Savage Love Sep 28, 2021 at 11:10 am

Figuratively Pissed

Joe Newton









Firdt comment of substance. Great column this week - it really shows that Dan can be serious when needed, and cheeky when needed. Poor URINE, I hope she gets out soon. And I hope that on her way out, she encourages her ex to seek professional help. Something ain't right in this boy's head.


It always amazes me what some people will put up with in order to maintain a dysfunctional and destructive relationship.
I imagine this poor woman is probably in a near constant state of dehydration for fear of having to urinate at night, when her BF is at work, etc.
Hopefully she takes Dan's advice and gets out of the relationship, however; I have my doubts.


Deep shame on your boyfriend for horrifically abusing you.

"If he doesn’t get to watch me pee every single time...he would throw a fit of epic proportions."

Oh FFS. He was not entitled to ownership over every drop of your pee. It was a priviledge you could or could not grant, not a right. Immediately stop granting a literal drop of that priviledge.

It's not impossible that an army of therapists could bring your BF to a place of psychological health.

But you shouldn't wait for that! Let that be part of the healthy life he may someday have partnered with someone else. You must break up with him now.

Because the roles people establish in relationship with each other can become like wagon wheel ruts. Long after they change such that their behavior becomes healthy with others, they'll still be in dysfucntional ruts with each other that are nearly impossible to get out of because of not just inertia, but many other kinds of huge challenges to both individuals.

Because you guys have a child to co-parent, it's all the more important that you each navigate your way to some healthy new relationship roles. (It'll take a lot of work for you both to get there, so you should both get started now, separately.)

And not just for him. Your work on yourself will bring you to a place where you wouldn't let yourself get into or remain in a relationship with an abuser again. If you don't do that work, you'll likely just find someone else to repeat the terrible pattern; don't let that become your life, URINE.

Sometimes people choose abusers because they're afraid that a healthy person will leave them. Some therapists specialise in self esteem to free patients from that kind of fear.

In any case, do the work, URINE. Nothing is more important or worthwhile than growth. Please check back in before long and let us know how your journey to a great new, healthy life is going.


URINE, while you are waiting for a safe time to leave, start lying about whether you've peed when he's not around.


BDF @ 7: Excellent point. While she begins to extricate herself from this hellish scenario, URINE absolutely needs to lie to this idiot lest she give him any further reasons to abuse her Ugh!


"No, I didn't pee while you were away. And I don't have to pee now. I can't figure out why, I've been drinking water like crazy, but I haven't peed once all week. I think I need to see my doctor."


URINE: You had my DTMFA vote at "he would throw a fit of epic proportions" and I really didn't expect it to be followed by "after I had our child" and "I don’t want to break up my family over this."

The only way to accomplish the latter would be to have him stuffed and mounted, which he richly deserves.

You do realize that you have to end it, don't you? People are advising that, and assuming you will, but... will you? You must, for your own health and safety, and for that of your child. There's very little that's worse than growing up in the shadow of an abusive parent.


Further advice to URINE - document, document, document. If he's sent you any batshit texts about your bodily functions, save them in your phone and forward them to an email address he doesn't have access to. Get a log of what he says and does re: your bodily functions and the way he acts if you have the audacity to pee when you aren't around. Could help with any restraining orders and/or custody arrangements if/when it comes to that point. Call a domestic abuse hotline and they may be able to help you escape this situation. There are government programs that may be able to help you get out and avoid returning to your abuser if you're financially dependent on him. But please for the love, get out and get out yesterday. This is not an over-indulged kink gone wrong; it is physical and psychological abuse.


I don't think I can endorse Dan's advice for TSCR to seek out a houseboy. Find a manly man who can hew wood and cleave rocks. That would put a bow on it for me.

P.S. Humour alert.


Curious @6: In an abusive relationship, co-parenting rights are not automatic, and URINE doesn't have to envision a future inextricably tied to her abuser. There are workarounds for parental access in these situations. I second Mrs. Fox's advice @11.


" have to end it, don't you? ...but... will you?"

That's the tough part. Looking into my own past, it pretty much didn't matter what anyone said. I only ended it when I got to the point that I was ready to.

Maybe URINE needs to work on herself, hopefully including a good therapist, to get ready to.


URINE, it sounds like you're in a really tough place. I understand why you made the comment about it being above Dan's paygrade, although I raised an eyebrow when I first read it. Because this isn't really a solvable problem. You've asked him how to make this situation be ok without leaving this guy, and that's not a thing. You were hoping there was an easy answer you'd missed. You haven't missed anything. But paygrade or not, he brought out the big guns for you! I hope you can hear them.

It's probably overwhelming to contemplate extricating yourself. But if you take enough little steps you can set yourself up for this big step. Good luck and take care.

Also @7 BDF I loled at this sneaky clever advice, but then worried it could backfire depending on how good URINE already is at lying and how over the top her abuser is.


"co-parenting rights are not automatic"

It was foolish of me not to think of that, good on y'all!

I do not envy her submitting that evidence in a legal forum, but URINE should remember that he, not she, is the only one who did anything wrong.


I think the language Dan offered for your post as well as his assumed target audience suggest that he thinks you will attract lots of subs. And he’s right that if I read a personal ad that went something like "Married lesbian seeks houseboy, will milk for chores,” it’s possible that if I did reply I would have included a picture of the maid and ask a friend to vouch for my cleaning skills.

But I’m not sure that this is what YOU want. It seems to me that for you this is more or less of an exchange between equals, an honest deal that works for all involved. Obviously, you are free to choose your own dynamic, just be aware that if D/s is on the menu then the supply is indeed likely to exceed the demand.
Regardless, screen your candidates carefully and meet them in a public place before inviting them to clean yours.


I was in college when I first learned about intimate partner abuse 40 years ago. Back then it was a guy beating up a woman, and the implication was that he was motivated by a desire to control her. Sex was part of the relationship, but the beatings weren't sexual. At that time, I learned that "why does she stay" was the a question you were never allowed to ask because that would put some of the responsibility for the beatings on her. We were supposed to stay focused on the fact that HE was the abuser, HE was the criminal. She was the blameless victim.

The years have gone by, and I'm not satisfied with that any more. Sure I get that URINE's husband is a controlling sicko, but can't we blame URINE a little for putting up with this for as long as she has? Or can we at least wonder how she got the idea that any of this is normal? I want to know what would have happened if, the first time URINE's husband got angry with her for not holding her urine at work, she'd said "oh hell no". The marriage would have lasted on those terms or it wouldn't. Either would have been preferable to what she has now.

On a practical level, this is all unnecessary. If the husband's real thing was just that he liked a steady stream, all URINE would have had to do was urinate normally throughout the day (and night). Then when they wanted to have sex, she'd drink a bunch of water, fill her bladder and hold it briefly, like a minute, and he gets what he wants.


Urine needs to think of her kid. Abusers don’t generally limit their abuse to just 1 person. It manifests itself in many ways and with many people. For the well being of your child, you need to leave that relationship. Of course, the kid is his and she may not be able to sever that father relationship, but limiting it and having that overseen by the court will be much better than unfettered 24/7 access to his child.


Fichu@18: "Can't we blame URINE a little for putting up with this for as long as she has?"

I would be willing to bet that URINE is already blaming herself for this, and this is part of what is preventing her from doing what we all want her to do, to leave this hellish relationship. So no, we can't blame URINE. Not even a little. Because if she's reading these comments, that blame might add to the self-doubt and guilt that is keeping her and her child in a dangerous situation.


"Houseboy" is the operative word, and one which I can't recall seeing in a DS setting.

My first take was that W2 sounded like someone who thinks that DS men get enough perks in this world as it is, but then I don't have a large acquaintance among sex workers.

How LW2 should navigate the (mostly) I'll leave to the SS women.


Fichu @18: We can wonder how she got the idea that any of this is normal, or we can Google "Stockholm Syndrome".

Joe @19: Even if the abuser doesn't abuse the child, the abuse hangs in the air like poison. Children are attuned to everything, and this will damage them. She needs to get the hell out.


Fichu @18: "Then when they wanted to have sex, she'd drink a bunch of water'.

That's not how his "fetish" works. He's not just a urophiliac, or pee fan (many of whom are lovely people). He's a 24/7 sadistic, psychopathic control freak.


Venn @ 21
“…one which I can't recall seeing in a DS setting.” My Own Private Idaho?

“[L]W2 sounded like someone who thinks that DS men get enough perks in this world as it is”
Not necessarily. I think she likes “giving” yet may feel obligated to respond to her wife, in terms of “what’s in it for me.” The wife, a former sex worker, can’t see why LW would enjoy stroking and felating a la carte, and both may see the potential to get some housework done in exchange. LW might also embrace her possibly newly found D-inclined persona.
I don’t see anything wrong with any of it as long as all involved are on the same page.


LW1, oh dear. Dan & his experts are right, this man is toxic and you have to get away from him & soon, please.
Your child has not got a functioning family when dad is terrorising mum, & they will be feeling fear from his violence too.
Is there somewhere you can go & stay in safety? Family members who this thug can’t bully?


@1 Harrison Fnord: WA-HOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!! Congratulations on scoring this week's hotly vied for FIRDT! honors! Bask in your envied glory and savor the perks of leading the comment thread. :)

@2 SNJ-RN: WA-HOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!! Congratulations on scoring this week's SECNOD! honors, among the first three commenters to lead this week's Savage Love comment thread! Savor the numeric honors and bask in your newfound glory. :)

@3 BiDanFan: WA-HOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!! Congratulations on scoring this week's THIRDT! honors! Bask in you numeric honors found only here in Savage Love Land. :)

More lucky numbers to come, for those participating in the Lucky Numbers Game. The luscious Lucky @69 is next up. Good luck! :)


Lulu @15, yes, I did think of that as well, but risking his temper versus risking her urinary health led me to advise her to put her health first.
Another idea I had: She says he "allows" her to take a video of when she pees in a public bathroom. Would he accept this anytime she has to go and he's not there? Can she tell him that she's making this change on doctor's orders? He sounds completely irrational and unwilling to accept that, but for her health it may be worth a try. But yeah, ideally no half measures here. Run, run, RUN!!!

CMD @17, good point that if TSCR makes it about providing a service in exchange for a blow/handjob, she may well get more than she bargained for. Does Mrs TSCR just not understand the concept of enjoying the act of performing these acts, or is she vetoing the hall pass unless TSCR gets something in return? As the former sex worker, perhaps Mrs TSCR should set and extract the "price." But then SHE'D be giving away a service for free, as CMD has rightly noted.

Fichu @18: "can we at least wonder how she got the idea that any of this is normal?" I think this is a much better question. URINE seems to think she is not being GGG unless she indulges this "kink" of her boyfriend's. You're right that she could achieve a "strong stream" by downing a pint of water before urinating, so this isn't about him having a urine fetish -- it's about him controlling her to the point of physical harm. And you're also right that the bigger question is what has given her the idea that this is IN ANY WAY acceptable -- a question that needs to be explored in a therapist's office. (He's her boyfriend, not husband -- one small mercy.)

Joe @19, yes. If she can't put herself first here, perhaps she'll put her child first and get both of them as far away from this psycho as possible.


URINE: I had to stop reading just after "he would throw a fit of epic proportions" because your letter to Dan hit too close to home for me. I second fubar's (@10) DTMFA vote. Please--once you devise a safety escape plan and a trusted support network of family, friends, neighbors, et. al., take your child and leave this controlling and abusive monster. If you value your health and sanity--and from what I read in your letter you certainly do---you need to end it. I fully realize that with a child you are in a tough position. But for your sake and that of your kid, health, sanity and safety come first.

October 16, 2021 marks twenty years since my divorce from an equally controlling and abusive monster became finalized. When I last heard from my ex he was twice divorced and into a third marriage. I knew I couldn't save him---I had to save myself instead.


BiDan @27 regarding Fichu @18: "'Can we at least wonder how she got the idea that any of this was normal?' I think this is a much better question."

Wonder, sure. But blame URINE? Absolutely not. Using "blame" to me cancels out whatever else might be useful about comment #18.


"can't we blame URINE a little for putting up with this"

I understand that Fichu is talking to /us/ here.

When talking /to/the/victim/ of course we don't use the word /blame/ in doing so, but @6 as always I pointed out that /URINE/ also has a problem otherwise she wouldn't have been "in a relationship with an abuser".

Because of course blame isn't the point: the point is to nudge her towards growth so she'll not just leave but not go on to find a lifetime of abusers to have relationships with.

"what would have happened if, the first time URINE's husband got angry with her for not holding her urine at work, she'd said "oh hell no""

Well stated; it's difficult for /us/ to imagine saying anything else, isn't it?

I'm concerned that suggestions of compromises with URINE's abuser are going to work against convincing her to leave.


Never give an angry person what they want. Unless what they want is a nice long, distant physical and emotional separation. However a lecture about asking nicely is appropriate for minors. Also it seems OK to help an angry person figure out what they want, especially while their anger is not directed at ourselves.

Rewarding anger with compliance simply teaches that person that anger works to manipulate you.


Philophile @31: Agreed. When someone is coming at you in a rage, the way the anger is being vented should be the topic of conversation, and not the thing they're angry about.


URINE's letter is so appalling I hope it's a fake! And she brought a child into this word with that monster? A true match for Sybil Dorsett's mother!


TSCR writes: "I am somewhat attracted to men, but only in the context of a threesome with my wife. While I don't have any desire to sleep with men on my own, I do like giving handjobs to men along with the occasional blowjob."

Can someone help me understand this? Is she saying that outside of threesomes she's not attracted to men but still attracted to dick?

If so, maybe she could date women with functional dicks? I'm also wondering if she has asked her wife to play along with a dildo and some dirty talk about "sucking that cock," if that gets TSCR aroused.


Very interesting question. After she writes

"I am somewhat attracted to men, but only in the context of a threesome with my wife"

it does appear like just the dick that she's attracted to sans wife.

I'm even more struck by that only with her wife there is she attracted to men (which does make a trans woman a smart suggestion).

And it doesn't sound like her wife wants to be there (though is "fine with" the hand and blow jobs.

I'm reminded of the porn category named 'forced bi' in which men want their woman partner to want/demand/etc that they have same sex sex; given that the of her wife being there makes TSCR attracted to men, perhaps what TSCR * really * would dig is for her wife to /want/ her to have sex with men.


URINE Holy sh*t, pun unintended, you need to get out of that horrifically abusive relationship as soon as you possibly can. Not only is he putting your physical health at risk, which he doesn’t seem to care about, he is putting your mental and emotional health at risk. This wasn’t even your kink to begin with, he should be happy you were GGG and indulged him to start. You need to think about your child’s well-being as well. This man sounds unstable and dangerous. Please seek help and get out! His behavior sounds like it is escalating and only will continue to. I really implore you to get out for you and your child.


Ms Erica - I took LW2's enjoyment to be similar to the enjoyment some asexuals say they derive from having sex (albeit without attraction).

Mx Wanna - I was giving an impression of LW2's wife's possible point of view, as Mr Savage had done.


Curious @30, oh, 100% she should leave. I'm just addressing the possibility that it may not be safe for her to do so immediately, and suggesting things she could do to protect her health in the meantime.

EricaP @34: My theory is she is visually turned on by cum shots. Only a biological dick can produce those, and only in hand- or blowjobs can you see them. But someone with a biological dick probably wants to do other things, hence the threesomes. A special guest star could fuck Mrs TSCR until he/she/they were ready to come, then TSCR finishes them off with her hand or mouth, everyone's happy. And/or, perhaps she's attracted to men in the context of threesomes as a hotwifing thing. She doesn't say her wife is any degree of lesbian; if the wife is bi, then maybe she gets off watching her wife get fucked, but isn't interested enough in men to want to fuck them herself.

It is possible that Mrs TSCR might have a more favourable view of TSCR outsourcing this desire to a trans woman than to a man, but it's also less likely a trans woman, particularly one taking hormones, could produce the cum shot TSCR desires. If she were able to find a trans woman who can ejaculate reliably, she might enjoy reciprocal sex -- but while this may be good for her, it's not clear it would be good for her wife, who might be fine with TSCR outsourcing something she can't do but not with her having relationships with other women.


I wish she'd told us more about the threesomes. And not just for my personal entertainment.

"A special guest star could fuck Mrs TSCR until he/she/they were ready to come, then TSCR finishes them off with her hand or mouth, everyone's happy."

Well maybe, but the only member of the TSCR household that we have reason to think might want to get fucked by the guest star during their threesomes is the letter writer TSCR (who, interestingly only with her wife present [as EricaP@38 observes], becomes magically "somewhat attracted to men").

From the letter, it looks like the time that it's definitely gonna only be (blow and hand) jobs is TSCR solo.


Don’t judge people who stay in abusive relationships, or blame them. Even for having children with their abusers.
It can be that the abuser hooks into patterns already known by the abused from childhood. Not having strong & healthy boundaries.
LW1: anger is a great manipulator. My ex used it, and now in my home anger is stopped before it grows, unless the person is still a child, in age.
Developing healthy boundaries won’t happen why you stay with this man, so the exit needs to start. You need to put your body & your child’s mental health front & centre.
First up you need to make that first step in your mind, that you are leaving. You don’t deserve this crazy, your body is being damaged by this odious man’s demands on you.


@39 p.s.
At least that's what Spock thinks.


LW2; interesting. Yes, Dan, washing showers might be a stretch too far for some.
I like your thinking, LW2, though I’d be real careful doing it thru the internet, without care. So please be safe.
And before any blowjob is given, they do the housework first. Cause too tired after.


Well, of course it's obvious to us that URINE's problem isn't that her boyfriend has a kink or fetish, but that he's a controlling and abusive asshat.

But I'm kind of surprised that URINE is even couching his behavior as sexual in nature. It may have had its origins in sex, but look at her examples: he wants her to wake him up at night--or not, because he gets grouchy if he's awakened, but if she did awaken him when she had to pee, would he have immediately started jacking off? Likewise he gets furious if she pees at work, but why? I assume that he's also at work (and I'm going to assume that they both work the standard 8:00-5:00 hours) and would therefore be unable to do anything about the theoretical boner that seeing his gf pee would provide during the workday.

If it was just a sexual kink, there's no reason she couldn't just pee at work and then pee again at home for him. It sounds as though he might have conflated URINE's peeing with HER being turned on or having some kind of sex with someone. Perhaps he thinks if she pees while she's at work, someone else at work is watching her and getting off on it.

But that doesn't explain this: "after I had our child, I literally wasn’t allowed to have thirty seconds alone in the bathroom after shoving a human out of my vagina in full view of ten adults I did not know. Even then—in the hospital—he had to watch me pee." If this was really sexual for him, what did he expect to happen in the hospital--that they would have sex? That he would be able to masturbate to the sight of her peeing?

Not only is this awful and controlling, but it's irrational, especially if he and she are treating it as a sexual fetish and seems to be something far beyond that. URINE is correct when she says, "I feel like my humanity is being leached away. I’ve said all these things to him, and He. Does. Not. Care. This has taken over my entire life."

URINE, you answered your own question--not that you asked an actual question. This man has taken over your life and invaded your most private of basic body functions as if they belonged to him. He is well aware that you feel that your humanity has been leached away, and as you said yourself, he doesn't care. YOU need to care about yourself--your physical health and safety, and your mental, psychological, and emotional well being; and you also need to think about your child. Because this is not the kind of environment you want your child to be reared in.

I'm struck by the two LOLs in the letter. They could be a tic of URINE's: god knows, I've encountered people who seem unable to write more than a sentence without sprinkling them in, but they also could be a sign that she knows there is something very wrong here and she's trying for any number of reasons, to downplay the abuse. I once had a friend who was in an abusive relationship. He'd tell me some awful thing that his (thankfully) now-ex-wife would have done or said and after a litany of really disturbing or even fairly horrific behavior or statements, he'd wrap up by saying, "it's all good." I finally said, "No, Maxidelphia, it's not 'all good.' In fact, it sounds terrible. Why are you pretending this behavior is okay?" It turned out that he was a big believer in that whole "putting it out into the universe" thing, wherein he believed he had to be relentlessly positive so that positive things would come his way. I think the other factor contributing to his whole "it's all good" response was shame: he knew it wasn't good; he knew it wasn't right. But he was also embarrassed at revealing his wife to be an asshat and himself to be her victim. Lastly, he was scared to do what he needed to do if he acknowledged how abusive she was, which would be for him to take the kids and leave. That's scary. Even if you're getting no help whatsoever with the children, it's scary to do something that you know will ensure that you and you alone will be solely responsible 24/7 when you haven't technically been. If URINE acknowledges to us and herself how seriously fucked-up this is, she's going to have to DO SOMETHING about it--and that might no be what she wants to have to do.


Curious @39: "the only member of the TSCR household that we have reason to think might want to get fucked by the guest star during their threesomes is the letter writer"
I have no reason to think Mrs TSCR -wouldn't- want to get fucked by the guest star. Do you?
Logically, if TSCR is only somewhat attracted to men, likes threesomes, and likes handjobs and blowjobs but not PIV or cunnilingus from a guy, it seems that these activities, if present at all, would be enjoyed by the guest star and Mrs TSCR.
Mrs TSCR is more reciprocally inclined, but perhaps she indulges these threesomes to be GGG to TSCR -- she seems them as benefiting her wife, not Some Dude. (Or perhaps the fact that they benefit Some Dude is one reason they're currently on hold.) And just because she does not enjoy blowjobs or handjobs enough to want to give these freely, does not necessarily imply she doesn't enjoy getting fucked, which is a more obviously reciprocal activity.
Like I said, it's a theory. But nothing in the letter disproves it.


I don't think the word "Logically" really belongs at the start of that paragraph since you go on to say that she doesn't want cunnilingus from a guy.

We do not know what she wants as part of threesomes! She only says that /solo/ she only wants to give hand and blow jobs.

"Mrs TSCR is more reciprocally inclined"

Well we only know that in the sole sense of her being bothered by TSCR's solo non-reciprocal plan.

"Do you?'s a theory. But nothing in the letter disproves it."

No, good point. Like I said I wish we had more info about the threesomes.

That she didn't say anything about her wife's interest in men (while she did say she is sometimes attracted to men), together with that her lesbian wife did sex work with men, makes /me/ hypothesize that (as I believe is a common thing) part of her wife's comfort with sex work was a /lack/ of interest in men. Like you say of yours, that is just Spock's theory.


@45 p.s.
" go on to say that she doesn't want cunnilingus from a guy. We do not know what she wants as part of threesomes! She only says that /solo/ she only wants to give hand and blow jobs."

An edit:
"cunnilingus" should read "PIV or cunnilingus"

And unlike solo when she is not attracted to guys, during threesomes she is (somewhat) attracted to them. So it seems to me that perhaps that attraction results in wanting more on the menu then, after all that's what attraction is for.


I am shocked to read about a lesbian who enjoys giving handjobs and blowjobs to men.

Recently, I was having a conversation in the comments with a lesbian who said that men often become very interested in her when she mentions that she is a lesbian. I was also shocked by that.

I think that given the choice between a lesbian and Maryanne from Gilligan's Island, most straight men would go with Maryanne, but Maryanne is probably harder to court, and less likely to want to hookup, and is definitely less likely to be interested in giving a one time blowjob. I think that heterosexual men see lesbians as more adventurous and easier. Also, maybe heterosexual men have lesbian on their sexual bucketlist, while wanting a relationship with Maryanne.

I should probably be less shocked by what I read on Savage Love.


"I think that heterosexual men see lesbians as...easier."

If that's right that is crazy (to think that the gender not attracted to you would be easier).

A common theory (based on men not being crazy) is the notion of pursuing lesbians as a challenge.


When I was much younger and less comfortable with saying "no" directly, I used to try to deflect men who were hitting on me in bars or clubs or what-have-you by saying I was a lesbian. It never worked; instead, it really egged them on: I swear I could see their eyes light up when I said it. I have no idea what was behind their response--whether they thought that lesbians were sluttier than straight women, or that they imagined what happened between two women ad that turned them on so that they increased their attempts, or whether it was the aspect of the challenge that appealed to them. All I know is that anecdotally, through my own experiences, many, many straight men hear "I am a lesbian," as an invitation.


The ones that think of it as a challenge might not think of it as an invitation, but might not care that it's not.

But I have no trouble accepting that it mostly happens because men are crazy.


nocutename @49 "It never worked; instead, it really egged them on"

Yep, saying "I'm a lesbian" gets heard as "I don't have a male partner who will get angry if you hit on me." Pretty much the only things that shut down the kind of men who hit on you in bars is "my boyfriend is meeting me here in a few minutes," or "I have an incurable STI."


A corollary to the 'challenge' factor, might be that no many how many times they get rejected, that can tell themselves that it wasn't /them/ that got rejected.


@51: Yeah, EricaP, I learned to invoke the imaginary jealous boyfriend. Even as I was grateful that it worked, I was angry that the only thing these guys seemed to respect was another man's property.

I suspect that the phenomenon is pretty much limited to younger men, those who are just overwhelmed by the testosterone coursing through them. But maybe I just got older and less attractive!

@50: Curious, I don't think that men are any crazier than women or non-binary folks. I just think that young men are being led much more by their dicks than older men are.


LW1; can you take you child & go visit someone for a few days, suddenly someone is sick & needs your help? Don’t arouse his suspicions. Make it real.
It’s only when you are away from the abuser do you start to view how life could be. Like owning your own piss.
Once you have clearly decided you have to leave & you do have to leave.. start to sort a plan. You are going to have to confide in others, if you haven’t. Can’t remember from the letter. And honestly I’m not sure if I could read it again.
Learn not to indulge men. You’ll only do that when you cultivate inner strength & you won’t get there while still indulging this man.


Remember some years ago when some radio station, I think it was, had a contest where the prize was a Wii to the contestant who could hold their "wee" the longest? A 37-year-old woman contestant DIED trying to win that thing. Assuming this isn't a fake letter, LW1 needs to run like the wind and take the baby with her.


I wouldn't tell URINE to dtmfa. I'd tell her that she has a responsibility to herself to start regular therapy until she can say that she is happy with her marriage, or until well after she is divorced. There is no need to blame in order to inform someone of your opinion of their responsibilities. I'll try to tackle some of the maladaptive beliefs in the letter, besides the huge one, that it's OK to do what another wants because they are angry.
-"Whatever turns you on, turns me on" might be mistaken as an earnest attempt to be attractive and GGG, but I think it means that you're subby and out of touch with your own sexual desires.
-When your lover asks you to do something that makes you sick, physically or emotionally, it is your responsibility to yourself to communicate about it and set Mutually Satisfying guidelines in your relationships. To set boundaries to reduce risk of physical or mental illness. To take distance to protect yourself if your boundaries are not shown respect.
-When you say that your lover tells you what you are allowed to do, you are saying that you've ceded your personal authority to them. Don't do that unless you want to do that. If you feel like complaining, then act personally responsible again and stop agreeing to things you find disagreeable.
-You need to learn to say no, to stand up for something, at least yourself, or you'll never be able to respect yourself. It helps to do something, like volunteering, that truly makes you feel proud.
-Talking to a therapist doesn't have to be any weirder than talking to Dan. There are plenty of telephone counselors, online counselors, tons of sympathetic domestic abuse hotlines.. Fairly anonymous people who may be able to help you develop a plan you like. Ask them what they think about piss play first, hang up if they say it's icky. Even commenters might be able to help plan. And friends, and supportive family? One big question is if you can afford to live apart... Which is different from divorce..


Also, thank you Fubar. And NoCuteName, I think the point of holding it in is that he thinks the stream is bigger when he does get to see it.


MaryAnne, guts @47. Was she the ditsy blonde one. Not sure who you are referring to when saying ‘most men.’
Lesbians are not concerned whether men are attracted to them or not.


Oh, abuse and blame. One of the many insidious aspects of abuse and abusers is a slow, almost imperceptible build-up over time. Mr. URINE most definitely didn't start demanding to observe every piss URINE took straight out of the gate. It starts with a kink disclosure; URINE, being a people-pleaser (more on that later) is GGG and down to indulge this kink in its sexual, private parameters. One day the couple is on a long drive and URINE needs to go; Mr. U says how hot it would be if she made a video for him to watch, and U obliges because she wants to be GGG, and it sounds kind of sexy and playful, this one-off request. And so on and so forth, until it's five years and one baby later and U is living in fear that her BF will blow up at her if she dares relieve her bladder when he's not around to witness it. If abusers came on as obvious as when their victims are reaching out for help, I think a lot fewer people would find themselves in untenable, abusive relationships.

So, people-pleasing. I'm a recovering people-pleaser myself and only very recently realized how problematic this behavior is. Because you're generous, you're helping meet other people's needs and * making them happy *, what could possibly be wrong with that, right? Often it comes from a really unhealthy need to feel needed or to get other people's approval/affection by meeting their needs. It can lead to feeling like you have zero entitlement to your own boundaries or autonomy. It can be surprisingly easy to feel you're Doing The Right Thing and Being a Good Person by always being so giving and selfless, and to completely lose your sense of yourself and what's fair and right for YOU in the process. Learning to draw and maintain boundaries feels harsh and almost cruel when you're used to being self-sacrificing (especially if you've entrenched that dynamic in a relationship). This is going to be one of URINE's biggest hurdles in healing, but an absolutely crucial one.


@52 I think that is a reasonable idea, it could even be extended to; she didn't reject ME, she rejects MEN, if Brad Pitt had hit on her she would have rejected him too, so therefore I'm the same as Brad Pitt (except taller, and maybe a little older).

And there must be some people who are attracted to lesbians because they wish they were lesbians themselves, though attracted to does not have to mean "hitting on". I wouldn't want to be hit on by someone who looked like me, though I might be willing give myself a handjob,

"I do like giving handjobs"
" Reciprocity noun, the practice of exchanging things with others for mutual benefit"
"some people like receiving handjobs"
If she likes it, she likes it. I'd think making it more transactional would change things, not necessarily for the worse, but different. She and her wife are different people after all.


I'm another one who hopes that URINE's letter is a fake, not because I like fake letters (I don't), not because I believe it's fake (who knows?), but because I'm saddened that an actual person went through this experience.

DTMFA, URINE. You are better off without him.

@47: Many straight men tell us that they are turned on by lesbians. There are various reasons, both more understandable (two naked women in "lesbian" porn is twice as sexy as one naked woman, all else equal), and less understandable (the fantasy that a lesbian can be "converted" by some random straight guy).

The practical straight guy would be more interested in the hypothetical "Maryanne" than the hypothetical lesbian, if for no other reason than that the "Maryanne" is presumably straight.

OTOH, the slightly-heteroflexible lesbian TSCR scrambles that formula a little bit.

(RIP Dawn Wells, of COVID-19. Tina Louise is the last survivor of Gilligan's Island.)

Speaking of whom, TSCR, it's hard (pun not intended) to imagine that you can't find such a guy without much difficulty, in this era of online, um, dating. I'm sure that more than a few men won't be rubbed the wrong way (pun definitely intended this time) by such an offer.

Finally, @49: one time I was in a basement bar somewhere in NYC, with a group of friends. We overheard two clearly-straight young women try to blow off two guys by claiming that they were lesbians. A lesbian friend of ours decided to call them on it. She went over to them and started hitting hard on them. Much hilarity ensued.


URINE’s ol’ man needs to hurry up and get run over by a truck ASAP- perfect example of an abusive sadistic predator.


Also, RE: Straight guys into lesbians- they (we?) love them because of the whole “Girls Gone Wild with ME in the middle!” fantasy and also the “Ahhh, is just a phase she’s going through” mindset and hoping to be the Man that cures of her gayness and back to straightsville.

Plus, everyone knows the gays are wild and freaky compared to us boring ol’ straights- so of course men dig lesbians- they’re wild and freaky gals!
And this lesbian LW- she gives no strings- attached handys and blowjobs? Stress- relief plus no “Where is our relationship going?” and “What does this mean for us?” noise.

She sounds awesomely perfect!


I can say that while I am not particularly attracted to lesbians (I'm more into people who actually and demonstrably want to have sex with me, personally), I DO prefer their company, everything else being equal, as a general thing. Not sure why, but it's a lifelong preference.


Curious @45, fair, what she wants on her own may be different from what she wants in a threesome. She might indeed be up for PIV and cunnilingus because it turns her wife on to watch her do these things with men. But it -is- logical to theorise that what she likes to with men is what she likes to do with men, whether her wife is there or not. I'm not saying there are no other possibilities -- as you say, not enough detail is given. I was just trying to help Erica by giving one possible explanation for TSCR's desires.

Guts @47: "I think that heterosexual men see lesbians as more adventurous and easier." I think that's fair to say, and it's why queer women see most straight men as idiots, because that is the dead opposite of what "lesbian" means.

Nocute @49, yup. My take was that they thought "I'm a lesbian" meant "I'll bring a friend." Eye roll. (99 times out of 100, if a man told an interested woman, "I'm gay," that would immediately end her pursuit, though she might invite him to go shopping with her!)

Curious @52, hmm, possibly. If a straight woman turns you down, it's a statement on your desirability; if a lesbian turns you down, it's because she's a dyke. (Hell, with many of these dudes, if a straight woman turns them down she must be a dyke. A "dyke" being completely different to those highly-sought-after "lesbians." Gosh, men can be awful.)

Phi @57, no, I think the point of telling her to hold it in is he wants to torture her. And he's clever. It occurred to me that if he were physically abusing her by hitting her, there would be evidence. This form of torture leaves no evidence but UTIs, which are generally not caused by third parties. Which is why Mrs Fox @11's advice to document all of this madness is, as usual, fantastic. Good point that URINE should also secretly seek therapy now, to help encourage her to get the f0rk out.

Mrs Fox @59, that is the usual pattern, but URINE says, "The first two years of our relationship were terrifying because if I peed while he was at work, he would throw a fit of epic proportions." So this escalated pretty quickly. She doesn't say what happened after the two-year mark -- did he start working from home perhaps? -- but she fell into doormat mode right off the bat. I agree her problem is people pleasing -- "what turns you on turns me on," well, it's nice to see one's partner turned on, but one is entitled to set limits! And seeing one's partner turned on is one thing; incurring "terrifying" wrath for dealing with your own bodily functions is another. Run, run, RUN directly to a therapist, and do not date until you can put yourself first.

Aeros @66: "hoping to be the Man that cures of her gayness and back to straightsville." Yup, pretty much. Y'all think that YOUR dick has magical properties. Same reason y'all send photos of it to people who've expressed zero interest in seeing it.
And yeah, I guess homoflexible women don't do us many favours in communicating that "well sometimes lesbians CAN be into men, if you're really really special." Who wouldn't want to imagine themself in that category?
TSCR, see, you'll have no trouble finding a looooonnnnggg queue of men who want to play with you. Perhaps you can convince your wife that the reciprocal favour they can give you is going away afterwards?

Slomo @64, is that because there is no sexual tension? You get the same level of sexual interest as you would from a straight male pal, ie none, but without the "competition" aspect, and as women they aren't fighting socialisation to not talk about their feelings?


Re Guts @47, it seems these straight men who see lesbians as "more adventurous and easier" are confusing lesbians with bisexuals. Bi women (and bi men) may indeed be more adventurous than heteros, though we are no less picky just because we don't filter by gender. And sure, some lesbians are flexible, so technically bisexual. But when a woman tells a man, "I'm a lesbian," what she is saying is, "I am not interested in you." It would really be helpful if men could start hearing that.


Ms Lava - Mary Ann was the farm girl, as opposed to Ginger, the movie star (or Mrs Howell, the millionaire's wife). Lots of US programmes from the later sixties seemed to offer up pairs for comparison - Mary Ann/Ginger, Jeannie/Samantha (from different but similar programmes) Barnabas/Quentin, Davy/Mickey (Peter for Ms Grizelda).

Ms Fan @65 - Yes; it would be nice if flexibles were recognized more than they are and distinguished from inflexibles. I can recall a time when the Magic Body Parts idea was more equally spread among sexes, though that does seem to have changed a little. Perhaps DS women learn better.


@43: "he was also embarrassed at revealing his wife to be an asshat and himself to be her victim. Lastly, he was scared to do what he needed to do if he acknowledged how abusive she was, which would be for him to take the kids and leave. That's scary"
From having been in an abusive relationship for many years, this is the reason.

@49 "many straight men hear "I am a lesbian," as an invitation."
Try telling them, 'I'm looking for husband material.' That will shut them up and drive them off.


Guts @ 47 So, so many hetero ladies are into one-time, no-recip BJs. But men who mansplain women to women have to go to the back of the line.


'URINE' says that she's not 'close-minded' about sex or prudish; but I'm not sure that the situation in her letter has much to do with sex any more. How often can one have an orgasm, or even a pleasurable thought?--it's less often, yes, than anyone needs to relieve themselves? The set-up has overtones of a Total Power Exchange; and the people who consent to these find them sexy in an enveloping way--but maybe what they feel is protected, loved, or released into their own mind and subjectivity, rather than universally, 24/7 sexually engaged. But this having-to-watch-her-pee is not of course an exchange to which she consents, but rather a prolonged form of abuse.

I'm wondering how it got his bad with Mr URINE (I regretted having to write 'URINE' for her, but have no such concerns with 'Mr URINE'). How could he have not checked his fetish earlier, have kept it in check? I have to hope her leaving is the wake-up call he needs to get treatment. His persistence in the fetish over and above her calls for him to stop can't be entirely about his sexual personality--he has to be abusive or monomanical, I would think, in his whole temper. There's maybe something about kinks that makes people think they deserve exemption from ordinary conceptions of what is sane and reasonable, and this letter shows that they really don't....


For example, I’m convinced fubar @ 32 could probably get 3 no-recip BJs per DAY if he wanted, because he obviously sees women as individual people.


Re 'Reciprocity': what do I think of her wife's view? Well, I think what she thinks of it. It's interesting, and maybe her wife has a point; but in the end, she enjoys giving no-recip handjobs and blowjobs, and that's all that's necessary to make them desirable for her. But it seems that 'Reciprocity' is considering the idea of an exchange of services, and she could take this further e.g. by putting up a clearly-worded personal. (I would not have said what Dan said, comparing her wife's views to those of a straight man).

As to her second question, it looks easy, but may in fact be harder, because a lot of straight men could misunderstand what is involved in a lesbian with whom they are on cordial terms giving them no-recip head. If she isn't going to go down the advertised exchange-of-services route, a starting-place could be men whom she would like to suck off, so long of course as it would be ethical for her to proposition them.


I think the core issue behind TSCP’s letter is her desire to play with a penis haver’s penis on her own, while looking for ways to assure her wife, possibly also herself, that there’s nothing more to it.

The letter starts with “I’m a happily married…”and by now we all know what the implications might be.
One of the various reasons in “We can't really do much by way of threesomes right now for various reasons” could be a hint that the wife is no longer interested in such activity. When read in that context, the mention of those threesomes is possibly her way of saying, “You know I’m attracted to men on occasion, and you were fine with it. But now that this is not happening, I want to go at it on my own.”
Bathroom cleaning as the price for relief, as suggested by the wife, looks like another accommodation attempt.

Unfulfilled bi? Closeted straight? If hunter was still around maybe some shades of cuckolding could have come up as well.


Fichu @ 18 In my experience, in order for an abuser to make it well into adulthood with people around them to abuse, they must have A LOT of AMAZING qualities. Like MsFox @ 59 says, abusers lead with their good qualities and start mixing in as much abuse as they can, which is more and more. Abusers are experts at timing the deployment of kindness and abuse. If their abuse goes too far, they’re kind for awhile. We were spared the everything-is-perfect-but line in this letter, but it’s still there.


URINE'S letter made me ache for her on a visceral level. It's been said, and better, by so many on here already, but to add to the Chorus of Urgent Persuasion: Honey, this man is a dangerous, abusive sadist. He's sick, he's hurting you and he's not going to stop. Please, please do whatever possible to get you and your child away and somewhere safe. I'm not familiar with the best resources out there for help or counseling, but perhaps Dan or a good member of this commentariat has a link or two to share if you need them. Love and strength to you.


Zinaida @74, 100 percent yes. No abuser leads with their abuse- the attachments haven't formed yet, their targets at that point have little problem telling them to go to hell. I'm sure this man did not follow her into the ladies' on their first date and demand to watch her urinate, or excoriate her for going off to the toilet on her own after they first had sex. This situation, sadly, has been long in development.


"my boyfriend is meeting me here in a few minutes"

I find myself wanting to imagine a few words of description of the boyfriend that will have them running for their car. But of course outside of a film that would make the brush off unbelievable.

Thanks for the paragraph about "people-pleasing".

The phrase had been kind of poisoned for me, because of a narcissist I knew for whom that was invariably what she called healthy, kind people.

"it -is- logical to theorise that what she likes to with men is what she likes to do with men, whether her wife is there or not"

Yes. I am just captivated by the attraction factor which is only present with the wife there, which as you say might mean that

"what she wants on her own may be different from what she wants in a threesome"

Because it's almost a truism of sexuality that we don't want to do things with people who we aren't attracted to(1), but do want to so things with people we are attracted to.

(1) I think I'll pass on going down the rabbit hole of what this means for those hand- and blow-jobs she likes when she says she's not attracted.

Where she says

"I don't have any desire to sleep with men on my own, I do like giving handjobs to men..."

I think "sleep with" is the common language for PIV (and certainly for more than the -jobs). And I think "on my own" is /contrasting/ with when her wife is there too.

Though I'm reminded that we once saw a published letter pre-edit, and in it some meanings were changed, so who knows whether that published sentence really contains the truth I want to squeeze from it.

"Hell, with many of these dudes, if a straight woman turns them down she must be a dyke."


"If a straight woman turns you down, it's a statement on your desirability"

I think the reason I like this is that I tend to look for psychological explanations. So I imagine guys trying to avoid being hurt by rejection. (And trying to boost their ego by doing the impossible.)

"do not date until you can put yourself first"

Absolutely. I always forget to add that during my boilerplate paragraph of advice to get therapy to avoid repeating the pattern.


"Abusers are experts at timing the deployment of kindness and abuse."
"they must have A LOT of AMAZING qualities"

What a wonderful comment! Reminds me also of a narcissist I knew.


@18. Fichu. I would think that her boyfriend's, then husband's demands changed, and that she gradually adjusted to them and normalised the situation in her head. To begin with, he may not have needed to be there every time she peed. Then, in the early days, too, he would have told her it was a kink; and she had put herself up for a relationship where she was GGG. To me, how she got deeper into the relationship and why she stayed (because we know she protested and resisted) are not really the questions to ask. Instead, she needs to look ahead and think of the best future she and her child can have.

Apropos @41. Surely curious has McCoy written all over him?

@34. Erica. I don't see much to understand. She's attracted to the idea of sucking off, even jerking off, a dick, but not to being fucked by a dick. It seems simple to me--and to want a more detailed explanation in terms of sexual identities risks not accepting what lesbians say about their sexuality on their own terms, which has been something of an unfortunate misogynist and homophobic tradition (i.e. in heteronormative society and among straight men).

@49. Nocute. You are right (re men hear 'I am a lesbian' as an invitation) & @47. guts, Surely you are not shocked....


RE [orientation]flexible:

I think that usually means that you aren’t into [gender] unless you’re already turned on. It’s common enough for two straight guys to each be turned on by their woman partner and proceed to happily enjoy a threesome that may involve some m/m play. A common and related male kink is “forced bi,” where a man is aroused during an encounter with a woman who then “forces” him to suck another man’s cock. He’s not interested in cock unless he’s already aroused.

It sounds a lot like what was going on in TSCR’s threesomes. She likes cock but only if she’s already turned on.

Except… it turns out she just likes cock. She doesn’t want a guy to touch her; she just wants to play with his cock. Sometimes, anyway. I get a buzz from eating pussy and I know some guys who seem to as well. I do NOT get a buzz from sucking cock, but reports from the field suggest that many people do. I guess TSCR is one of them?

I think Mrs TSCR is wise. Her experience with men is that they treat you badly if you don’t appear to value yourself. My experience with men is that they’ll have sex with me even if they aren’t into me… they just treat me badly.

I love the housework exchange. The guy has to want TSCR’s handy enough to do some housework to get it, which suggests he’ll be a decent person to her.


Curious @77: "I find myself wanting to imagine a few words of description of the boyfriend that will have them running for their car."

I think you're misunderstanding the situation Nocute is describing. It isn't that some creep is being scary and we want to issue a credible threat. It's just that some guy is interested and we aren't, and we don't want to hurt his feelings, or simply don't have the interpersonal skills to feel like we can say "I'm not attracted to you." The guy could be perfectly nice and we've been having a pleasant conversation, then he makes a polite move. (Or even, you can feel the polite move coming, and you know your answer will be no.) It seems kinder to say "I have a boyfriend" than "I don't fancy you," and far less likely to make the guy feel rejected, thereby ruining his night. In other words, we're looking for a substitute for "no thank you," rather than "eff off, you creep." (Of course an actual creep won't care if you have a boyfriend, then it becomes a different problem.)


I'm not misunderstanding anything, I'm just enjoying imagining a cartoonish exaggeration of EricaP's advice that would be so wildly effective it would amuse me.

That's why I said I am "wanting to imagine" it.


@56. Philophile. I would think that, yes, just as you and others say, she has dug herself into a hole trying to be GGG. There's a problem, culturally, in that Dan's injunction to be game has been taken up by straight women much more seriously, I would think, than it has by straight men: it's added to other rules or sayings internalised by women in their process of becoming-women like 'don't be whiny', 'don't be prudish', 'don't wait to be asked twice, satisfy your man' (sometimes with an order of 'he gave you monogamy, you can give him what he wants' on top), and 'it was your mother's generation that was prudish'. Clearly at some stage the lw hasn't had the conceptual vocabulary to say, 'this isn't about being 'close-minded'; I just don't want to do it' (or, rather, her abuser has taken that vocabulary away from her). But I wouldn't blame Dan too much for not specifying what GGG might reasonably mean for straight men and women, respectively. Interpretations of sex-positivity like URINE's are just the consequences of two generations of sexual liberation and millenia of female deference to men.

@73. CMD. Yes, I agree with your first paragraph.

Her wife's question, to the effect of 'why are your giving that away for free?', hints that, for Mrs TCRS, sex with men is work, while sex with women, like the sex in their marriage, is intimate and emotional. If the lw wants to have emotionally intimate sex with men, she should tell her wife. But it seems she would be happy with giving an emotionally disengaged BJ. She should probably say this is still something that she'd enjoy giving; but if it were presented as something transactional, her wife would probably be able to accept it more easily. This might be a reason to go down the 'tailored personal' route.


Bi @81: This point interests me. Over the years I have attempted to deflect men by claiming lesbianism (only about twice, because, as others have pointed out, that doesn't work the way you expect) and by mentioning a boyfriend (often a real, absent guy, sometimes a fictitious guy). Mentioning a boyfriend was always precisely as you describe: I didn't want to hurt the feelings of the dude hitting on me, and this was an easy way to get out of it, one which was accepted right away.

In retrospect, I think that was a mistake. I wish I had learned to say (and practiced saying) "I'm sorry, I'm just not interested." I think it would have been better for me (to internalize the fact that I'm allowed to say no and don't need an excuse) and also better for them (to internalize the fact that women might just say no, and you accept it and move on). But when I was young I mostly didn't have that confidence. Hell, I barely have it now--I find it surprisingly hard to do the occasional "thanks, but no thanks" interactions I sometimes need to do. I manage it, because I think it's important, but it stresses me out more than it should.

Why the hell is it so hard to just say no, thanks, and leave it at that?


Mr Venn @67; thank you for clarifying who was who in that tv show.
Weird show to reference in 2021, a sexist portrayal of women, from the sixties.


CMD @73, I see no issue with a lesbian who enjoys a bit of cock on the side, and there being no need for a Label change.
Yes, the exchange for her, is that she enjoys it.


"I'm sorry, I'm just not interested."

Sounds good to me.

"Why the hell is it so hard to just say no, thanks"

I guess the intention to come up with something even gentler yet untrue is good--no one wants anyone to feel bad about a "no"--but as ciods and examples point out, the effort is often counterproductive. And should become unnecessary once the asker develops a bit of confidence. The norm should be one in which people become healthy enough to handle a "no"; instead of an implicit assumption that no one could handle it. And that would sure help deal with those who don't accept the gentler untruth.


@87 p.s,
This reminds me a brave relationship thing ciods does annually: a scheduled conversation to see if anything is wished to be re-negotiated. I don't know of others who invite the possible unknown "no's" that could come from that.

A brush off from a stranger is nothing compared to an annual check-in to see if one's partner wants any kind of change.


And here it is Thursday and we've already exhausted this week's letters/column.


Maybe LW2, nocute, @89: doesn’t need much more elaboration. Although another example of a woman not just going for what she enjoys, long as her wife is ok with it. If she wants an exchange or not, it’s her choice. Wifey should stay out of it. I’d be checking a bit more why the wife is talking like this. Jealousy? Only sees men as people to extract from, not people one can have a mutually satisfying experience with.
LW1; lots more can be said about abusive relationships, in all there / their manifestations.
About how kink appears to have reached such an elevated level, this poor woman, a mother, is dealing with this utter bull. Really? wtf. Geez, I’d be pissing in his breakfast. Here, mate, here is a kink for you.
He might as well be slapping her around, breaking bones. The intent is coming from the same place.


@69 Zanaida: WA-HOOOOOOOOOO!!!!! Congratulations on scoring this week's hotly vied for luscious Lucky @69 Award honors! Bask in the glory of your newfound numeric riches and savor the accolades. :)

@74 Zanaida and @76 morgantic: You're both right. Life with an abuser is a nasty cycle consisting of three continuously destructive parts, often known by many therapists as
"1. Honeymoon---2. Bad---3. Worse". ;(
I am hopeful that URINE is doing everything she can to take her child and RUN from this controlling, manipulative monster.

We're getting closer to this week's Big Hunsky (@100) Award honors.
Unless the comment thread is ready for a new week's worth of Savage Love letter discussions, who's hungry for the next Big Hunsky?


@84 ciods re BiDanFan @81: Excellent question! Gold star for nailing it! I agree with both of you. And Bi is right about using the "I have a boyfriend" line to politely say no when a genuine creep is doing the hitting on. I think that is why I feel, with a few exceptions, so uncomfortable in bars to this day.
Griz has a new question to add to the comment thread:
Why do so many restauranteurs automatically try to seat a single woman dining alone in the bar and not in the dining room of a restaurant? It's as if they're nervously thinking, "OH, SHIT!!! WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DO WITH THE EXTRA WOMAN???"
If I want meat it's a New York strip, medium rare, with a baked potato, sour cream, and chives (a rare treat I wouldn't eat every day or prepare at home) paired with a nice big salad and two or more glasses of Cabernet Sauvignon. I have usually been lucky when asserting myself, but I don't want to get potentially slobbered on by someone who won't take no for an answer.
And, as many of the regulars can affirm from my previous comments, I have had more than my fair share of that already in my life. Nobody deserves that.


auntie @93 do said restaurants automatically seat a single man at a table? Could it be more the size of the party than gender presentation? Or perhaps they are greedily thinking that with a single woman at the bar men will want to buy (from the restaurant) drinks for her. Not that that is better, worse actually, but I don't think "nervously thinking, "OH, SHIT!!! WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DO WITH THE EXTRA WOMAN???" is the most likely explanation.

I have heard that some try wearing a wedding ring, but I don't know how well that actually works.
Funny anecdote. I was once at a party where some drunk guy was being obnoxious to a woman and I suggested to him that her husband might be a professional killer. I'm not sure it made much impression on him, but she laughed and said he was in the Marine Corps, so he kind of was. Then she asked how I knew she was married.... So I'm not sure how many do notice a wedding ring.


@BiDF 65 The thought has occurred, and that's probably a good bit of it. No doubt there's some selection bias there, because I tend to meet political types, and (to me at least) they seem smart and interesting. And while the competitive and sexual tension isn't there, they were a pretty bawdy and clever group. In my 20s in the Bay Area in the late 70s, I generally explained it by saying they were the only sane people left.


ciods @84 "Why the hell is it so hard to just say no, thanks" -- not sure but I suspect it's because our culture tells us that men sometimes get angry when rejected, and also that male anger is dangerous.

As a non-monogamous woman who dates men, I face this issue. If it doesn't go well I'm not able to put him off with "Oh, I started seeing this other guy." So I have to face my fear and actually say "no thanks." (Actually I tend to say "I'm not feeling chemistry between us.") Happy to report no violence so far!


@94 crazy cat dude: I was wining and dining at the nicest restaurant in my favorite getaway town back in who-would-have-thought pre-COVID 2019. The food and drinks were delicious, but the proprietors and servers acted like I stood out like a sore thumb sitting at a table by myself. I felt rushed, as if they really wanted groups at their waterfront view tables instead. I enjoyed myself, but couldn't help but feel a slight chill, like they wanted me to leave, even after receiving a nice tip from me. I really did feel like "The Extra Woman".
Last year, my beloved VW and I took a celebrational 2020 end-of-summer road trip back there. When I went to the same upscale restaurant this last time around 6 pm (we couldn't go this year, and it was a big disappointment), it was Saturday night, and the hostess said they were "booked solid until 9:30 pm". The usual burgers / fish 'n' chips / sports bar (my one exception) place I would have gone to, instead, was closed for the day (end of summer tourist season; the owners were giving their help a break).
I would have been uncomfortable with men buying me drinks in the bar at the fancy restaurant, whereas I have never had a problem at the sports bar--the proprietors there are very nice.
I am hopeful that my Love Beetle and I can venture back there next spring and / or fall and hit the beaches again.


Ciods @84: "Why the hell is it so hard to just say no, thanks, and leave it at that?"
Because we have been socialised to not hurt people's feelings.
Because we subconsciously fear male anger.
Because experience has shown that some men won't take "no thanks" for an answer -- they demand a reason why not. (I will never forget one instance when I was out with a couple of friends, getting some late-night food in a cafe, and a man started bothering my friend. "I'm not interested," she said over and over. He persisted, begging and pleading, literally even offering to get a sex change if she were a lesbian! I have always regretted not stepping in and saying, "She told you she's not interested, now go away," but I was too shocked.)
Sadly, "I have a boyfriend" is the kindest and most effective way to say no thank you in four short words. But it's not honest, and that could come back to reflect badly on you if the person discovers it to be a white lie.

Griz @93, that sounds awkward and insulting! I join with Crazy Cat Dude though in wondering if it had anything to do with your gender as opposed to you being on your own. My first thought is economics: if this is a popular restaurant, they can't seat four people at a table (and sell four times as much food) if there's one person there. But this shouldn't matter unless the restaurant is full. They also might think other diners might think the single person had been stood up, which could be a distraction or cast a bad mood on the meal. Good point that if they're assuming a person on their own would welcome the chance to be seated next to a potential conversation buddy, they could be very wrong. Maybe try calling in advance to book, or dining at less busy times? I sympathise with your annoyance!

EricaP @96, yes, same! Saying "I have a boyfriend" is an instant pass-killer. Saying "I'm polyamorous" does not accomplish the same goal, ie communicating, "dating you would not be possible." In theory it would be possible, but like "I'm a lesbian," could achieve the opposite goal of signalling that one is "adventurous and easy." So yeah, I too have to practice a gracious script for "no thanks" that doesn't refer honestly to my current romantic situation. (Which, I suppose, in full honesty is "I wouldn't have time to date you if I wanted to" -- perhaps I'll put that in my pocket! Though it does sound like a humblebrag. Perhaps it is. Hee hee)


AC @ 80
The way I read the couple’s dynamics I assume the fmf sessions to be LW’s initiation, the wife went along for some time but is not interested anymore.

As for “forced bi” I’m not sure it comes out of nowhere. It is often used as an excuse, a nudge towards certain activities some may actually want or at least “curious” about. Yes, it helps to be horny and intakes that may ease inhibitions can also be a factor.

nocute@ 89
I also find the letters Dan chooses to respond to nowadays to be less engaging than many past ones.


Zinaida @71: Thanks very much! I ran your comment by my girlfriend, and she agreed :)


guts @47:

"I think that heterosexual men see lesbians as more adventurous and easier."

Like all generalizations, there's probably some truth to that statement, but the broader truth is that many (most?) women seem to draw the attention of horny guys who behave badly, and nothing... NOTHING... slows them down.

I've witnessed this as a father of girls. It's a real eye opener when your kid comes home from school in tears because a boy behaved badly.

I once had a girlfriend who was extremely friendly, and would make eye contact with people (men and women) and smile. I could see the blood drain from men's faces as "Oh. My dick! My dick!" took over. Guys in bars would hit on her in front of me.

But the motherlode is on Fetlife, where women post sexy selfies and men with penis profile pics post lewd comments. A quick check of the women's profiles... in a relationship, monogamous, not looking; very often, a plea for respect. The men's profiles... penis pictures, no introduction, single, vanilla, seeking a "play partner." Sigh.

And speaking of Fetlife, the site (and the kink community) is full of adventurous, "easy" women of all sexual orientations, including straight-identifying women who are looking for all manner of sex, including threesomes. But sadly for many men, they're generally not interested in guys who can't see beyond the tip of their own penis.


"My boyfriend is meeting me here in a few minutes". I ran this one by my girlfriend, and she replied in her best bass monotone, "What... you're not allowed to have friends?"

As for "I have an incurable STI", I think the stock reply is "I'll wear a condom... I'll wear two!"

The only way a woman is (probably) not getting hit on is if she wears a burqua and sunglasses.

It's a damned shame that this is a woman problem.

crazy cat dude @94:

"Could it be more the size of the party than gender presentation?"

Of course it could be. It could be any number of things. But when a woman is talking about her lived experiences as a woman, I vote we give her the benefit of the doubt. After all, she was actually there.

And for what it's worth, in my decades of solo business travel, I was never asked to take my meal at the bar.

    Please wait...

    and remember to be decent to everyone
    all of the time.

    Comments are closed.

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

    Add a comment

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