently.” She’s a newbie, perhaps one who spent a long time denying or struggling to understand her sexual persona. She may still have a bit of a difficult time separating her expectations of “relationship sex” from FWB sex, and it is possible that comes across in her profile. Anyway, good on FUBAR @3 for giving SPANK some practical advice offered in an understanding tone.
@40. Ensign. I agree.
The answers to all these problems are the commonsensical ones. The right response to SPANK is a) keep trying, on both the mainstream and niche sites. There /are/ people out there who want what you want--a monogamish relationship with kink and also kinky sex with others; b) tell him he's wearing the wrong size condom, and don't worry about hurting his feelings.
The response to IGNORED is to dump a woman who's apparently cheating on him and can't speak about their situation calmly or honestly. Just say this: 'I believe you're cheating on me and living with someone who you were close to when we were together. Even if you're not, the fact you can't talk to me about it is sufficient reason for me to cut my losses'.
There is no need for any response to the fuckmath guy/person, though I am pleased that Dan has reprised my point from last week about an orgy being easier to set up than e.g. an eightway.
What the first two problems have in common is that they could easily seem overwhelming or insuperable to someone on their own in the pandemic; but someone not in that situation sees a ready 'out', or can imagine a better life for the lw even six months down the road.
@2. guts. I'm not sure that someone can adopt a kink for a new, desirable partner. It's better for people to have matching kinks. I would imagine it's hard keeping up being e.g. a Domme or a handler without having existing and independent proclivities in that direction.
@15. Fichu. I don't think his (I'm going with 'his') concern about violating her privacy is 'extraneous'. It's indicative of the whole situation, which is one of her being dishonest with him, while keeping him hanging, and his being so ordinarily conscientious and unsure of himself that he hesitates to call it out.
@16. Philophile. I don't think SPANK is wrong in trying to look for the whole package.
I would have thought 'communication nowadays is pretty easy' meant that, though they are e.g. on different coasts, web connectivity means they could still in principle talk every night.
@23. Fichu. Alternatively just say 'they're too big' and resist your socialisation of feeling obliged to tend to male feelings.
@25. Bi. 'You're doing it more for the experience than the people'. Could have been the motto of my life!
@27. Bi. Of course it's not a tall order. This is what makes remarks like PhilosophySchoolDropout's @12, 'you want something far from the norm', foolish. Oooh, ooh, suck that egg dry! She wants something that stereotypically more men want than women, so she's notionally in a seller's market.
@31. Editor. Yes; well spotted!
@34. timbrowne. And some of them went to be gawped at while fucking--yes?
Re SPANK: Nobody has yet mentioned a female condom. She may still not care for the grocery-store-bag aspect of it, but at least it would be doing its job correctly. If he has difficulty finding a proper-sized condom, or if there is some discomfort associated with wearing one, this could be an adequate compromise.
BiDanFan @27: "Honestly, a monogamish, kinky man does not seem like a very tall order to me." I thought the same thing. But then I wondered if her definition of monogamish is, well, monogamous.
Harriet @41, re guts @2: I suspect it's much more common than you'd think for a vanilla person to get deeply, enthusiastically into kink after being GGG for a kinkster.
IGNORED has been putting up with such complete and transparent crap, and that says something about IGNORED's state of mind, emotional condition, self-esteem, or something. Dan usually recommends therapy, but didn't. So I suggest therapy.
Ens.Pulver @40, the guy she’s having sex with wears a condom way too big for him, and LW1 hasn’t said anything yet herself, that sounded to me the bigger issue.
And fetlife is not a dating site anyway so of course people there only talk about sex. And talk. Then talk some more. Has she been to any munch meetings, has she even noticed they are part of the Fetlife story.
Finding love/ sexual compatibility takes effort, and Dan set her to some sites which might suit her better.
If LW1 can’t jokingly tell her lover re the condom, then maybe how she is communicating with these men online is if the same non assertive vein. Letting them go on about sex rather than change the subject, steer discussion to other interest points.
I recommend OKCupid as a good dating site for kinky people. Because their question section covers a wide variety of subjects, you can see if your potential date matches you on kinks or polyamory, as well as religion, politics, etc. It seems like the algorithm is run on the questions, so I only answered ones that I considered to be criteria, and only looked at profiles of people who matched me at 90% or above. It still ain’t easy, but you waste less time, for sure.
My heart sank when I read IGNORED. That's more than just a few red flags; that is a military parade of red flags. What they did was legit "snooping", if you want to even call it that, considering it's a shared phone bill. Now, what he really needs (but can't, THANKS, COVID!) is to be able to go to a bar with friends who can buy him several rounds and just say: "I'm sorry." Anyway, I don't know if IGNORED is going to read this, but if he does... I'm really sorry. I really am. She had no right to treat you that way. You deserve so much better. DTMFA and have a round on me.
Ens @40, I will accept the critique. Yes, her newbie-ness to this plays a factor in her not seeing that her question is as ancient as the stars. I guess I was more surprised that Dan would run it than that she would write it. Sarah @24 had the best concrete advice, I think, beyond "accept that this is how dating works, whether you are kinky or not." A month may not seem like much time to invest before discovering a dealbreaker, but it's a month more than she needs to invest if she just states what she wants on her profiles. Sure, there will be those who waste her time; that's the "accept reality" bit. But she can in fact weed out some people who are genuine and incompatible. As a bonus helpful tip, OKCupid is geared toward the non-monogamous in ways other apps are not. And another: once the world opens up again, go to munches. I'm reasonably confident this woman will find her match with a little more patience.
Harriet @41: "The response to IGNORED is to dump a woman who's apparently cheating on him and can't speak about their situation calmly or honestly. Just say this: 'I believe you're cheating on me and living with someone who you were close to when we were together. Even if you're not, the fact you can't talk to me about it is sufficient reason for me to cut my losses'." Nah, she doesn't deserve that, and it will open the door for her to gaslight IGNORED further by denying she's cheating. They've had more than one shouting match. Just tell her, "Look, I'm done with arguing about this. I'm terminating the shared mobile phone bill, so you'll have to set up a new contract. Have a good life."
Harriet @42 re Fichu @15, agree. She is making him the bad guy here by citing the "privacy violation," and he has bought that. He needs to see that what he did wasn't the relationship ender, it was her actions. And in future, if someone refuses to discuss reasonable concerns with you, it is in fact OK to do a little digging. She's the MF who needs dumping, not IGNORED.
Philosophy is a troll, we all know this, skip his comments and you'll be a happier person. This goes for everyone, particularly SPANK if she's reading.
Re Tim Browne, indeed -- one would not be at an event like this if one did not have an exhibitionist streak. One might probably presume that a gawker was taking a break, picking the group he wanted to join next.
Fubar @44, I wondered if she meant a relationship that was monogamous sexually but allowed for BDSM play outside the relationship. Or special guest stars. Perhaps she is still exploring and deciding what she wants and indeed, if she finds a guy who can provide the kink and the relationship, she may realise there's nothing she desires to outsource.
Fubar @45, good call. This person's self esteem is in the toilet if s/he thinks it's OK to be treated this way. Lose the CPOS, find a therapist.
Lava @46, you're correct that Fetlife is not a dating site so it's no wonder she's getting discussions, not dates. I think there are groups there for people looking for dates, in lieu of physical munches which are on hold for now. Good call re @47 as well. SPANK needs to start topping from the bottom, or top, as her preference may be.
Harriet, “You are more likely to find one thing you want most, and try to make the other things you want appeal to their interest, than to find an app or site for kinky people trying to settle down IMO.”
“I don't think SPANK is wrong in trying to look for the whole package.”
If you have a better suggestion for how SPANK can get what she wants, please share. And no, I wasn’t telling her that she can’t get the two things she says she wants most, I was telling her how I’d attempt it.
I liked the OKCupid suggestion, to fill out only the questions about kink and polyamory and her big ideas about life partnership, and use their matching algorithm. I missed the polyamory part on first read, but the part of that sentence where she says she is uncomfortable being honest about her kinky desires seems like it might be a bigger roadblock to happy partnership. In the full context, I’m not sure if she wants polyamory, since she’s not interested in playing with guys in open relationships.. And I don’t really know the apps, I used to use Craigslist..
It is interesting how both Spank and Ignored have trouble asserting their desires, but I think they are different genders. They don’t seem to like going along with their partner’s desires to (wear condoms unsafely/move across the country) yet unwilling to politely end things or ask for what they need to be happy (to wear fitted condoms/move back and stop talking to the new guy). And Ignored seems to care more about the late night phone calls than Ms Ignored’s anger/verbal abuse, idk why. Unclear if verbal abuse is normal on both sides or if Ignored has low self esteem and unfortunately feels deserving of poorer treatment.
Also, it seemed like SPANK needs a good sex like more than a potential life partnership right now, and I don’t think that’s weird or bad to prioritize sex over lasting romance for awhile, it would only be bad if she abandoned her other dreams. It sounds like she could benefit from a lot of practice of asserting her sexual desires.
Phi @52, I think the difference between SPANK wanting a "monogamish" man but not wanting the men in the open relationships is that she wants to be the primary partner, so she's not interested in men with pre-existing partners who get priority in their life. She sounds like she wants a traditional hetero relationship, but wants the sex to be kinky and to not have to 100% commit to monogamy. This is different from being polyamorous in the amount of sharing of one's partner that is expected. She may want a relationship where she is allowed to play with others but he is not. I don't see anything specifically in the letter that suggests this, but often when people think about non-monogamy it's because THEY want to bang other people when the opportunity arises, but they are less happy about their partner doing so, especially if said partner might have feelings for their other sexual partners, which the term polyamory implies. Because of this, I would not recommend she seek out poly men, at least not without more information about what she means by monogamish. Perhaps all she means is, "I don't want to break up with my FWB -- at least until I'm sure there is long-term potential."
I agree that IGNORED is ignoring the verbal abuse which is worse relationship behaviour than evasiveness or even cheating. They do both need to be more assertive. And re @53, perhaps you're right that SPANK may wish to focus on a Mr Right Now or a few. Is her FWB meeting her kink needs? If she's new to BDSM, perhaps she should seek out kinky FWBs so that she can explore this part of herself in more detail, before looking to commit. And she may find, like so many before her, that looking for a casual fling results in a LTR.
42-Harriet-- I agree that women are too often socialized to couch their every statement in terms of not hurting men's feelings, but I don't think the example we're talking about is an example of that. In any situation where one person is doing something the other doesn't like, and in any situation of any configuration of m/m, m/f, f/m, f/f, I'd recommend these steps:
Find out what's going on. Maybe the offender doesn't know there's a problem.
Explain that there is indeed a problem.
Decide if this is something that can be negotiated, should be negotiated, or if it's a dealbreaker where the complainer holds the power.
Explain consequences and stick to them.
I'd recommend those steps if it's 2 women are neighbors and one is making noise when the other is trying to sleep. I'd recommend those steps if it's 2 men in an office where one colleague is turning in sub-standard work that causes extra work for the other. In the example given, I don't think that asking why the guy is using too-large condoms is being too accommodating of his feelings. I think it's normal, polite, and more expedient to couch it that way. Similarly, if a woman was doing something in a straight sexual situation, something the man didn't enjoy or thought was unsafe, I'd recommend that he find out what she was thinking first.
CMD @ 35 - I own about 3000 CDs, and I tend to be attracted to sad music, so it would be a gigantic task to sort through all the sad songs and make a playlist. I can guarantee you, though, that there would be some Smiths in there ("Unloveable" and "Asleep", among others), and most definitely "Toute une vie sans te voir" ("A whole life without seeing you") - by French singer Véronique Sanson (who incidentally used to be married to Stephen Stills), which was the soundtrack to my widowerhood so many years ago. I still can't listen to it without shedding a tear.
Lava's suggestion of Blood on the Tracks is good, but I don't personally share that specific pain. So, like Blue by Joni Mitchell (even more so the latter), it's sad music but not in a way that relates to my experience. Still brilliant.
Lava @ 38 - Thanks for the hugs, much appreciated. But don't worry, I'm slowly but surely pulling out of my dread. If my fucking bowels could stop acting up, I'd actually be doing quite alright at the moment (IBS is the worst, I tell you).
Following on @ 56 - I meant "drawn to sad music", not "attracted to". French interference.
Now on the subject of condoms: Not even the man whose dick was so big that I was no longer able to bottom for a whole year afterwards needed larger condoms. They're latex, they stretch. I've seen guys use regular condoms as fisting gloves when no latex gloves were available. And If you extend them right, you can even put one over your head.
Larger condoms are for guys with an inferiority complex, period. She needs to speak up.
@3 fubar re SPANK: Agreed and seconded with DonnyKlicious (@9). "Xmas is coming but you're not until you use these [tight-fitting condoms]." for the WIN!
Who's hungry for that luscious Lucky @69? Tick...tick...tick...
Condoms over the head, Ricardo. @57. Never tried that, and probably never will. Another experience that’s passed me by, like threesomes and orgies.
/ I don’t know Grizelda, feels a bit flat this week and I feel bad suggesting sex strategies to anyone because this pandemic makes such advice for the foolhardy only, those in safe countries or about the future.
/ Curious, I thought of you as I started the latest fiction book I came across. It’s called “Group”, by Christie Tate, published in 2020 and it’s about group therapy, and it’s great.
Not sure why I thought of you, just did. It’s so emotional and people let rip, it’s set in Chicago.
@57, 60. Condoms over the head. Didn't Howie Mandel used to do that on stage?
Curious, I thought you’d enjoy this book, that was my thought. Reading the acknowledgements, it seems this writer has real experience with group therapy and thanks Irvin Yalom, an expert on group therapy dynamics.
@44. Fubar. Well, why would she say 'monogamish' if what she means is 'monogamous'?
I yield to you on how often formerly vanilla people get into kink after being willing to put out for a kinkster. My own experience and observation has more been that people are drawn to types--this has mostly been of gay men or masc-of-center people having confirmed tastes within a queer subculture. I know that I couldn't make myself compatible through effort and goodwill for someone who wasn't my type, any more than pretty much any of my friends, people with whom I have an emotional affinity, would be sexually drawn (for reasons going beyond solidarity) to me.
But this isn't the same as the dynamics of someone getting into the kink scene.
@51. Bi. It takes two people to have a shouting match. What can she say, from 3,000 or so miles' distance, to make him shout? He says, 'I suspect you're cheating on me with someone you got to know well when we were still living together'. She raves a bit. He says calmly, 'are you cheating on me?'. Dollars to donuts, at the end of the conversation, she has refused to engage or hasn't answered him satisfactorily; and he has the closure of saying he considers their relationship over. There's a vanishingly small chance of an innocent explanation of why she's living with her coworker--and it will put his mind at rest to have given her a shot at explaining this chance. You're right that he shouldn't allow himself to be gaslighted.
He comes over as a decent person; and she doesn't deserve him.
@52. Philophile. My advice is not to neglect either the niche or the mainstream sites. It's to have a profile up on okcupid where she represents herself in the round and has an understated, one-line mention of kink. It needn't be more than that, in that the site (afaik) has compatibility-determining questions like, 'would you prefer to be the one being tied up or the one doing the tying?'. (One of the answers is along the lines of 'I would prefer to avoid bondage altogether'; and she can weed people out on the basis of this or comparable answers. You pay to do this).
What SarahTheUnstoppable said @24 is right. She shouldn't be going on dates with guys (nice guys, interesting guys, intelligent guys ... but for her the wrong guys) without knowing, at least, that the possibility's there for sexual compatibility. Date men she knows will want to spank her (Dom her, be Dommed by her, etc.--the handle 'SPANK' suggested to me she wanted to be spanked, and this seemed plausible given her letter, but her tastes aren't in fact stated in a surefire way). It's just not the case that any possible Dom looking for a life-partnership and non-exclusive relationship will only talk about what he wants in bed. These are bores like this, and for all I know they make good Doms in a highly specific context. But she's looking for potential long-term partners. Date widely, fuck a few people, and find out if your compatibility on paper makes for genuine sexual chemistry with any of them. DON'T get drawn into an LTR with the first guy you find matching your specs--not unless it's really, really right. You are new to D/s. Perhaps experience the sex, whether in a couple or groups, without the weight of your 'is this the one?' question hanging over your experience. Learn what you actually like, if you don't know. Don't view what you're doing as a quest, an almost impossible solo quest, rather than your taking to a new way of life and entering into a new community.
As regards your last point (your, Philo), yes; and maybe everyone, of any gender, finds it hard to advocate for themselves.
@55. Fichu. 'Find out what's going on'? Well, the ready explanation that people have come up with is that the guy cannot face the humiliation of conceding his cock is small-to-medium. There are other explanations: e.g. those are the only condoms available in his 7-11; he was wrongly informed those were the condoms he should use, or that were his size; he finds correctly-fitting condoms unpleasantly frictional, or something else. Does it matter? The point is 'those condoms don't fit you. There's a risk of them coming off and your getting me pregnant'.
Harriet@64~ “...he was wrongly informed those were the condoms he should use...”
Excuse me, lady behind the counter, I’m in need of some latex protection devices, but don’t know which size to purchase. I’d be ever so grateful if you could reach inside my pocket and do a little manual measuring... nope, don’t think you’ve got enough information, keep on fumbling around... a little more... a little MORE!
Harriet @63, ignore the word "match" then. She has shouted at him, verbally abused him, as Phi says. There may be no proof of cheating but there is proof that she is a verbally abusive asshole. He therefore doesn't even need to address the other red flags. "I won't be spoken to that way. I don't care what your relationship is with this man, with me it's over." (I continue to disagree that he should allow her to deny the cheating, which she'd do either way. What would this solve? In order to get closer to being over her, he should assume she's cheating, and lying, and that he's well rid of her, not naively ponder some innocent explanation.)
Harriet @64 re OKCupid, what I've seen a number of people do is link to their Fetlife profiles. Another good strategy for someone like SPANK to share more information and weed out the incompatible.
I too assumed SPANK was the spankee just because a large majority of straight women, perplexingly, seem to lean that way. It's only important because if true, her odds of meeting a compatible man are even higher than if she is looking for a sub guy. And the odds of converting an open-minded guy to a Dom are higher than those of converting someone to a sub. More reasons I'm sure she has nothing to worry about. In fact, SPANK, if you're reading, I challenge you to check in one year from now and tell us about the nearly-perfect guy you met. (Perhaps I should phrase that as one year from the end of lockdown, but the point stands. Not a tall order at all.)
Re condoms, quite a few men complain that they are too tight or that they "can't feel anything." Perhaps wearing oversized condoms solved those problems for Mr SPANK. Unfortunately, in solving those problems he also defeated the purpose of wearing a condom in the first place. I think only a gentle correction is needed. "Those condoms don't fit you very well, I'm afraid they might come off. Why don't you try these instead?", proffering a selection including her favourite brand.
@66 cont. If SPANK is dominant, she will also be spoiled for choice, as there are far more male subs than female Dommes. Her main challenge there will be avoiding sub frenzy, men so thrilled to find someone on their wavelength that they demand non-stop kink and ignore the other sides of her personality. Or perhaps she's a switch, and that's why she wants to be monogamish -- so that, ie, her Dom will occasionally let her off the leash to go play the dominant role with others.
Lava @ 60 - I'm not saying it's something one should try, Lava. Some experiences are not necessary to live a full and satisfying life. But I saw that a couple of times in the late 80s/early 90s during aids-prevention campaigns, when they were trying to get people to have safer sex. They did it to show that no, condoms are not that tight, and it's not an excuse people could use to avoid putting one on their dick.
Pulver @ 61 - I think it was a latex glove, but I'm not sure.
BiDanFan @67: I doubt that SPANK is a Domme, for exactly the reason you mentioned. In my experience, dominant women tend to be crystal clear, whereas SPANK finds it a "challenge to be honest about what [she is] looking for where kink is concerned."
Being a monogamish switch would explain her looking for someone "who can also enjoy the kink community" with her.
Congrats on the lucky number, Fubar @69! I dunno -- she's a newbie, remember. Inexperienced Dominants can find it hard to vocalise what they want because they are embarrassed that they want to degrade or hurt others, which they've been taught are Bad things. And anyone who has been shamed when they brought up something kinky with a partner who baulked might find it hard to do so in future. So I don't think finding it a challenge to vocalise her desires is necessarily indicative of a sexually submissive nature. I reckon she is probably a sub, though, just due to demographics.
Regarding IGNORED and the question of whether or not his girlfriend is cheating, there is one consideration in the plus column for him dropping it: how will it affect him going forward?
Her cheating is technically unproven. It's not clear that she knew the man, before the move, in any capacity other than landlord and employer. Worst case, 1 AM on the West Coast is 4 AM on the East Coast. Even if it's only a one- or two-hour difference, it's not exactly sexy time.
IGNORED should forget about cheating, and focus on the facts in evidence: she didn't integrate him into her life (the monogamous gold standard), moved across the country, didn't share the details of her new life, and doesn't have time for or interest in him now.
IGNORED should resolve not to accept these things in future, but try to avoid the deep, dark pit of suspicion and jealousy.
I don’t think it’s easier to get over someone when you hate them, I think it’s harder. Because then you’re stuck with the question of how you ended up with someone who is not just a bad match, but hateful. I think it’s easier and more realistic to accept that some people want very different things than I do, such as one who uses verbal abuse in a way I don’t and that makes me feel bad, or who was reluctant to meet my family/friends or introduce me to theirs, or to develop long term plans to live with me, and that I want to learn to identify this sort of incompatibility earlier.. easier than to unrealistically try to believe that I had fallen for and hooked up with a “bad person” that I need to learn to hate.
I also think Mr and Mrs Ignored are weird because if someone expected me to be monogamous while they moved out of state, they better have something awesome to offer to balance how they expect me to be sexless. Maybe he just likes to talk a lot to his girlfriends, but most people appreciate the touching parts of relationships far more IME. Even if I can’t get sex, I need cuddles to feel settled. For some reason, he is not treating the long distance move and the resultant sexlessness as abnormal. I would think that a change to long distance would by default imply an open relationship, unless both people really wanted monogamy enough to handle the sexlessness.. and it was planned to be a temporary separation.. neither of which seems to be the case from IGNORED’s letter.
Instead of trying to fit in with a local scene, which may not actually reflect SPANK’s desires and values, I’d recommend exploring the local scene to see if it’s a good fit for her. I think it’s more important for D/s couples to have very clear honest conversations about their desires and limits, which necessitates a lot of self awareness about their personal desires and limits. Hopefully any bdsm community she finds agrees and does not condone blind obedience, and limits their dogma to safety and consent issues. Blind obedience creates poor voters/citizens IMO.
@70. Bi. My impression was that she was a sub.
@71. Fubar. That is an alternative good approach; there are lots of reasons to call it quits without getting lost in the (likely) cheating.
@66. Bi. IGNORED needs to level with himself and ask why he's so self-effacing, self-doubting. The facts of the case (and these are pretty plain, or at least apparent) are that his partner got close to another man behind his back while they were still living together, then (citing a flimsy pretext) moved all the way across the country to be with him. Yet he starts with e.g. 'my long-distance gf doesn't want to talk'. Why can't he stand on his 'rights'? He seems to feel his suspicions are compromised because they derive from some kind of privacy violation in his looking up her part of a notionally private phone bill. Well ... he had grounds for suspicion, and his intrusion (if that's what it is) is nothing compared to the 'bad' of her cheating, lying, shouting and ignoring him. Is he cutting her slack on misconceived 'feminist' grounds, because she's a woman, and maybe he thinks (maybe) that he's conforming to a template of 'controlling' male-partner behavior? If this is the case, IGNORED, stop. Everyone here (with passing occasional objections) is a feminist, and no one thinks you're the bad guy. No one construes feminism to justify different standards of decency and respect for the two genders (or main genders). You are probably in midlife, or slightly older. Think of the kind of person you want to be with. You can write this current partner (or ex) off; she didn't love you, which is of course easy to say, much harder to acknowledge. What do you want to be like, what could you be like, that you choose the best possible person next time?
@66. Bi. 'Perplexingly'? I think most people incline to the sub, for similar reasons as to why there are more followers than leaders (in politics, in business, in the world of ideas). I also feel it's 'gender training', as it were, for ciswomen and effeminate gay men to gravitate to the sub role. Privately I find it a bit dispiriting, but of course I'm classically like that myself. What I'm saying more is that something in me leaps in celebration, says 'well done!', whenever a woman, like you, is a Domme (or, in cases I'm less likely to come across, a straight guy, authoritative and capable in public or professional life, turns out to be subby).
While I'm here, I will go off one one, an unrelated one, about okcupid. Apparently there's a compatibility-search question on the site aimed at straight guys phrased something like, 'would you date a potential partner if she had gay friends'? As well as the answers, e.g. 'sure, I'm not a bigot' and 'I would not date a woman if she had gay friends', there's (apparently) the option, 'I would date a woman if she had gay friends but not if she had trans friends'. What? The way the question is set up licenses transphobia. It allows it to be thinkable; it allows it to be a theoretical option, for non-homophobes. Surely they should rethink this?
I see the value of looking for someone in the widest possible pool. I see that, in that pool, Christian conservatives want shortcuts to finding each other, and coastal liberals the same. I don't begrudge Match.com, the owners, revenue from people I don't agree with. But ...? It's putting sexual and gender-identity minorities in a difficult position, if, in order to avoid hate speech, they're thrown back into niche-interest pools, which, in all likelihood, are worse places for meeting someone than offline.
@71. Philophile. I get the sense that IGNORED and his supposed partner haven't had the conversation about whether their relationship is now open. She's stringing him along, in other words.
M?? Harriet - Society tries to push certain gays in that direction, yes. But many don't go for it. The reasons vary; some view it as compensating, others like going against stereotypes, etc. It may be interesting to see what happens in the near future, as I suspect that a fair portion of those who would have presented as gay subs in the past have been peeled off by your team.
Maybe niche-interest pools are worse places for some, but I've always found them rewarding.
If LW2 is a straight man (or perhaps a certain shade of bi), he could be one of those Basically Good Men who take the line that one way to redress misogyny (either his own or society's) is through what amounts to overcorrection. He may just be the sort who is all too ready to assume more blame than is rightfully his in any dispute with a woman, or even just in disputes in his relationships. A variation on this occurs in Rumpole and the Tap End, when Mr Justice Featherstone, after making a remark or two in open court that draws the ire of several women's groups, becomes quite obsequious, culminating in his taking exception to Rumpole's sharp cross-examination of a female pathologist who had been less than thorough in performing her duties.
Phi @72: "I think it’s harder." Agreed and seconded. Hatred takes up so much energy.
Harriet @73: "not if she had trans friends". My first reaction was the same as yours, but then I remembered the dating objective of eliminating the dross.
Harriet, “no one thinks you're the bad guy”
I don’t understand your habit of looking for a “bad guy” when there’s a conflict (of interest). Because I don’t believe in “bad guys”. I do believe in “bad behavior” which can be reasonably argued to cause unnecessary pain. Like swearing at someone in anger, or trying to silence someone else through shouting. Or lying (which is not proven here although she appears to be cheating from the behavior listed) (and he also appears to simultaneously value the relationship by trying to maintain it long distance and worry about possible cheating, and not value it enough to move with her or try to find a way for her to pursue her dreams locally or have a frank discussion about long distance sexlessness). The “bad behavior” in the letter doesn’t seem like something to clutch pearls over, to me. It seems more that these two people probably want different things, and neither is being clear about their expectations or making any future plans together. He can only control his behavior, decide if he wants to try to invest more into some future plans that they would both like and offer an open relationship while they are long distance since he’s worried that’s what she wants, or to start over locally and look for a different and more compatible woman.. and be consistent in his decision.. but wallowing in anger that it didn’t work out seems antiproductive.
And.. I’ve made mistakes and have exhibited “bad behavior” plenty over my life. And I don’t think I’m a “bad person“. I think I made mistakes and learned from them. It would be hypocritical of me to believe that others deserved poorer treatment.
Congrats on the 69 Fubar!
Lava, I bet you could still find a couple to play with, or a couple of men who are up for some group sex, if you wanted to spend a few weeks looking. The more people involved, the more can go wrong.. but I’m sure you could find the experience even if it’s not exactly scripted like your fantasy. And you could pay for a fantasy script, I bet..
Ricardo, I’m glad you’re alive and hopefully getting healthier, thanks for starting to write again. I’d prefer this column to have a majority of queer voices, but I do like writing here.. at least I prefer nonmonogamy and have my own sexual minority..
BDF, if SPANK doesn’t want her bf to act monogamish, and only wants to have extra freedom herself, it would be clearer and more honest to say that she wants a cuck or hotwifer. Otherwise, she should try to feel comfortable with rather than dismissive of partnered guys who play with others.. or try to become more comfortable with monogamy.. I don’t think it’s very nice to be cagey about wanting more freedom or effort than you’re willing to extend your partner.. Also, I think cheating can sometimes be worse than verbal abuse.. exposing a partner to stds, cheating in their marital bed or with a partner’s good friends or family.. and some verbal abuse can be crazy making and soul destroying.. depends..
Fubar @71, well said. There are enough relationship enders here that it doesn't matter whether she was cheating. In fact, I think he may find he has already been dumped. A "you can't fire me, I quit" might be satisfying for him though, and give him closure.
Phi @72, I don't think IGNORED should actively cultivate hatred for his ex. I do think he should, for now, focus on the negatives. Not the good things about their relationship, presumably there were some, as this will leave him pining and wishfully thinking the relationship might be salvageable. But all the reasons she is not right for him. This does not need to be done in a hateful manner, nor should it be dwelt on long term; but I have found it helpful in the short term, to get over that "denial" stage of grieving for a dead relationship.
As for whether LDRs are presumed open by default, while I too find that logical, I don't think it is the case for monogamous people generally. Certainly they would need to negotiate this, not just presume they are now free to boink (or even romantically cuddle) other people. I think most monogamous people would presume that forsaking all others means forsaking all others and consider a non-approved breach of this cheating. I was long-distance with my ex-husband for a while and this was certainly the case. Conjugal visits and, these days, sexting/video chats would be the presumed outlet. I'm sure some monogamous couples negotiate otherwise and I'm sure it would depend on the distance, duration of the separation, possibility of regular visits, and jealousy levels of the people involved. In practice it seems that quite often, opening a LDR is the first step in ending it, particularly when there is no concrete plan for reunion, as one or both people catches feelings for their local bit on the side and decides that moving for this person seems too much hassle when they have a bird in the hand.
Harriet @73: "My impression was that she was a sub." Agree, but the only basis for this is gender stereotypes, wouldn't you agree?
Re IGNORED, I don't think we need to jump to misplaced feminism to explain IGNORED's actions when garden variety low self-esteem seems the likeliest culprit.
Re SPANK, yes, of course I'm perplexed that large numbers of women, after a long day of being subordinate to men in the workplace and just about every other aspect of society, would want to come home and further submit to a man in bed. Why (rhetorically) would they not want instead to take the one opportunity available to them to turn the tables, to even the score, by demanding their oppressors submit to them? Until I read otherwise in this column, it seemed logical to presume most women would share my inclination. I realise now that I am unusual, but it's still perplexing, the way one might be perplexed to hear someone say they don't like chocolate. :)
Re OKCupid, I haven't seen that question but I will state that the questions are crowd sourced, not written by OKCupid staffers. I have also seen some stupid questions/answers and I just skip them. It's also possible to answer the question and add one's own note. So if I were to answer that question, I might add a note like "if you wouldn't be friends with a trans person, you can count me out."
BiDanFan @79: It may be that the D/s switch is thrown before young people discern and grapple with the patriarchy. Most of the subby women I know are feminists.
There’s a D/ s switch? Like on/ off? Wow. Where’s it located?
Feminists? Must be feminists lite, because you can’t handle the strong ones. Notice it’s only the strong women who stand up to you that you’ve deleted, fubar.
@69 fubar: WA-HOOOOOOOOOO!!!!! Congratulations on scoring this week's luscious @69 Award! Savor the much-envied delectable glory found only here in Savage Love Land. :)
Dan the Man: Since the crowning success of your Santorum contest in 2003, I'm surprised that you haven't had another contest to rename the name Trump into a derogatory sexual term.
Griz offers this entry:
"Trump [ trumps, trumped, trumping ]: To be fucked hard up the ass SO severely that one vomits fecal matter out of the mouth, while brainwashed into believing that is a good thing."
Example of Trump, used in a sentence:
"WOW. I lost my income, home, healthcare, personal possessions, Constitutional rights, my family's dying, and my taxes got tripled. But at least I still get to misquote bibles and keep my guns because I got Trumped last night in a rally!".
Sez Griz: 'Santorum found on bedsheets is bad enough; rampant Trumping in the White House is infinitely worse.'
"rename the name Trump into a derogatory sexual term"
I think you're proposing an unprecedented challenge for Dan.
First, because "trump" was already a word before we ever heard of the monstrously diabolical name "Trump".
Second, because all manner of sexual behavior is already associated with the evil Trump, including countless sexual assaults, a complex about his tiny little mushroom, and paying women to piss on him.
The public imagination is already overflowing with sexual images, is there really room for your vision of him anally penetrating his followers? And even if we could, don't the masses already have enough toxic images related to anal sex without thinking of it resulting in projectile vomiting shit?
All this said griz, hugs for having your heart in the right place.
@85 curious2: Many thanks. In my heat of passionate comment posting I had forgotten that DJT itself is so toxic, any new sexually derogatory term to describe Trumpty Dumpty is basically more raw sewage under the septic tank floodgates.
Perhaps I have recently viewed The Exorcist too many times this Halloween and election season. >sigh<
It's just as well. I'm ready for some holiday CD and DVD distraction, anyway, glad that my votes for BIden / Harris, Inslee, et al Democrat weren't for naught....
Griz @83: I agree with curious @85, but get where you're coming from. It would be just and right to come up with a definition of "Trump" that captures the full experience. Last week's commentary devolved into a shit show about one particular word, but there's plenty of room in the lexicon for another word that properly evokes "Trump". It would be a bitter stew of definitions.
Myself @80: I should clarify that the D/s switch is a 3-way, as there's clearly an "off" position.
@83: I don't know if it's needed. After all, the Orange Enemy is spreading his santorum all over the world.
"a bitter stew of definitions"
From what I've read he has every psychological disorder; so his definition should be so much the stew it would fit the phrase "everything but the kitchen sink". Which is where the garbage disposal is in which that stew belongs.
Harriet @63: "Well, why would she say 'monogamish' if what she means is 'monogamous'?"
That really was an incomplete train of thought, and I'll try to clarify. I'd imagined she's subby, and she mentioned having encountered open relationships and couples. I imagined that "monogamish" was her internal compromise, as often seems to be the case with submissive newbies, and that her preference would be monogamous.
Not to upset any of the battle-axe, my-way-or-the-highway so-called feminist lurkers, a whole lot of newbie submissive women want to be owned, used, collared, and cared for by their Doms. They exchange submission for a deep degree of engagement and caring. Non-monogamy complicate this.
All of that said, BiDanFan has suggested a few more well thought out, explanations for "monogamish", and I'm leaning that way now.
@87 fubar, @89 musicbiker, and @90 curious2: How about this for a term:
DJT= Trumpage spiral ? It would demonstrate the bottomless downward funneling of senseless waste spreading into an abysmally dark, widening hole, feeding off the most ignorant of U.S. citizens.
Hoo boy---this is why I am SO glad I don't have a TV or subscribe to Twitter.
I think that's the best definition I've seen for an already existent word: "Trumpism". More power to you, griz, for that achievement.
But still, there's a great challenge before one seeking to coin a /new/ word for an apocalyptic-ally Satanic tumor that's already been consuming humanity for years into it's vast horror.
@93 curious2: Many thanks. I try. Every so often I manage to whack one out of the park.
Tonight Griz is retreating to further film distraction; this time, very fittingly from the 80s: Ordinary People (1980), and The Big Chill (1983).
Before Griz signs off for the evening, who's up for this week's Big Hunsky honors? Lava?Tick...tick...tick...
Fubar @80, oh, I understand that intellectually, it just makes no sense to me viscerally. Of course feminism versus not has nothing to do with many people's sexual desires. It was just a surprise to me to learn this, since personally, mine are closely aligned. Until this column I actually would have estimated roughly equal numbers of Doms versus subs, and that's based not just on projection but what I saw in fetish clubs. Perhaps in the 90s, dominant women were simply more visible, more likely to be "out" at the clubs, as projecting dominance is not as risky in a room full of strangers as projecting submission when one is a single woman.
Griz @83, you'll be pleased to learn that trump is slang for fart in the UK. :)
Fubar @88, it's also a double (triple?) entendre, as indeed one may be D, s or switch. :)
Fubar @91, it's not just female subs who want to be collared and "owned." I will return the compliment, though -- you picked up on her wanting someone who can "enjoy the kink community with me." This suggests monogamous in the sheets, slutty in the fetish clubs to me. Though unless she checks in, we may never know.
@96 BiDanFan: Leave it to the Brits to be perfectly apt! Trump in the U.K. = fart.
SO appropriate---I always knew Trumpty Dumpty was nothing but hot, odiferous foul air, smoke, and mirrors.
Messrs Curious/Bar - I don't think either of you were among the assembled company a few years ago when a reader sent Mr Savage a photo of a license plate that read "NO TRUMP" and an awkward story of trying to congratulate the driver only to learn that her political assumptions had rightly given offence to a longtime bridge player. Even if I were a Blue No Matter Who voter (which, as this has given us Pres-Elect DOMA, is about the greatest conceivable difference for me), I'd call the offence rightful - chances were excellent that the driver played in perhaps six to eight games each week in an assortment of bridge clubs. The chance that someone that devoted to bridge would take even half such an interest in any particular politician is miniscule.
For some reason I provided first names here, but it doesn't seem to work.
Mx Wanna/M?? Harriet - As our Resident Experts, I thought one, the other or both of you might have something worthwhile to read on how Mr (Harry) Styles in a dress recently became apparently the first man to appear alone on the cover of Vogue. Those great ring-wing defenders of personal freedom, Ms (Candace) Owens and Mr (Ben) Shapiro, took great exception to this as a sign of "the destruction of Western civilization" and publicly bemoaned this "forced feminization of Western men". I've seen several left-wing takedowns of their reactions. While all had at least some merit, my two main takeaways have discouraged me. One was that every presenter but one (all male) was sure to centre that, above all else, he had no personal interest in wearing a dress himself.
The other was what an overwhelming number of leftists truly seem to love and cherish anything that appears even remotely to resemble a "legitimate" excuse to make anti-gay comments. A plurality of threads seemed devoted to Bachmanning Mr Shapiro with high glee. Some of that seems inevitable, given his small stature and squeaky tendency to speak almost as quickly as Mrs (Billie Jean) King. A large part of why I'm becoming so much more a separatist revolves around my increasing observation of how DS leftists seem to NEED anti-gay outlets. The late Mr (Michael) Brooks, to whom I attribute the founding of Ironic Ironic Homophobia (his Ironic Homophobia clearly contained a strong element of sincerity) was wildly popular mainly for that reason, which I think is because he seemed to grant leftists permission to consult only their own feelings in considering whether or when to be, do or say anything anti-gay. Even if an eventual Leftopia didn't give the (anti-gay) Working Class all the power, we'd still never have anything even tolerably like equality.
"Psychiatric Expert: Trump Will Not Hesitate to Cause Violence to Stay in Power"
"eventual Leftopia didn't give the (anti-gay) Working Class"
Maybe by the time Leftopia comes the working class won't be anti-gay anymore.
My dream is to imagine a day there is no rightwing anymore; if the rightwing's negative educational reforms were reversed, that could happen with healthy, enlightened education.
But more generally, I completely agree with your calling out anti-gay bigotry; particularly important when it's subtle. I recall reading a very minor celeb begin his tale of attending a pride parade by emphasizing he went with his 'beautiful girlfriend'; he couldn't bear readers thinking (even for an instant) that he was gay.
SPANK’s undisclosed inclinations bring to mind other letters in which gender, orientation, and the like are kept neutral, part of a currently growing trend as Mr. Venn keeps reminding us.
I’m not sure who’s benefitting from all this. While we the people keep speculating and generating posts, letter writers are likely to benefit from more specific advice if such details were not omitted from their own letters or edited out for publication.
Same goes to meaningless cover photos and other feel good “inclusions” that often water down the issues and attempt to force “acceptance” when there is no need for it. While this is better than outright fear and hatred it may hurt true acceptance in the long run as it portrays gender non-conformity as mostly shock value entertainment, a way to draw attention and promote sales.
As for SPANK, I’m also leaning towards considering her a sub yet acknowledge BDF’s eloquent suggestions to the somewhat remotely possible contrary. Again, she could get much better advice if we had more details.
Comments are closed.
Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.