I'm a 25-year-old girl dating a 26-year-old guy. My boyfriend identifies as sexually submissive. He likes to be tied up, put in women's underwear, and locked in a chastity device, and he has a strong urge to please. I hate the term, but I suppose you could call me a "feeder." I am turned on by the idea of someone eating a lot of food, usually junk food, and putting on weight.
It's probably related, but I'm also a bit of a fitness nut. Consequently, I feel somewhat guilty about indulging my fetish, but I figure every now and then shouldn't hurt. Thing is, he's started to eat too much to please me. He's put on weight, and while the libido part of me finds it hot, the logical part of me wants him to be healthy and stop before he gets, like, actually fat.
Thing is, it's hard enough to convince your partner to work out when it will lead to your being more attracted to him. It's nearly impossible to convince your partner to work out when it may lead to your being less attracted to him. So what do I do? I could say he knows the risks, and I'm not forcing him to do anything. But I would still feel bad knowing that he was essentially worse off—less healthy—for having dated me. I don't want to give him a complex.
Fat Admirer Troubled
Your boyfriend is a submissive crossdresser who's into bondage and chastity, FAT, so he came to you with a complex—two or three at least. Not that there's anything wrong with that: His complexes, and the fetishes and kinks they've sprouted, give him a great deal of pleasure, FAT, and it sounds like you're enjoying 'em, too. We should all be so lucky to have such complexes.
So get off the rack already—that's where the boyfriend belongs—and negotiate an explicit "power exchange agreement" where his diet and weight are concerned. Explain to him that having a dominant feeder girlfriend doesn't give him license to eat whatever he wants, whenever he wants, and put on however much weight he wants. You're the dominant, FAT, you're in charge, so you get to determine what he eats, when he eats, how much he eats, and ultimately how much weight he gains.
Luckily for him, FAT, you're a conscientious, ethical dominant feeder. You're not one of those evil feeders who wants to do lasting harm to some poor gainer; you don't want to feed your boyfriend into a weight-related disability and/or an early grave. You're interested in feeder play, not murder-by-cream-cheese-frosting.
So order the boyfriend to eat junk food, sit on his ass, and gain weight for a few months, FAT, and then order him to eat healthier food, get off his ass, and lose the weight. Don't let his weight go more than 30 pounds over his ideal weight and you won't be doing him any real or lasting harm.
And FAT? Even if indulging your fetish shaves a year or two off his life, well, people throw away decades of their lives for lesser pleasures. People smoke, ride motorcycles without helmets, and stick their rear ends in the air in skank-ass sex clubs. Our bodies are our own, FAT; they're ours to use, abuse, and, since we're all going to die one day, they're ours to use up. Sane adults strike a balance between taking care of our bodies—eating right, drinking in moderation, getting exercise—while still allowing for pleasures that require us to eat poorly, drink in excess, and lie motionless for days at a time while we recover. The better care you take of yourself—the more time you spend eating right, drinking in moderation, and exercising—the longer you'll live, of course, and the more pleasures you'll get to enjoy before you inevitably croak.
It's ultimately up to your boyfriend to determine whether the pleasures of submitting to you—including the pleasure of indulging your fetish—are worth the risks to his health. Is having a kick-ass sex life with you in his 20s—and possibly in his 30s, 40s, and 50s—worth shaving a year or two off his life in his 70s or 80s? If he decides that the answer is yes, FAT, be a gracious bondage/chastity/feeding top, take yes for an answer, and shove a doughnut in his mouth.
A question in the spirit of the season: Can zombie sex ever be consensual? Because I think if confronted with a zombified Zac Efron, I might go for it if he were properly restrained. Can you teach a zombie a safe word? Does it count if it's "braaaains"? It's not necrophilia with the WALKING dead, is it? What would you say is the sexual morality of this situation?
Hope In Zombie Zac If Ethical
If you'd seen Zombieland, HIZZIE, you'd know that a hot person, once transformed into a zombie, isn't hot anymore. A pretty girl falls asleep in the arms of Zombieland's nebbishy hero and awakes as a thoroughly hideous flesh-eating monster. Even a zombified Zac Efron—I'm going to resist the obvious joke—would be too repulsive to fuck. Think of the gore, the viscera; think of the Axe body spray.
As for the morality of the situation, fucking zombies is still necrophilia, technically speaking, but practically speaking, it comes closer to bestiality. A human being who has been zombified is nothing but an animal, hungry for brains, incapable of thought, much less consent. We can kill animals for their flesh, but we mustn't fuck them, HIZZIE; we can kill zombies for wanting our flesh, but likewise we mustn't fuck them.
Met a super-hot boy—straight!—at Pony. Nice, familiar with my work (I'm an artist), thinks I'm all great. Talked, kissed. Exchanged numbers. Made plans. For a date. Dinner. He tells me he's married but in an "open relationship." What do I do? Do open relationships really exist?
She Lusts Until Truth
Yes, SLUT, open relationships exist. But the only person who can confirm that this boy—straight!—is actually in one, SLUT, is his wife. Ask her. Before you kiss. That boy some more. Or go. On. That. Date.
I came up with an amazing word, and I have been trying like hell to get it into the dictionary: procrasturbation. It means "to waste time pleasuring yourself." I wrote Merriam-Webster back in 2004—here is the response I got: "Your coinage is clever, but I'm afraid that cleverness is not the criterion on which a word is entered into our dictionaries... For 'procrasturbate' to be entered, it will need to appear in a number of well-read print sources for a good number of years. When we've collected enough citations for the word, we will enter it into our dictionary."
Help me out, Dan, by using "procrasturbate" in your column.
Organically Enters Dictionary
"Procrasturbate" is genius, OED, but appearing in my column isn't going to get it into the dictionary. "Santorum" has appeared in this space and other well-read print sources for years, and it hasn't seeped into Merriam-Webster's yet. I call shenanigans.