Recently, I celebrated my first year of marriage to the most amazing man. When we first began dating, he told me that he enjoys open sexuality and wants swinging to be part of any partnership he's in. I regard myself as free-spirited and agreed to explore this with him. We delayed experimentation because I had a stressful job and I wanted to spend my limited free time with him instead of exploring our sexuality with multiple partners. My work situation changed, and we have since had about a dozen experiences in the past year. I have discovered that these situations are not a turn-on for me—in fact, they are a turnoff. I feel resentful after these episodes, and I don't feel like having sex for days. We have discussed this at length, and we have been seeing a counselor. Recently, we had a civil discussion wherein we discussed the possibility of him having these sexual experiences without me, since I do not find them compelling. This idea appealed to him. He proposed going to a sex party alone that very night.
Ever since then, I have been crushed by the prospect of my husband having a sex life outside of our relationship. Since we met, his sexuality has had an outward trajectory, rather than being relationship centered. Having a healthy sexual relationship with him is enough for me. He makes a good point that he has been straight about his desire for this lifestyle since day one, but I am still frustrated and horrified that my husband needs to have sex outside of our marriage. I can't help but feel hurt that I alone am not enough for him.
I'd appreciate your straight, honest feedback on this.
Sex Best One On One
Straight, honest feedback: You are an idiot. Your husband informed you in advance about the "outward trajectory" of his sexuality; you knew going in that your husband could never be satisfied in a marriage that didn't involve "open sexuality" and swinging. Don't come crying to me now because the man you married wants to actually have sex with other people. You knew that before you married him, SBOOO, because he fucking told you so.
You're unlikely to encounter a marriage counselor who'll take your husband's side (nonmonogamy? boo!) over yours (monogamy? yay!), SBOOO, so I'm going to aggressively come to his defense: You're never going to convince your husband that one-on-one ought to be enough for him. Sorry. You're also going to have a hard time convincing him that you didn't deceive him in the run-up to this marriage. When he told you that monogamy was a deal breaker, SBOOO, you replied that you were "free-spirited" and willing to "explore." But, alas, circumstances beyond your control prevented you from embarking on any explorations until after the wedding, and only then—only after he married you—did you discover that your husband's sexual interests both frustrated and horrified.
Because if you'd been a little less stressed at work, SBOOO, maybe you could've made time for a little swinging before the wedding. Then you might've learned that nonmonogamy wasn't for you and been able to give this amazing man that information before he married your ass. Oh, but your work schedule didn't allow for premarital explorations, and now this amazing man has to decide whether to go through the hell of a divorce—knowing full well that he will be seen as the bad guy by all your relatives and friends, and 99.99 percent of marriage counselors—or give in to your emotional, sexual, and financial blackmail.
Want more evidence that you weren't negotiating with your husband in good faith before the wedding, SBOOO? How about this: You aren't negotiating with him in good faith now. So you recently had "a civil discussion" with him about the possibility of his going to sex parties alone—how many uncivil discussions have you had?—but then you were crushed when he wanted to take you up on this proposed compromise. So once again he wants to fuck around, once again you agree to his fucking around in principle, once again he proposes fucking around in earnest, and once again you lose your shit—only this time you go boohooing to an advice columnist and not a marriage counselor.
Sorry, SBOOO, you picked the wrong columnist. You want and always wanted a monogamous commitment. Free spirit, my ass. You are—surprise!—sexually incompatible. Divorce. Get it over with.
I'm a male with submissive tendencies, and my wife decides when I get to orgasm. We have sex regularly, but she only lets me ejaculate occasionally. She finds that I'm more attentive to her now that we're doing "orgasm denial," and I get to scratch my submissive itch. Ain't life grand?
Here's my question: I enjoy pushing the limits, and I've gone as long as six weeks without release. (We use a CB-6000 chastity cage on my cock so I won't succumb in a moment of weakness.) But I'm a little concerned about the effects on my prostate. After several weeks of denial, I leak pre-come when aroused. I've read that recent studies showed that frequent ejaculation reduces the risk of prostate cancer. Am I putting myself at greater risk by ejaculating so infrequently? Can you ask your medical expert?
Loving Orgasms And Denial Every Day
Two orgasm-denial questions in two weeks—it's officially a trend! Can a Good Morning America segment be far behind?
"We still have very little idea what might cause or prevent prostate cancer," says Dr. Barak Gaster, associate professor of medicine at the University of Washington and our resident medical expert. "There are some clues—red meat, probably bad; vegetables, probably good; vitamin E, probably not helpful—but we're really still in the dark." And while most studies have shown frequent ejaculation to be good for prostate health, one recent study out of the UK showed the exact opposite.
So what should you do? Rely on the best-available study, advises Gaster. "[That study] followed U.S. men for eight years and found that those with the most ejaculations per month (more than 20) had a 30 percent lower risk of prostate cancer compared to those who were having fewer per month (about five)." But there is good news in the study for you, LOADED: "The 5 percent of men who reported having zero to three per month appeared to have a lower risk for prostate cancer as well," said Gaster. "The caveat is that this group was too small to make definite conclusions about them. But it looks like coming more than 20 times a month could be good for you in terms of prostate cancer, but it's unlikely that coming very little, like zero to three times per month, is necessarily bad for you compared to coming once or twice a week."
So ejaculate frequently, guys, or ejaculate rarely, because it would appear that moderation in pursuit of prostate health is no virtue.