Amen, Mr. Savage. In my own past, I had to learn this lesson on the hard way. I suspect it's a fairly common scenario: One person wants sexual adventure, the other does not. Nothing wrong with either way, but it's a fundamental incompatibility that needs to be approached as such. My armchair shrink diagnosis for LW #1 is that her mind works not unlike the Madonna-Whore Complex: She has a type for wild fun, and a type for stable relationships, and never the tween shall meet in her mind. Once her lover crosses over from casual into the love realm, all that adventure must cease because people in love don't do that sort of thing.

No one should have to sit around in the hopes that a partner will come around or reconsider something that they clearly expressed is a key aspect of their sexuality. It is demeaning, and feels awful.


L-dubs! Break up! You aren't just incompatible. Your SO's aren't even willing to meet you halfway. 0 for 2! Bye Felicia...


"twain": archaic for two. "tween": slang for a pre-teen. Pretty funny, as typos go :)


I think "nobody who we interact with regularly" is a fair rule when it comes to fantasies. I have a strong suspicion that NGE beats around the bush in her conversations and doesn't always say specifically what she means - be explicit. If your BF is sensitive, try the old "I like when we have role play fantasies but I don't like it when you include " seems very reasonable and non-confrontational. If that approach isn't working, then you may need to consider more drastic options.

But as far as 'being the only one', NGE, that's NGH - not gonna happen.

CUM - you're (or were) 21. The primary barrier to you and threesomes will... resolve itself.


NGE should date the boyfriend of HGG from last week, who stopped humiliating HGG during sex after they fell in love. Expecting Mr. NGE to stop discussing these fantasies all together is unreasonable. That said, Mr. NGE is being an inconsiderate jerk by continuing to name specific people during sex whom NGE finds objectionable. I would not want to be taken out of the moment by having my attention drawn to people whom I would rather not contemplate during sex. It would also get boring having the same sort of monologue during sex. Dirty talk during sex is fun, but can’t he manage to talk about her and what they are doing in the moment regularly too? That would seem to alleviate her anxiety caused by the focus of his fantasies too. In addition to wanting to be a considerate sex partner, I think Mr. NGE has another reason to wanting to compromise with NGE about his multi-partner dirty talk: I think finding sex partners who want to hear these fantasies during sex maybe harder than Mr. NGE realizes.


Perhaps CUM will never be satisfied in a monogamous relationship, but at 21, I think his real issue is that he has “only” had one or a few sex partners in his life, and he wants to fuck enough women to be psychologically satisfied settling down. But if that is what he really wants, then he should exit this relationship and either date a woman with the same attitude, or just be up front with sex partners that he is just interested in casual sex at present.


I agree with most of the posts so far, the BF should not be namedropping close friends. That's not cool ever unless the partner wants that. Instead go with some general people. Beyond that, she's expecting a lot when the sex was hot for both of them and then she now wants to change things. With all of that said, what is hot can change over time. Even vanilla sex is hot at first but in the same way that vanilla sex gets boring so does role play or threesomes or giving head to a sex worker while she snorts coke and talks on the phone.

LW2 has probably solved his problems by now but maybe not because he's not totally clear in the letter. Is he wanting threesomes only or is he wanting an open relationship. Maybe his partner wasn't interested in threesomes but was fine with him fucking other people. Just because someone isn't up to being fucked by someone else or watching their partner fuck someone else doesn't mean they are demanding monogamy.


This is nothing directly related to the letter but I have something to complain about and I figured you people would understand.

I'm almost done with a new Netflix show called BONDiNG. The show is fine, on a story level, it has some good jokes and interesting character dynamics. But as a representation of BDSM, and especially of dominant women, it's horrible. This dominatrix recruits her gay male high school friend to be her bodyguard by lying to him and saying she's a 911 operator. He's small, weak, insecure and prudish so seems ill suited to the job, but she immediately starts pressuring him to humiliate a client's penis while he jerks off even though nothing like that was part of their agreement. He says "no means no" and the dominatrix starts screaming at him that he has to do what she says because he's poor. She's so busy screaming she doesn't notice her client is saying his safeword and choking to death until her "bodyguard" points it out. And this is all in just the first episode. I think they felt like they had to make her bitchy, unreasonable and emotionally broken because she's dominant. It seems like the show was created by a vanilla man who thinks female dominance isn't worth taking seriously. After looking up some reviews I can find people praising this show for choosing to depict BDSM at all but nobody criticizing it for the many violations of consent. It's really frustrating.


NGE~ “...he ignored me and talked about her anyway...”
That pretty much says it all right there. He’s gonna do whatever the fuck he wants, including pouting when you ask him for a reasonable favor. Not that you’re totally off the hook, you did pull the old “bait and switch” on him. Luckily, you’re young. RESET. You’re looking for two different things. Find a better fit, and this time don’t change the rules after a few years.


"I've never understood people who are up for anything with someone they're into ... up until the moment they fall in love with that person"

Isn't this because falling in love is about lifting the emotional barriers we set to protect our vulnerabilities? Isn't it about revealing one's fragile and delicate inner self?
It would make sense that by making the decision to conclude that one is 'in love' that one leaves oneself open to the choices of the partner; when those choices don't respect that unguarded ego, they can be felt as being uncaring.

I'm not saying that is right, just the reason why.


@8: as long as they're not framing this as A femmeDom experience, and not THE femmeDom experience, I'm not too troubled by it. TV shows and movies are chock-full of unethical, skeevy boundary-pushing Doms and their doe-eyed often female subs. It's actually kind of refreshing to see a flipped switch; BDSM is certainly MEANT to be SSC but not everyone walks that line. As long as they're making it clear that this isn't a typical or acceptable experience, I personally have no problem with it.


*didn't mean to include the first "not"...I'm just exhausted.


@1: Yep. It isn't just men who have the Madonna-whore complex.

@10: well put. Yes, being "in love" means being emotionally vulnerable and that means that your partner's choices and desires have a lot more impact on your feelings and perhaps self-image (They find that person attractive? What does that say about their attraction to me? They want to do what? What does that say about our relationship?). The solution I think is to go deeper and discuss those questions, not to shut those things off. But that is what people usually do (and TBH, most partners can't handle those discussions either).


@NGO. It’s simpler than Dan said. He can think about whom he likes (whatever gets his rocks off). You're entitled to ask he talks only about you and him. You're not demeaning him in asking for this restriction. He's disrespecting you in talking about your best friend or anyone else.


@11: They're not framing it well, and given the very limited representation that alternative sexualities get in the mainstream media, yet another bad representation is not helpful.

The writer/director is a gay man who based the show partly on his experiences as a standup comic and his experience as the friend of a dominatrix who did a scene with him standing guard (which he seems to have been pretty uncomfortable with). He doesn't seem to have understood the kink world very well nor asked for input from anyone who is, so the end result is the usual Hollywood "Aren't kinky people ridiculous? And aren't consent violations funny?" Which is only a little better than the more common "Aren't kinky people fucked up and dangerous?"

In fairness, while the show is amateurish and the main characters are pretty unlikable, it does have a few good moments, but not when it comes to BDSM.


I see now why the letters were put together.

There's a line of thought that goes: 'when we first fucked, we weren't in love--so he was attracted to people other than me. But now we are in love, so I should have an exclusive place in his fantasies'. Or ' he should want only me'. No. This line of thought is misconceived. If you're like that, it doesn't mean your partner will be like that. I said 'he', but it isn't entirely about gender. No one can police what their lover finds hot. Or should try to. This is not the same thing as negotiating restrictions on behavior.


NGE should swap partners with the woman whose boyfriend lost his kink mojo after falling in love.


Sublime @5: Snap! Should have read the other comments first.

Truck @10: Yup. As I like to say, love makes people do stupid things. Oxytocin makes (some) people want to be monogamous who never wanted to be monogamous before, makes them crave tender love when previously all they wanted was rough sex. Unfortunately it doesn't work like this on everyone, so you get problems like NGE and Ex-Kinky Boyfriend experiencing this "settling down" phenomenon but their partners, not. Dan had good advice: she must be realistic; he is never going to want only her. But she can expect him to be considerate, which he's not being right now. Of course he's within his rights to decide that he fell for her because of the shared interest in group fantasies, and now that she's no longer interested he's going to walk. Compromise may be possible here if they both try to meet each other's needs.


TLC @8: I'm only two episodes in but I am liking it so far. Until 50 Shades and Secretary, female dommes WERE the dominants we saw in the media. Yes, she violated her friend's consent and put her sub in danger. Dominants make mistakes, so I thought that this was actually realistic. It struck me as having been written by someone who's actually in the know about this stuff. I have to say, I went in with low expectations given the utter awfulness of You Me Her, and I've been pleasantly surprised. I'm looking forward to the rest.


NGE says she would still enjoy talking about and participating in her boyfriend's fantasies, so I don't read this as her wanting to change him necessarily. I suspect if they could reach a compromise where he included fantasies about just her she would probably start enjoying their old kinks more. But if he's too selfish to listen when she says "do not involve this specific person" then I doubt he'd be willing to work with her.

LW2 : dump her, there's nothing wrong with admitting you're sexually incompatible. If you do it in a respectful way then give it a little time you could still get a great friend out of the deal.


In regards to #2, I think it's interesting to look at the date that letter was sent in. In 2010 there was no Tinder and online dating was much more relationship-focused than hook-up focused. Smartphones and Apps were in their infancy. It's only been nine years but I feel like this letter isn't as likely to happen today. This guy is 21 and is in prime dating-app age. He probably doesn't settle down with anyone and goes and sows his wild oats. All hail to the modern age!

Also, where will we be in 9 more years. Kind of excited, kind of scared.


And thus we see the difference between casual sex and True Love.

"It was hot to me until I fell in love with him.
Now the only thing that turns me on is him."

True Love is monogamous,
those lucky enough to be in True Love literally can not imagine deriving any joy from cheating.

If primarily all one seeks from a 'relationship' (whatever you call the relationship; FWB, "marriage"...) is sex then monogamish will spice things up.

If one is in True Love you won't want to cheat,
if you do you will recognize it as a terrible dishonesty and betrayal and regret it.

Behaviors can dull one's ability to feel and express True Love;
behaviors that have become ubiquitous in our increasingly coarse depraved culture
(we would list some of them but that always get us banned;
Perverted Power hates to have Truth spoken to it...)

Many (most?) folks have and are making choices that reduce their ability to experience True Love;
it is a huge factor in why the quality of our society's relationships ("marriage", whatever) is so poor and why those relationships no longer deliver the huge social benefits that Traditional Marriage used to.

Someone, especially a woman, looking for True Love has a daunting task in our society.


@23: Welcome back, Commie.


we never left.


@10 @truck Could also be that falling in love can trigger greater feelings of possessiveness based on a fear of abandonment. And being reminded that he is thinking of others feels like a precursor to abandonment.


I'm having a hard time feeling any sympathy at all for LW. She's forcing her SO into something he didn't sign up for and apparently isn't sexually wired for, then faulting him for having a problem with this sudden sea change in her romantic/sexual mentality. Sorry Charlie, that's not how it works. If I were the SO, I'd have D'dTMFA as soon as I realized what was going on, but I suppose it would be a nice and somewhat redemptive gesture for LW to do the honors.


@27: Well, I do feel sorry for her. And for her boyfriend, too. It's sad when people who used to be compatible no longer are. Feelings happen and sometimes we can't will ourselves into feeling a way we don't. Feelings and interests sometimes change. People grow apart. It happens. It's fine and appropriate to acknowledge that they want different things, that they have become sexually incompatible, and that it's time to break up (or was, since this letter is 9 years old). While I don't think the bf can faulted for continuing to have the same sexual interests he did at the start of their relationship, I do think that it's inconsiderate and selfish of him to ignore the specific request to leave their friends out of his dirty talk.

But blaming people for changing in ways they didn't anticipate seems absurd. This was't bait-and-switch; the lw seems to have changed in a way that surprises her.


LW, This relationship sounds doomed. When he says the words’ I’ll just tell you what you want to hear’ he’s half way out the door.
You’re young, life goes on.


NGE's boyfriend isn't sticking with the same thing that used to turn her on. Adding her friends to the scenarios is apparently a new thing. And he's being a manipulative dick about it. There is a compatibility issue here and there is an issue of expecting people to change from the people you fell in love with to someone else, but the overwhelmingly most important issue is that the BF is a MF. DTMFE.

As for CUM, yeah, maybe there's a compatibility issue there, but there may also be an issue of being realistic and learning to compromise. True fact, if it was cool with my wife, I'd love to fuck other people while she remained faithful me. That would be lots of fun, but I also know that for most people that sort of one-sided polygamy is a hard no. It would be for me too. So, do I sit around and whine that she's inhibiting my naturally slutty sexuality? Nope. Do I cheat on her? Nope. I suck it up because that desire isn't realistic outside of being a CPOS or lucking into the one submissive woman in a million who thinks that's cool.

Not everything you'd like to do is essential to your sanity. If polygamy is something you can't possibly live without or can't live without at this age, DTPNPA. If not and the relationship is more important than fucking other women, deal with the fact that you don't get to do that right now.


@8, 11, and 15, You know, I've been watching the show "Barry" lately and, in it, they play people being assassins for laughs and also make Chechen mobsters and police homicide detectives look totally ineffective. And the actors and actresses in Barry's acting class are remarkably stupid and vain.

At the risk of comparing femdoms to serial killers or mobsters, I totally get being annoyed that no mainstream portrayal of that lifestyle gets it right, but comedies rarely provide accurate portrayals of anyone. For example, most straight vanilla people aren't as stupid as the people in romantic comedies and do occasionally manage to let the people they're into know that fact. Most gay people are not like either of the main gay characters in Will and Grace. Most war vets are not assassins like Barry. Many (several?) actors and actresses are not dumb as sacks of dirt.

So, it probably sucks to be part of a misunderstood minority and have the media portray you wildly inaccurately for laughs, but that's kind of what comedies do. Sorry.

Maybe watch Barry to cheer up? It's a ton of fun.


@28 If SO had agreed to LW's request to leave her friends out of his dirty talk, that would have been a nice gesture but almost certainly would not have saved their relationship. It's ultimately a minor footnote to a much larger problem. Re: "feelings happen", that's true, it sounds like it became clear early on that SO wasn't on board with LW's sudden and unforeseen change of heart. The decent thing for LW to do would have been to level with him about her feelings and then go their separate ways. But instead, she spent what sounds like several years trying to force him into a romantic setup that he didn't sign up for and that doesn't work for him, and then she started giving him crap when he resisted. IMHO that crosses the border from "feelings happen" territory into "shitty thing to do" territory. No matter what your feelings are, you're never not responsible for the actions you take in response to those feelings.


@32 "...that's true, BUT it sounds like it became clear early on..."


"If you haven't already"? Rumpole rests his case.

I spare the assembled company the label I would apply to that television programme. Let the rising generation of gays take a useful from it.


@23 What you are calling True Love obviously has meaning to you, but you really don't get to define that phrase for other people who's experience is very different from yours. You're like the christians who claim that other christians who have a different take on christianity aren't "real christians". You have a pretty smelly degree of smug self-righteousness going on there.

@32 absolutely right. It sounds like the SO knows it's not working at this point, and is just piling on the things they used to love to do together out of disappointment and resentment at her massive flip-flop. She has abandoned him already, while claiming that it's because she "loves" him.


@31: Yeah, poor choice of comparison. And mobsters and assassins and actors who don't like their portrayal in Barry have LOTS of other portrayals to pick from. On top of which, comedy is often about defying expectations, yet the depiction of kink in Bonding is pretty much the same predictable, unimaginative stuff it always is.


Up @27: Yeah, I'm kind of going "poor you" and guffawing simultaneously. Guffawing at her naivete but pitying her for the callousness her boyfriend is showing. If she IS asking him to think only of her during sex, as opposed to asking him to maybe keep his orgiastic fantasies in his head sometimes, she's bang out of order. But Boyfriend is being manipulative by pouting, "Fine then, I'll just tell you what you want to hear." This was nine years ago, hope they've both done some growing up since.

DCP @30: That is all fair enough but this LW was only 21. The current partner was probably not his soul mate. And this fallacy that Commie is perpetuating, that when one meets the right person they won't want anyone else, is dangerous because it is true for some people, mostly true for others, and not at all true for others. Monogamy is a scale just like orientation with some people truly not wanting other people, or only having crushes rarely, some, like yourself, okay with forsaking all others because one loving and committed relationship is more important to you, and some being outright miserable at being denied a chance to explore multiple relationships (by which I do mean relationships, not just genitals). CUM is young; either he hasn't sown enough wild oats yet or he's naturally polyamorous, but either way, he should break up with this woman and seek out poly women to date. He'd be 30 now, maybe he should look me up. Haha.

Ecarpenter @35: Please don't feed the troll. If we all ignore him maybe he'll go away again.


You’re the one that I want, you hoo hoo hoo, the one that I want.
This young woman has been struck with romance dust, and he’s not helping any. If he’s not into the new her, then call it off. Don’t go torturing the poor girl with bringing her best friend into the fantasy. That is a nasty move, and she should walk out the door the minute he starts that shit.
Hope they called it quits.


Objectively, different lifestyles yield different measurable degrees of social chaos or stability.
Society has an interest in recognizing and fostering lifestyle choices that are healthy for the individuals, their families, their communities.
Conversely, in an enlightened society, lifestyle choices that predictably and reliably lead to social destruction should be identified and called out in the interest of public education and safety.
Just because someone slaps lipstick on a pig and calls it a supermodel doesn't mean the rest of us have to go along.


Thank you, BiDanFan, excellent advice.


I think we're being too hard on LW 1. Take another look at what she's actually saying.

"He never talks about a hot fantasy that involves only him and me."
Being GGG for something sometimes is different from agreeing to do that thing, only that thing, and never anything else.

"I drew the line when he started bringing my best friend into our role-playing. When I told him I would prefer if he not bring her into it, he ignored me and talked about her anyway."

WHOOP, WHOOP, boundary and consent violation. Also, a pretty reasonable boundary, IMO.

"The last time I brought it up, he said he won't tell me his fantasies anymore and that he'll just tell me what I want to hear. He also said that by asking him to stop thinking of others, I am demeaning him and his sexuality."

Manipulative whining and also malicious compliance. "Want me to scale back on this one thing every now and then? Fine! I guess I'll NEVER do it EVER again, since that's what you obviously want (even though it's not what you asked for) and also if you're not 100% down for it 100% of the time, you're shaming me."

"Am I demeaning him when I ask him to not bring up others in our role-playing every time we're intimate? It wouldn't bother me if it were once in a while."

No. Being willing to every now and then fuck your partner without loudly fantasizing about someone else is a pretty mild request that most people would consider easily GGG-category. However, that's besides the point. The point is that this guy ignores your feelings, does sexual stuff that you've specifically asked him not to, and whines and manipulates when you try and talk about your feelings. DTMFA.


P.S. I think Dan is conflating 2 issues. There's the Madonna-Whore "I like non-vanilla sex but only with people I can keep at a distance" issue, and then there's "I didn't care about your wanting other people when we were just casual sex partners, but I am monogamous when it comes to my serious relationships." Two different things.

Also, is there a word for this specific kind of manipulation tactic the boyfriend's using? You ask someone for something small (like "please wash your dishes soon after using them") and they respond by saying they'll do some over-the-top thing you didn't ask for ("FINE, I guess I'll never eat any food in your house again if it makes a dish or fork dirty!"). I've seen it often enough that I think there should be a word for it.


The two of you will never be happy together. One of you should break up with the other.


"What can I do to make him want only me?"
I think her problem is one of lack of imagination and possibly motivation. The only solution she sees is that he changes. So the advice will be to break up and not try to change him.

What if her question was, "What can I do so that I can feel safe and secure in this relationship?"
Then the answer might be to discuss their expectations of the future and see if they can agree to something they would both like or not. Maybe he could agree to keep the group sex fantasies to role-play only, and leave out familiar people in the future. Maybe she could agree to let him play with groups only occasionally. Maybe there is a way that they can both get something that makes them happy, by searching for an agreement that they we both like to follow through on.

Or maybe he would rather break up then stop talking about the things that bother her. And maybe she would rather break up then let him play with groups once in awhile. And if they can't stop whining about something the other is unable to agree to, then they should want what's best for each other and separate nicely I would think.


@42 Hyperbole. Exaggeration. Eudaemonic called it lying but he also confused it with simple misunderstandings. Basically manipulating facts to support your agenda.

Most people do it to some degree. Some people think it's fair and call it part of persuasion or charisma instead of manipulation I think. But persuasion is finding the overlap between what you want and what someone else wants to motivate them, maybe pointing out an error of reasoning or an easier way they can get what they want, but not disrespecting their desires.. while hyperbole seems to have little to do with fair persuasion and kind influence as I know it, and I think it's always listed as a manipulation technique as well.


Straw man argument. Making up an exaggeration to argue about more successfully, instead of engaging with the actual content offered. But misunderstanding also happen, there is some chance that she mistakenly said that it bothers her that he thinks of other women when they're having sex in general, so that he will naturally argue that he can't control the thoughts that pop into his head and she's being unreasonable. It's hard to tell from the letter.


"I need X and I know you can't live with X. I love you and I've loved spending the time together with you that we had, but I would rather us be happy than be together, and since I don't see this problem changing, we should go our separate ways."

If people could say this before they get upset at someone for starting to neglect them or start taking out their anger on their partner, then there would be no betrayal or controlling behavior. But people want infinite cake.


Traffic @42: Overreaction? Petulance? Childishness? DTMFA? :)

Philo @44: While I don't disagree with your advice, the letter reads as if the group fantasies ARE role-play only. There's no evidence they have brought actual real people into their bed, only that they involve them in dirty talk, every single time they have sex, which is making her feel unvalued.

Philo @46: Indeed. If she's trying to police what he's thinking about, she's crossed a line (though "you're demeaning my sexuality" is a howler). If she just wants him to keep his fantasies to himself sometimes, allowing HER to fantasise that he is thinking only of her, it's a reasonable request. "People want infinite cake" -- so true!


Philo and BDF: Hm... I think I'll make a word for it then: Straw-Offering. Because Philo's right, it's basically a straw man argument, but framed as an offer instead.


@42 Traffic Spiral - this was my take, too.

"Am I demeaning him when I ask him to not bring up others in our role-playing every time we're intimate? It wouldn't bother me if it were once in a while."

A lot of ppl are saying the friend aspect of the request is reasonable, but that she's essentially pulled a bait-and-switch. If she is asking for their sex to not involve talk of other ppl just some of the time I think that is plenty reasonable.

After years I'd get frustrated with the exact same type of sex every single time. She's asked for a compromise between what he wants (fantasizing about others every time) and what she wants (never fantasizing about others) and he isn't willing. He makes her more insecure by saying he's gonna close her off. I think there's a big difference in asking to get the kind of sex you want sometimes and saying you don't want to have the sex you started out having ever. I'd definitely dtmfa. Being able to compromise and to communicate without becoming manipulative is a basic requirement in a relationship.

Please wait...

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.