Comments

1

What the fuck is it with promiscuous straight men who sleep with promiscuous women being unable to respect the women just because they’re promiscuous?? Jesus...I like dating ethical sluts, and this slut sounded plenty ethical and quite fun and nice and charming.

Straight men can be such trash.

2

He wrote, "She is nice, kind, a nympho, and has other pleasant qualities." Nympho is clearly, grammatically, logically included within his "pleasant qualities" category. Thus, he did indeed say nympo is a good thing.

4

@1: "Straight men can be such trash."

Could we not say shit like this, please? It's not like straight women are any less horrible, they're just more covert about it. Referring to any group of people as "trash" is a polarizing, Trumpian thing to do, and we don't need more of that crap.

As for the LW, I've known tons of working-class straight guys who refer to high-sex-drive women in their lives as "nymphos" -- it's just the word they know, and is usually meant with appreciation (and fond memories), not denigration. Is it the ideal word? No, but if they meant "slut" or "whore", they'd use those words.

I think this is a case of the LW getting savaged (pun intended) for not saying things in exactly the right way. He's clearly not using "nympho" as a pejorative -- it's one of her "pleasant qualities" -- but made the error of not emphasizing that it's not among his reasons for wanting to break up.

My guess about the "respect" thing is is that he doesn't think she's smart enough for him -- which is the kind of thing we've all dumped people for, but usually keep to ourselves because it's hard to impugn a partner's intelligence without sounding like an asshole, so the LW unwisely didn't spell it out. Or maybe she has beliefs (religious, political, New Age) or aesthetic preferences that make him cringe, which amounts to the same thing.

Staying with someone you don't respect for 1.5 years is obviously a mistake, but then again half of our parents probably did the same thing for 20+ years.

5

@1 "She is nice, kind, a nympho, and has other pleasant qualities."

Seriously, WTF? If you interpret this as negative, you don't belong in this - or any - discussion about anything other than which teletubby is cuter. Please see your doctor immediately for your troubling case of "i-dont-have-a-functioning-brain-itis"

6

Dan reads men's letters like white cops view black people with cell phone.

8

@7 I've been reading him for more than 15 years, it's just who he is, well before Wokeness became a thing.

11

There's a lot of "That word you keep using . . . I do not think it means what you think it means." going on.

"Poly" which the LW claims, isn't the same as "sleeping around" which is what he's been doing.

"Nympho" on the west or northeast coasts will be heard as pejorative, but in other sub-cultures might be used for "high sex drive" as Ytterby @4 posits. Is his break-up talk, better to say "you're fabulous in bed and that's been great" instead of "nympho".

I don't think we or Dan know enough about where LWs head is at to comment meaningfully (not that it will stop us). He needs to unpack "I can't see myself respecting her enough". WTF? Is her libido too high and it is a Madonna/Whore thing? Or her intelligence / politics / religion to far from his own?

And he needs to unpack, "she could(n't) carry her weight as a partner". Doesn't earn enough? Doesn't meet some sexual need or his? What?

The partner sounds like a nice person. The LW, not so much. He should kindly, directly let her know it's over. In person.

12

@10 did I say 15? My how time flies - I meant 25 - more than half my life. Yikes!

13

I agree that EARNEST believes "nympho" is one of her positive qualities, but not even a particularly winning quality, given that her list of positive traits is basically niceness, kindness, and unspecified pleasant qualities. Although her perceived nymphomania does make it rough for him to break up with her . . .

I find EARNEST's whole letter off-putting, especially the idea of respecting someone enough to fuck them for a year and a half, but not enough for something long-term. That seems to be par for the course for EARNEST who seems to be cycling through a lot of women as if they were all fairly disposable.

14

@11: "And he needs to unpack, "she could(n't) carry her weight as a partner". Doesn't earn enough? Doesn't meet some sexual need or his? What?"

It could be those, but I'm thinking of other possibilities, like "I don't trust her judgment" and "I think she's too needy/fragile to be strong in the way I want my partners to be strong".

There are plenty of lovely people out there who make great boyfriends/girlfriends for a while, because they're kind, sensitive, and enthusiastic in bed -- but whose response to stress is to curl up, give up, and wait to be rescued. You can't pair off permanently, or even semi-permanently, with someone like that.

@13: I think EARNEST has been in a pretty typical place for someone who's been emotionally destroyed by a past relationship. Unfortunately, in a hetero context at least, emotionally destroyed men tend to be incredibly magnetic to some women.

I've heard countless men report that their period of greatest sexual success was the period in which they were heartbroken from a previous relationship, and women were drawn to them like never before or since. If women are used to, and often repulsed by, obvious male need, it sounds like that lack of need can be incredibly seductive.

Anyway, it sounds like EARNEST has been upfront enough, and it's just one of those situations where a FWB wants something more and the kind thing to do is to break it off. It's OK not to have the level of respect for a FWB that would make you want to have a serious relationship with them; otherwise, they wouldn't be a FWB. (And as others have pointed out, the poly terminology seems misplaced -- what EARNEST describes is a FWB relationship in all but name.)

15

@5 and @6 Wow, cool your jets. You're seeing what you want to see here. The letter writer does list nympho as a positive thing. Dan acknowledges they may mean it as a compliment. But, he worries because the next statement indicates that the LW can't respect her. Dan doesn't assume that those two are related, he just says they could be. And then he takes a moment to challenge the "slutty enough to date but too slutty to marry" thing. Which is a real thing and its his right and responsibility as an advice columnist to use his soapbox to challenge the things he sees as destructive.

You all are reading way too much into this because it fits a narrative you want to see. But we can flip it around. If a woman had written in that a man she was seeing was very rugged and aggressive during sex, which she liked, but then said she didn't see him as someone she could have children with, Dan would certainly remind her that many doms make great, kind, emotionally available husbands and fathers. This isn't about gender, its about not creating false narratives ("never marry a sexually free woman" or "find a nice sensitive guy to marry") that limit our choices and lead to bad results for everyone.

And @1. Don't be the opposite of Sportlandia. All straight men are not trash, many straight women are awful, some gay guys are huge assholes. We shouldn't be throwing around any "all" statements. Except that all lesbians are great. That ones just true. :)

FInally, @Sportlandia. Why do you continue to read this? I don't read Donald Trump's tweets because they're based on a worldview I find disturbing and toxic. You seem to feel the same way about Dan's POV but continue to weight in every day. Why? What are you hoping to accomplish? You're not convincing people, that never even seems to be your intent. Go away troll, go away.

16

@4 I read it the same way about the not smart enough. That is one of those things that nobody ever talks about but everyone feels. I think the key is that he let her think that this thing was potentially going somewhere and it wasn't. If you have a dealbreaker from the beginning, you don't need to be an asshole and tell them the specifics, but you do need to unequivocally say things like "I'm not ever going to be a long-term partner."

I dated a woman for like six months who I knew wasn't going to click intellectually enough to have it go anywhere. The relationship was open and we were both pretty clear that it wasn't serious. That doesn't mean it wasn't hard to break up and I can't imagine how hard it would be if I'd led her on. Don't lead people on. That's always good advice.

17

Break up with someone over astrology? Geez. That’s tough.
Oh the boys above have got upset with Dan’s interpretation.
To get to your question LW, yes you need to tell her face to face. Even casual lovers should get the curtesy of face to face. What’s with the texting? People are not disposable things, might be good to engage your heart a little with your lovers not just your cock.
Tell this woman straight that her talking long term has freaked you. That you’re not feeling ready to make such plans, and that you want to end the connection with her. Then give her some time to disconnect. She may text or drop by. So be respectful, that word, and let her grieve a bit.

18

EARNEST, you think "the way to handle" breaking up with someone you dated for "longer...than two months" is via text?

You're wrong. Dan is right that the right thing to do is "a face-to-face breakup". These are human beings. With feelings. With the right right to see the expression on your face and experience everything else that can't happen over the phone let alone (shudder) via text. Yes, Dan, yes: "being an asshole...cruel". (I know this is sadly not uncommon today, but it shows very poor emotional intelligence.)

Another thing, have you expressed that her "gently pressing on moving toward being treated like my girlfriend/primary" doesn't work for you? If you haven't used your words then maybe you're treating this as a "breaking point" when it's really just a offer you can decline (in which case this too would make you look dysfunctionally cowardly).

19

@13 SublimeAfterglow
"I find EARNEST's whole letter off-putting, especially the idea of respecting someone enough to fuck them for a year and a half"

I find the whole letter off-putting too. The lack of respect is at least a tie for everything else I find off-putting.

Now I'm thinking he should break up with her as damn favor to her.

20

@15: larrystone007, you nailed it in every paragraph.

I, too, read the "nympho" attribute as one of the gf's good qualities, and I, too, thought that the inability to respect her had to do with something else, possibly intelligence or career or income or whatever it is that makes someone say that their partner is incapable of "carry[ing] her weight as a partner." In fact, this letter could have been written about me by the guy who broke my heart when he dumped me 8 years ago. My inadequacies were not being wealthy enough to pull my own weight in the lifestyle he wanted, and having kids who were still living at home, which meant I wasn't available 100% of the time. But he would have said about me that I was "nice, kind, a nympho," and adventurous, creative, smart and funny, too. Still wasn't enough.

The thing I take issue with is the idea that one "owes it" to someone to break up in person. I don't believe in ghosting, which I see as the coward's way out, but I do think that a break-up by email, phone call, or even text--providing that's the primary way the two people communicated--is okay.

Personally, I don't want to have to try to keep it together in order to maintain dignity, if I'm being dumped. I often date people who live 40 miles or so away, so the idea of arranging a date and either driving or expecting someone else to drive only to be immediately sent on my way (or send someone on his way) seems foolish and irritating. I mean, we're not talking about two people coming reluctantly to the mutual conclusion that this relationship needs to end, and both crying and holding each other as they say their goodbyes; we're talking about one person ending a relationship that the other one very much does not want to end. What is there really to say in that situation that can't be said in writing or via a phone call?

23

The word nympho, in whatever context , has an inherently problematic meaning, to me. Why not say she enjoys sex as much as I do. Don’t sense this guy is working class, not that that’s an excuse for denigrating women.

24

Wow I‘ve never been this concerned about the savage love comments section before. Usually I come here for general agreement with a bit more detail. Today it’s all backs out of the room slowly

25

@20 nocutename
"What is there really to say"

Communication is about more than words, nocute (as I elaborated a bit on @18).

"I don't want to have to try to keep it together in order to maintain dignity, if I'm being dumped"

I infer from this that you would want to maintain dignity; which I don't relate to but of course I respect.

/You/ could always let people you date/marry know you'd prefer being dumped via some method where you are unseen. I just don't think that this personal preference you have should be the default. Or that the fact that you "often date people who live 40 miles or so away" should influence the default. Let me ask you this: would you still take this position if a husband of decades with you broke up with you out of the blue via a text of a couple words?

26

@15 What part of “Straight Men can be such trash” says “all straight men are like this”?

I think it’s reasonable for one to associate “she’s a nympho” with the reaction in the next sentence “I find it hard to respect her” because being a nympho is a positive for a woman you’re sleeping with, but is often a reason for a man not respecting a woman.

He didn’t say anything about her intelligence or money situation, but did say “he’s worried that she can’t pull her own weight in a relationship” which could mean any number of things. Intelligence and money are being read in by a generous commentariat.

27

Larry@15~ “... You all are reading way too much into this because it fits a narrative you want to see...”
I think most of the comments for most of the letters could be described this way. We all read the letters through our own filters. It does aptly apply to this LW maybe a little more though, because it is short, lacking a whole lot of context, and uses a term that could be objectionable when used as a slur (though it doesn’t feel that way to my filter). The most I can say about this is WAY too many people are using electronic communications to insulate themselves from hard personal conversations. I lament the world’s general descent into this electronic cesspool where anyone can say anything without facts to back it up or fear of consequence. Interpersonal, and especially romantic relationships deserve face to face communications, it’s the human thing to do. Breaking up with someone via e-mail is despicable and the coward’s way out... (the exception being if you fear violence, or very short-term situations where it stretches the imagination to call it a “relationship” and it really isn’t a breakup as much as a “thanks for all the fish”).

As a caveat, I do acknowledge that some of this “electronic communication” CAN be a force for good, as this column, and for the most part, the comments section prove.

28

@24 OmarSanchezCat
"Today it’s all backs out of the room slowly"

We usually see some nastiness as threads evolve, but you're right not so fast and not this much.

@27 DonnyKlicious
I really like this comment. You are one versatile and fascinating guy, both serious depth and the usual great comedy too.

"WAY too many people are using electronic communications to insulate themselves from hard personal conversations"

I agree. So much has become so much more superficial.

/Break/

I think much of progress in the last century has had lamentable affects. I also think progress once embraced, is unlikely to be let go of because of course it was embraced for it's benefits. Benefits I both value and, for their costs, lament.

Decades ago I watched a PBS reality TV show set before washing machines. What an enormous arduous-labor-saving device! I think people were more happy once they got washing machines than they may have ever been before or after. I think I may retire there once I get a time machine.

29

@curious2: A while ago I moved off-grid and if it was overcast, we didn't always have enough solar power to run the washing machine, dryer, or the dishwasher. I can confirm that washing machines are AWESOME and severely under-appreciated.

For my money, a lot of the more recent advances in technology are less obviously good. Maybe I'm just old and crotchety. Of course there are tons of nifty up-sides to the internet. But zooming out...net positive? Not at all clear to me. As you say, though, we're unlikely to take it back.

As to the letter, I agree that he makes it pretty clear he thinks "nympho" is a positive. Which isn't to say it's not also the source of the respect issue. But I'm inclined to believe that's something more like earning potential. Although, really...in the long term...what would make you happier, a broke nympho or a well-heeled prude? :)

30

WOWW look at all the offended dudes complaining in the replies... I'm dieing laughing, on the inside... Guess the truth hurts, eh?

31

@26 Please live and die with that sword you're swinging there.

It's funny, no one thinks he doesn't respect her because she's nice or kind, or her other pleasant qualities, despite the equal grammatical weight. Why do you think that is? Bueller? Bueller?

32

I once had an experience like the LW has described. My Ms. Nympho was also loads of fun and adventurous in some ways. Our sex was amazing. (And, @23: she was indeed truly insatiable. I was a dozen years her junior — and I was also the only one who ever deferred sex. I believe we would have had sex in public, had she not been from the Midwest.) At the same time, she was very clingy and, well, Midwestern; at one point, she stated disapprovingly how a male relative of hers was “having a problem with homosexuality.” I met him, and he actually had no problem at all with his being gay; but I had a big problem with her attitude.

As with the LW’s story, she and I were also together for about 18 months, at which point her clingy nature precipitated a truly explosive breakup, in which she actually threw things and ranted.

I hope LW breaks up with his nympho soon, and in whatever manner he can most easily do so; no need to prolong her agony.

33

@32 tensor
"I hope LW breaks up with his nympho soon, and in whatever manner he can most easily do so"

Oh yes, his ease is the sole consideration. Why not just wait until she's asleep and squeeze a trigger to put a bullet through her head? Much less effort even than a text.

34

One day, after I have lots of sex with lots of women who really enjoy it and are also happy with me sleeping around and do not make too many emotional demands from me, I will find a woman who does not like sex enough to sleep with many people and who wants to be only with me and then I will respect her enough to make myself emotionally available to her. A few years later, when the sex in that relationship has waned and when I'm full of resentment that she isn't really dtf nor does she want me to fuck anyone else, I will cheat on her with some slut who doesn't deserve my respect nor emotions again.

35

Of all the things EmmaLiz does wonderfully here, I like her satire best.

36

@15 - Thank you. Spot on.

37

"you're not a person I can see myself with over the long term"

Oh honey no, don't say that to break up with her. What's the benefit of dropping a "not the right ~kind of person~ for me" turd on her? Try "you're looking for a relationship I can't offer (you)." You don't have to say that "you" out loud, it's understood.

(By my read the LW would be fine with "long term" as such, he'd keep the arrangement indefinitely, it's "treating her like a girlfriend" he's unavailable for. Good for recognizing it and having the guts to break up, I'll say that.)

38

Those of you saying it's positive, don't be so daft. You're ignoring the part about respect. Sure, nympho is pleasant positive characteristics of a fun time girl. Not one he can respect. Not one he can treat like a girlfriend.

As for the actual advice, I disagree with Dan that he should say anything about her wanting a commitment. He should not try to put words in her mouth or presume anything as it could lead to an unpleasant situation or an attempt to clarify, and if she says "I don't want a commitment from you" then he still wants to break up with her right? So what's the point of saying that. Just say that it's been really fun, but he is ready to move on. Tell her that he doesn't want to stay in something that might start to feel like a relationship. Short, sweet- do it in a casual way with a deadline, like meet her for coffee or swing by on the way to run an errand. There is no easy way to break up with someone- do it swift and don't worry about it anymore. Be complimentary about what you've experienced together.

Or, in this case, simply lie. Tell her you want some more time on your own or some such bullshit. It's fine. Just say something that is final and move on. If it hurts her feelings a bit or if she thinks you are an asshole, that is a momentary discomfort which will pass quickly for you, and you are not responsible for her feelings afterwards. Since you promised nothing, you owe her nothing, and since you don't respect her enough for a relationship anyway then there's no reason to pretend concern for her emotions beyond basic decency, no game playing, which is fine.

39

Some relationships are good for casual sex and nothing else, and there is nothing wrong with that. But the amount that you respect a person has nothing to do with this. He didn't say he doesn't like her as a partner or doesn't think they are compatible long term, he said he couldn't respect her as a partner. It's possible he's just bad at communicating and what he means is some other quality that he does not mention but since it's literally the sentence following the description of her (with a but... she's a kind nympho but I don't respect her as a partner) then I think it's a pretty good guess (which is what Dan did) that he is doing a very common thing that many, yes many (not some, not a few) young straight guys do: divide women up depending on how crazy they are in be, how much they like sex, how many people they've fucked, etc.

It's worth noting that he is open to the possibility of a relationship, just not with her (which is fine) and he gives no other reason than he doesn't think she's partner material (can't pull her wait, can't earn his respect). He might just have meant simply "I like her for a fuck buddy but not a partner" and that's fine too- we've all been there. But there was no reason to say he can't respect her. At best, it's terrible word choice if not deliberate. People saying how much we're reading into this, perhaps, but then I'd question the maturity, experience and judgement of a many who would say "I'm dating this nice kind nympho who I don't respect as a partner" and not be aware of how his words come across. So sure, maybe he's not implying he has a madonna/whore thing. Maybe he's just showing that he's ridiculously naive and stupid enough not to know that loads of men shame women for liking sex so he didn't know how his words would come across. That's likely too I suppose. But considering that his very next sentence is to describe how she is completely respectful of his need for space -no indication that she wants a commitment FROM HIM- but just that she's "gently pressing" that she wants to be "treated like" a partner, my guess is that he treats her like someone he likes to fuck but does not respect for a year and a half. I mean, sure the other interpretation is possible, but if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, etc....

....

As for texting under two months- the time really isn't the thing. Sometimes two months is still casual. Other times, you've had pretty major connections. It depends on whether or not there felt like a real connection. I'd say when in doubt, do it in person, but if the two months had been casual (several dates, some sex, no really good days or bonding experiences, etc) then I'd prefer an engaging text or a phone call so long as there was the option for a conversation. Less awkward for everyone.

39

@37 Mtn. Beaver
""you're not a person I can see myself with over the long term"
Oh honey no, don't say that to break up with her."

Agreed. That would be a shitty shitty breakup line.

I admit I was hurt by hearing something inane namely "it's not you it's me", but I'd've probably liked the truth even less, particularly /that/ truth above. So in retrospect I also appreciate the good intentions behind the inane line I got. (Did I fail to 100% maintain dignity? Yes. But how flattering would she have found it being easy for me to maintain dignity? Honestly, 'maintaining dignity' was far from the kindest thing I think I could have done, and far from my highest priority.)

40

@21 and @22. There you go again. Those comments can't possibly convince anyone that your viewpoint has merit. I'll never understand why you bother to post if you're not interested in a back and forth.

I speak with no clarity. But I'm also not trying to fit the column to some preconceived notion about the viewpoint of the author. Sometimes it might fit. This time it does not. And no one comes here to listen to your comments. Most people ignore them (I generally do too). We come here for the blog and the people who advance the discussion. Try it sometime! Its fun!

Also I have cats and I'm pretty sure they'd eat me if the wife and I died. So at least I have that!

41

@26. You're right, I reacted to sportlandia's concept of your comment. I think the point still stands though. People can be trash, they just do it in different ways. "Straight me can be such trash" is pretty meaningless when you get down to it. No demographic is perfect. Except maybe Quakers. Those guys are always on the right side of things.

42

@33: You might want to talk with a licensed health-care professional about your extrapolation from ordinary events to images of extreme violence:

"Oh yes, his ease is the sole consideration. Why not just wait until she's asleep and squeeze a trigger to put a bullet through her head? Much less effort even than a text."

Aside from your declaration that shooting someone through the head is "[m]uch less effort even than a text", (Has a court ordered you to get a background check before you purchase a smart-phone?!?) let's, for the sake of argument, assume, as @20 noted, that text messaging might be their primary method of communicating: "...I do think that a break-up by email, phone call, or even text--providing that's the primary way the two people communicated--is okay." Following your diktat, LW instead sets up something more elaborate -- your required F2F @18. His lover hopefully assumes he's going to this length to grant her desire for a statement of long-term commitment. Guess what? He's dumping her instead! Her pain has now been greatly exacerbated by your required method. (Not that you'll care... it's better than a bullet in her head, right?)

Since you completely missed my overall point, I'll do you the favor of spelling it out for you. LW's relationship with his lover is over. All that remains is for him to tell her this. He should do so by the method of his greatest ease because that will end it as quickly as possible; any delay in that outcome will hurt his soon-to-be-ex-lover even more. You're welcome.

43

@27 Maybe dating profiles should have "how I prefer to be broken up with" sections. Seems like some people are cool with a short text that just ends things. Some people want to talk it out in person. Some people prefer ghosting up to a certain point.

I had a GF in college and we ended things when she went abroad (my idea, everyone should be free when they study abroad so they can get some strange ass). When she came back that summer, I realized I didn't want to start back up. I asked her to meet me at a coffee shop and told her that. It did not go well. In hindsight, that might have been a better phone call than something in a public place. Ah the foibles of youth.

44

@41
"No demographic is perfect. Except maybe Quakers. Those guys are always on the right side of things."

Richard Nixon was a Quaker.

@43 larrystone007
"dating profiles should have "how I prefer to be broken up with" sections."

Good idea. And maybe a face-tattoo for people one doesn't meet online. And maybe checkboxes on the form to get married.

Anyway, anybody I date who insists on text-dumping me can forget about it from the start. I dunno how to diagnose it, but it's something.

45

@25: Curious, I'm not trying to make breaking up via the written word either the default or mandatory delivery method (not that I have any say about that); I was merely commenting on the very common attitude that one is "owed" an in-person dumping, and saying that I, myself, don't think that is inherently a better way to break up, nor even a more courteous way, depending on the way in which one can write, etc. What I don't see a problem with isn't the same thing with what I condone or even what I recommend. And even if I were recommending it, that would only be for /me./ But it's a common trope to say that it's always better to break up in person and that that is the least that one person owes another person, and I was chiming in to say, "not everyone feels that way."

And of course, I wouldn't think a spouse should end a marriage by email or text. Then again, a divorce is different than a garden-variety breakup. The length of time isn't the issue so much as the officialness and depth of importance of a marriage. There are legal ties to untie; there is a cohabitation to extricate from; there are intertwined lives from which each needs to untangle themselves. It's impossible to avoid discussion when a marriage is ending, and that's assuming there are no children nor significant assets, which obviously require a great deal of discussion.

But a dating relationship, in which the couple isn't living together is different.

I once broke up with a man over the phone. He insisted on coming over to "talk about it" with me in person--because, as it turns out, he had convinced himself that I must be in a state--weepy, unsure of what I wanted, confused, I don't really know--out of which he apparently intended to move me. Instead, he traveled 20 miles out of his way to find me having made my mind up, polite but firm in my conviction that I didn't want to continue the relationship. I didn't mind seeing him, but it seemed so unnecessary to me. He wasn't going to make me reconsider, and I don't know what, from his perspective, was gained by that face-to-face meeting.
The guy who broke my heart because I was unsuitable for the long run, being not rich and having children around, broke up with me via email, and then offered to come over and . . . what? (his mind was made up) . . . continue the dumping in person. I asked him not to. There was nothing he could say that would mitigate the pain and I didn't want to grovel, which I well might have done. We had a sexual connection that was off the charts, and I'm fairly sure that we would have ended up in bed together, after which he would have dumped me (he tried just this thing the week before, but I essentially begged him not to break up with me). Again, I don't know what would have been gained.

Meanwhile, a friend of mine makes it a point to do all his dumpings in person, though in a public setting, like a restaurant (I can't figure out why, because then you have an awkward meal to get through, which you have to pay for). I think he thinks that the public location is a preventative against big emotional scenes. But this has resulted in the women crying or sometimes yelling at him in a public space, and then a horribly awkward interlude where they each eat the food they'd ordered before he sprang the breakup on them, or a storming out, with him having to pay for undrunk drinks and uneaten food. Again, I don't see how that's better than a tactful, carefully written email.

But again, this is MY PREFERENCE. For how I want to dump or be dumped when the relationship isn't as serious as a marriage. Y'all are free to break up with each other any way you please.

46

@44: "Anyway, anybody I date who insists on text-dumping me can forget about it from the start."

Good luck on enforcing that.

47

@5: Good point, except that since Po is obviously the cutest, that discussion is moot.

48

Ughhh, I had to patiently and painfully tell a partner of mine who is on the autism spectrum that "nympho" is never a compliment. He earnestly (see what I did there) thought it meant "fun loving" and sex positive, and could not see the pathologising and slut shaming. I don't know if EARNEST is on the spectrum, but I hope this discussion has been the education he needs regarding the term and never uses it again.

But "nympho" is not his only vocabulary issue. Like David @11 notes, he's misusing the word "poly" if he only thinks of this woman as a friend with benefits. Dude, you've been sleeping with someone two to three times a week for a year and a half and using the word "poly." She doesn't want to be your primary partner; she IS your primary partner.

Trying to be charitable here: Since EARNEST clearly doesn't know that "nympho" is a sexist, slut-shaming term, I can't definitively tie his lack of respect for his FWB to a double standard regarding her sex drive. It certainly looks that way, but it could be that he doesn't respect her for other reasons. Maybe she has a menial job (he refers to her "not pulling her weight as a partner"; does he mean financially?). Regardless, though, women (and men and enbies) deserve better than to be fucking someone who doesn't respect them. The right way to set her free is to treat her like the girlfriend she has indeed become, be as kind and as caring as possible, and accept whatever (deserved) anger or other emotions dumping her will generate. Remember that you are the bad guy here, EARNEST, so if she reacts badly she's entitled. And Ms EARNEST, if you're reading, there are men out there who respect women who have high libidos. You deserve one of them.

49

Larry @15, thank you for all of that. Except for misreading comment @1, which did not say that all straight men are trash; it said straight men CAN BE trash, and they absolutely can!

Lava @17, good call. I don't know how old EARNEST is. Breaking up by text, even a two-month fling, would be considered rude back in my day. But millennials communicate everything by phone. I think that for someone who hasn't made it past the two-month mark, and was always a secondary, breaking up using the method of communication you usually use is fine -- whether that be text, phone, WhatsApp. Some people may find it more of an inconvenience to schedule a date with someone only to have the outcome of that date be "I'm dumping you." But if there's any hint that feelings have become involved, a phone call should be the bare minimum.

Curious @19, exactly. If he hadn't come across as such a jerk, if he hadn't said he didn't respect her, I'd have been inclined to point out that she already is his primary, and that seems to be working for them, so why does he want to end it? But she's better off without him so he should definitely end it!

NoCute @20, agree 100%.

Curious @25, of course the longer and more committed the relationship, the more personal the method of breaking up should be. A casual partner of two months and a spouse are totally not the same thing, and should not have the same breakup requirements either.

Curious @33, I think you're misread Tensor; he literally says EARNEST should not prolong HER agony.

Mtn @37: Yes. He owes her tact more than he owes her honesty. He should absolutely not tell her things like the sex is great but he doesn't respect her, or that he can't see her as long-term material. He should say that HE is not ready for a relationship, even with someone as awesome as she is, and that she deserves someone who is. All true and all kind.

EmmaLiz @39, well analysed as always.

I wonder how Sportlandia would have reacted if a LW said "He's a kind, generous nigger who has many other good qualities" and Dan had called out that LW for the use of that word. Hmm.

50

Or "negro," perhaps. Something it could be argued that the writer might not have known was offensive, but absolutely is.

51

@6. Sportlandia. He tells the LW to 'ova up'. He's quite open to EARNEST being a woman / NB.

The advice is right. Grant his (or her) semi-partner the courtesy of a break-up in person.

52

Harriet @51, Dan knows full well EARNEST is a man. I read "ova up" as a cheeky twist on language like "man up" that equates courage with masculinity. (Further proof that woke Dan really hates men, seeing as he has to "make up" a reason to use extremely gentle language to call out a misogynist term like "nympho." I mean really. Winkyface emoticon)

53

@9. Dadddy. In one sentence the lw saluted his (?) soon-to-be ex for being a 'nympho', and in the next said he didn't respect her enough to want to be in a long-term relationship with her. There was no explanation that disjoined his view of her pleasant qualities (largely, her sexual biddability) from why he lacked respect for her. He didn't say eg 'for reasons quite unconnected to our sex-life, I don't want to be with this woman long-term. We don't want to live in the same place; I have to leave for grad school, and we don't share enough interests outside sex to have rewarding conversations. She wants to nest and I'm not ready for that.' Some people have inferred these reasons--to a point, in some cases eg Ytterby's 'she has New Age beliefs', where it looks to me like projection. But, in the circumstances, Dan's suggestion that EARNEST might deprecate his lover for enjoying just what he does seems quite reasonable.

@10. Dadddy. 'Advice to breeders'? It would leave out swathes of the readership. Asexuals? The voluntarily childless? The metamours and thirds of couples with children? I'm interested in virtually all types of people, in gender and sexual terms--more interested in longstanding partnerships than in the youngest throes of dating, and more interested in the ebb and flows of making het marriages work (with kinks, openness, bisexuality etc.) than with more conventional problems of sex-war mutual accommodation. The one thing I've never done is dated heterosexually in my birth gender. It's not that interesting to me. Dan is writing ecumenically; and I want to read about everything, maybe with the emphasis on everything else.

54

@52. Bi. Well, if I had place money at even odds on EARNEST being a man or woman, I'd go for a man. But it's a heavily historically encoded name--Oscar Wilde and all that. My hope, for a lot of sex and queer politics reasons, is that he's a she.

55

Harriet @53, in case you've forgotten, "breeders" is, or once was, gay slang for straight people. And that's what Dan's column, originally titled "Hey Faggot!", started out as: sex and relationships advice for straight people from a gay man. Over the years the title and the scope changed; Dan advises people from all walks of life. But apparently he's not allowed to advise straight men when words they use can be construed as offensive. Nope, "neutrality" would require that he not call out this slur and let this guy go on through life obliviously presenting himself as a double-standard-wielding misogynist jerk. Eye roll...

56

Harriet @54, EARNEST refers to other people having "unicorn experiences with me and this woman." A "unicorn experience" is when a woman joins a M/F couple. The FWB is female, ergo EARNEST is male.
And if that doesn't prove to you that EARNEST is male, this line should prove that at minimum Dan thinks he is: "So I hope you're not one of those 'sexually adventurous' straight male hypocrites who can't see themselves with a woman—who can't respect a woman—who enjoys sex just as much as he does."

57

@14. Ytterby. I don't think we need to know why EARNEST thinks his lover couldn't carry her weight as a partner. We could attribute to him a slighting attitude to her--but don't have to. All that matters is that 'they are breaking up'.

@17. Lava. Yes--the right advice; cuts to the quick; ignores all the gender-politics noises off.

@20. Nocute. I think it helps the dumpee to look into their ex's eyes to understand that over is over. I also see 'in-person' as a courtesy. Maybe he should drive to hers, rather than asking her to schlep to neutral territory.

@39. Emma. Your first two sentences about some relationships being good for casual only, but still being attended to by respect, are spot-on. Otherwise, I would like to hope (maybe naively) that breakups can be a time for honesty.

58

@1 you lack basic reading comprehension skills and are a basic reactionary. Dan you missed the mark on this one.

59

@56. Bi. Yes--that's the only thing a 'unicorn' experience can be, ergo you are right. The hardest thing for this guy, by his own testimony, is ... breaking up...? Not negotiating the difficulties of poly or multi-person sex? Not building nurturing and trustful relationships with fuckbuddies and thirds? He makes himself sound a bit of a jerk--and maybe what he's saying, about his having all this hot but often emotionally involving sex, is not down-the-line true.

When was Savage / Faggot straights'-problems only? I read it syndicated in SF Weekly from 1996 (?) onwards.... Did I just miss all the problems were het? I know what 'breeders' are and was calling breeders breeders well into my thirties. On a nonenclatural note, is a gay male couple who have adopted in their late-30s or 40s a pair of 'breeders'? I've never heard this--I'd say 'no'. And a bisexual or previously-closeted man who's had a child in a heterosexual menage?

60

After @58 and others, what part of Dan's advice do you find flawed? You don't think he owes it to her to break up face to face? (He sees her two to three times a week, so distance would not prevent this, as NoCute alludes.)
Do you find flawed the advice that he shouldn't use the term "nympho" because it's making him come across as a misogynist? Guess what, it is. So that is good advice.

Harriet @59, from Savage Love's Wikipedia page:
"Savage stated in a February 2006 interview in The Onion's A.V. Club (which publishes his column) that he began the column with the express purpose of providing mocking advice to heterosexuals, since most straight advice columnists were "clueless" when responding to letters from gay people.[4]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savage_Love
The column first ran in 1991; clearly, within five years it had got so popular that people of all stripes were writing in.
And no, "breeders" means straight people (and bisexuals who date the opposite sex), so gay parents are not breeders, while child-free straight people are. It has nothing to do with having children; it has to do with the sex one has potentially resulting in reproduction. Got it? (Remember we are talking about the term as it was used in 1991, not the term the way it's used now.)

61

More links: definition #3 here is the one Dadddy alluded to. https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Breeder

62

I'm not quite with the assumption that an in-person breakup can only be painful. It can be a valuable full stop, and a good opportunity for taking stock and wishing the other person well. One of the reasons given for avoiding it is that someone's loss of face should they fail to hold it together can be damaging; in these circumstances, I wouldn't see loss of face as the most important thing. The courtesy to the dumpee, more than with electronic communication, is that the parties get to have a conversation: she (as here) gets to ask questions, and, one would hope, receive honest answers. Rather than supposing one person imploring their ex, 'take me back! Take me back!', we could see the breakup conversation as taking the form of exes asking eg 'did that put you off? Do you think I might have to change this-or-that for next time?'.

63

@60. Wow! It began as a joke--as something tongue-in-cheek, as satire? Its seriousness crept up on him? Has Savage told this story?

TheMisanthrope @1's first response is decently indignant--quite estimable.

64

Harriet @63, TheMisanthrope @1 also appears to be a straight man, so it is entirely within his rights to describe other straight men as capable of being trash. Those straight men who are offended may well see themselves in his remarks...

65

Nympho: a woman who has excessive and uncontrollable sexual urges. How is this word ever a compliment?
One wonders where this man has been emotionally for the last year and a half. Did he even like this woman he’s been fucking. And how has she not picked up this guy is not present.
Here he is freaking out because for the first time in eighteen months, he now has to be real with her.

66

No Fan, Mr Misanthrope is a gay man.

67

Yes, how are their forms. Sportlandia and Mr D, scuttling out to blast away over nothing.
/ My guess is the LW, when referring to her other nice qualities, after calling her a nympho, meant her tits and arse. This guy is not hooked up and has used this woman three days a week for eighteen months and panics because she thought they were in a relationship.
Some men are trash.

68

Lava @66, I stand corrected.

69

I actually found myself in a similar, but gender flipped version of this letter. The sex was a lot of fun, but the conversation was only so so and the relationship was super financially imbalanced with me pulling nearly all of the weight. But I would never say I didn't respect him. And I wouldn't use slurs (if there was a slur for a man who enjoyed sex too much) to describe him even in a "positive" way.

70

@45 nocutename
Re: paragraph 1
Thank you very much for this elaboration. I greatly respect you, and I was afraid you were breaking the Platinum Rule (doing unto others as you'd want done to you instead of how others want to be done to).

"divorce is different than a garden-variety breakup. The length of time isn't the issue so much as the officialness and depth of importance of a marriage. There are legal ties to untie..."

I don't necessarily agree here. As you say there is red tape with divorce (even without children), but emotionally to me a non-marriage breakup can be pretty much the same. But maybe that's just my disrespect for legalistic structures.

"I don't know what, from his perspective, was gained by that face-to-face meeting"

Well, as I wrote @18, I would want "to see the expression on your face and experience everything else that can't happen over the phone". To elaborate I get far more information/truth from a person's unconscious facial expressions that I get from their mere words. And closure.

"broke up with me via email, and then offered to come over...dumping in person. I asked him not to."

Maybe you're stronger than the rest of us. Good on you then.

"awkward meal to get through, which you have to pay for"

And probably nobody can (I wouldn't be able to) eat.

"MY PREFERENCE. For how I want to dump"

When you dump others, I hope you respect /their/ preference and only dump them that way if they want to be dumped that way. Otherwise that is not right.

71

LW, you’ve been lying to this woman.
Yes, you said you weren’t emotionally available blah blah , Yet you were physically there, with her, for three days a week for eighteen months. Actions speak louder than words. You can’t slither away, as if you haven’t engaged her heart.
Might be more honest if you visited sex workers in future.

72

@70: Curious, you say: "When you dump others, I hope you respect /their/ preference and only dump them that way if they want to be dumped that way. Otherwise that is not right."

I ask, what do you recommend doing? Asking someone at the start of a relationship, "so if and when we break up, how would you prefer to do that?" or "should I ever break up with you, would you prefer me to do that face to face, or do I have permission to do it via a letter?"
Do you envision a scenario in which, after a year of dating, person A, wanting to break up, calls person B and says, "hey, B, I would like to dump you. How would you like me to do that? Should I come over?"

I don't mean to be snide. But dumping, by definition, is a one-sided act, in that it generally means that the decision to break up is not a mutual one. Just as breaking up is the one act in a relationship that one doesn't need consent to perform, I don't know how the person doing the breaking up is supposed to honor the preferences of the person they are breaking up with. Unless during the course of the relationship the topic had come up, and I knew from earlier conversations or comments that my partner really cared that breakups be face-to-face, I would have no way of knowing that when breakup time came.

I specifically mentioned that I tried to break up with someone by phone and he insisted on coming over to discuss/process the proposed break up (btw, we had been dating only two or three months). So of course, I agreed. I really didn't know what was going to be any different by him looking into my face as I told him I just wasn't feeling what I need to feel to continue being in a romantic relationship, but it turns out that he seemed to think that I was confused in my thinking and somehow insecure about something and if he just hugged me (or something; I honestly don't know how his thinking worked on this), all my confusion would be lifted and I'd decide I didn't want to break up after all. When I very kindly and as tactfully as possible told him that it was over, he pulled the card I mentioned in relation to the woman who told her new boyfriend that she hoped her kink wouldn't scare him away (SLLOTD for October 17: His New Girlfriend Doesn't Want to "Scare Him Off" With Her Kinks): he suggested I was mentally ill because I like to be submissive in bed, and he claimed to be concerned that it was my low self-esteem (due, no doubt, he told me, to a childhood trauma) that made me want to be called degrading names (slut--the horror!) during sex. He urged me, for my own good, tears streaming down his face, to seek psychological help and get healthy. So yeah, I guess that face-to-face breakup was clarifying, after all. It really clarified for me that we were not compatible.

73

@Curious

The Quakers had a schism- I know next to nothing about it but the one thing I do know is that it split into two groups, one of which is hierarchical (with a leader at meetings) and the other is horizontal (sitting in a group in silence until the spirit calls upon members to speak). Not surprisingly, it's the second group that has been famously activist oriented, the abolitionists and civil disobedients and pacifists, the ones challenging ICE and imperialism right now that you still meet at actions today. Nixon, as you'd expect, came from the first- the more conservative and hierarchical side of the Quakers which has never been associated with all that stuff. So he's not an exception but rather a norm.

Now this is what I've been told firsthand by Quakers, I've not verified any of it myself, so if I've got this wrong then I apologize.

74

Yes "breeders" has an older meaning referring to straight people, and any long term Dan fans using that term to talk about how Dan responds to straight people likely mean it this way.

"Breeders" has also been used by child free people to refer to parents (of any sexual orientation) who reproduce (as opposed to adopt). It's playful teasing at best, a pejorative at worst.

There was a small movement of child free people in the 90s who pushed back against heteronormative family roles, especially for women, and who wanted to normalize child rearing being a choice that lots of people choose not to. They popularized the word "childfree" as opposed to "childless" and - as with most pendulum swings- they went too far, referring to children as things like "cunt droppings" and also advocating for increasing the hostility towards families and children in our society- things like not wanting to pay taxes for schools / medical care for others' children, wanting childfree zones in public, bitching endlessly about misbehaving children in grocery stores or crying babies on airplanes, etc, and sometimes sounding like eugenicists, wanting sterilization for some folks. They were satirized on The Simpsons as the group No Kidding which had the hilarious line "we want to live in a world that doesn't stop just because a school bus did". Basically just a fringe movement of grouchy people back in the 90s and early 00s when everyone still had money and nothing better to bitch about.

I know a bit about it because I was around people like this in college since I was coming to the understanding that I wanted no part in reproduction myself, but their anti-society tendencies made me consider how hostile our culture is to families and women, and surprisingly this fringe group led me to turn towards more lefty politics (families are normal, we should have systems of support, it's incompatible with feminism & liberation from gender roles to isolate parents). Silly fringe ideas can affect you this way in your formative years, ha ha ha.

Anyway, around the same time (early college) I was also waiting and bartending in a predominantly gay district and therefore heard lots of people use the same word "breeders" to refer to straight people without the same malice. It was confusing at first, as things are when you are 19.

So that's my experience with "breeders"- hope it's illuminating, Harriet & others.

75

First, kudos to the partner in question for making her desires known. She wants a long-term relationship and she's letting him know. Next, kudos to the LW for realizing that he doesn't want a long-term relationship with the partner in question. They've now avoided the biggest problem, which is getting stuck in a relationship that isn't going to work.

The biggest problem now is that the LW thinks he needs to give a reason to her. He doesn't. As an adult dater, I've broken up with people. I've been broken up with. Neither side of the equation is fun. But simple is best, whether it's in person, or on the phone, or in text. "It's not happening for me" is a full sentence.

Now, end-of-relationships are often weird, in my experience. All sorts of flotsam and jetsam float to the surface that aren't really the point. But clean and respectful is a good goal.

76

There isn't a right or easy way to dump someone, and it seems really odd to normalize talking about how one prefers to break up at the same time that one is meeting for the first time. I mean, I guess if you really have a preference, then you could state that at the beginning.

For myself, clearly stated expectations at the beginning of relationships followed by occasionally reminders or follow ups throughout the relationships made break ups easier when I was the one breaking up. This particular LW has been clear throughout that he does not want a commitment, so even though it might sting to be dumped (no one likes that) it should not come to a surprise to the woman involved- she knows it's casual. There's no reason for the LW to go into any detail in my opinion as he is simply following through with his stated preferences- he does not want something long term and this has been going on for a while. It's a bad idea to say "You want a relationship and I don't" since she can just follow up with "Actually I don't want a relationship with you" and then what? Is he going to say "Oh, ok then, lets keep our arrangement"?? Is he going to have to argue with her "But you are pushing me towards treating you like a girlfriend"?? Is he going to have to come up with something on the fly "Well, even if you don't want a relationship, I want to move on because I'm starting to feel pressured"??

Best just to come up with a lie (I want time alone) or be honest but take it on to himself entirely (This is starting to feel like a relationship to me, and I am not interested in a relationship- insert lots of gracious things about how nice it has been- and I need to stop seeing you.) It's going to be a little hard. That's how dumping someone is. It will also be over the moment you walk out the door. The worry over it is worse for you than the dumping will be. The dumping will be worse for her, but better than prolonging any misunderstanding. Just yank the band aid off, in my opinion.

Generally also, I think it's foolhardy for a couple to talk about preferences for breaking up at the beginning. People's feelings change, and anyway, one person's preference for being dumped is not more important than another person's preference for dumping. There aren't answers to every situation. Just minimize drama, express things clearly and definitively (don't leave it open for interpretation or leave people hanging), and show basic RESPECT for others' feelings.

It's different when you end a real long term relationship- I haven't much experience with that as I've been in only one since my early 20s and it hasn't ended yet so I'll let you talk amongst yourselves about that. But ending casual relationships and FWBs, I think it's best to take it upon yourself and not attribute any actions or criticisms to the person being dumped (assuming they did not do anything abusive)- there's no point in criticising another person who you are not sincerely emotional involved with anyway. It will just lead to a scene, and in the end, you don't want this person in your life anyway so what does it matter? I've been totally surprised and hurt by people who did not want to see me again when I thought things were going well. It stings. Sometimes blame it on them, sometimes reflect and grow. There's no right way to do it, but so long as no one misled the other about the relationship, then it's not your problem to manage the fall out. Move on and let her do so as well.

77

nocutename
@72
"I ask, what do you recommend doing?"

Generally one should do to someone what one would expect the other person would want.

Setting aside youths for a moment, you either do or should know what most people want (even if you less-than-respected this with the word "trope"):

@45
"it's a common trope to say that it's always better to break up in person"

So if you, as you do, prefer to dump in a way the great majority of people do not want to be dumped, it is properly incumbent upon you to try to determine it, as you say @72 "during the course of the relationship". Say when someone brings up an ex. Or just opening with your preference; and if they don't volunteer theirs, you could ask. It is after all a more interesting question nowadays; it used to be that F2F was the default period, but now...

If I understand correctly (while I do not think this is a healthy change), youths prefer forms of communication I believe are more superficial than F2F. So if I understand correctly (and I am by no means certain, I am not sufficiently familiar with the practices of today's generation of youths to know), and you're dating youths, and you haven't determined their preference, then these circumstances would make it proper to assume that a given youth is more likely to not prefer a F2F dumping.

I am really truly sorry that you received that horrible (and of course baseless) attack. People who leverage their closeness to harm suck terribly. Of course we know that his tears were from his own pain, while his actions were to hurt you. And I'm quite angry just thinking about it.

I know such things happen in dumplings, and I know one never knows who will do it. And I know you want to not experience that again. But generally speaking, exposing yourself to such possibilities is properly one of the costs of intimate human relationships.

I want to acknowledge that my own life experience has made me touchy about such an issue. I have a family member who has extremely unique ways they want to be treated and treat others, ways that are abhorrent to everyone, and who feels fully justified because they're mis-using the Golden Rule instead of following the Platinum one.

@73 EmmaLiz
Very interesting, thank you very much!

I recently read a very interesting history of the English Civil War in the 1600s and I very liked what Quakers were then.

78

Nocute @72, I do think that he was hoping he could change your mind/ help you through your "emotional problems" and back into seeing that he was a great partner. I think it is an ego thing. I have ended relationships that resulted in several of these face-to-face encounters, and it seems to involve people being unable to accept that they are "not the right person" for everyone.

I would be willing to bet that the LW is relatively young and that his use of "nympho" is not intended to be a negative. I will give his ignorance the benefit of the doubt. That being said, he doesn't really provide any reference for what makes her an unsuitable partner, so the placement of that sentiment immediately afterwards may be telling, which I'm assuming is why Dan broached that subject. He also clearly does not understand what Poly means, it seems as though it is just becoming a term that means "I intend to bang people when I want to" for way too many people.

I just learned the term "situationship", which seems to be what is going on here. I saw a list of tweets from women complaining about men who refused to label anything or make any kind of commitment for extended periods of time as a "situationship". Anyone who has been dating someone for 18 months and is offended that that person is "gently" suggesting that they enter a relationship is (probably young and dumb and) an asshole. I realize that we all bring our own interpretations to these letters, but it seems pretty clear to me that the LW saw this girl as easy sex while he tried to find someone better, and never respected her in the first place.

I think his use of Poly was simply his way of stating that he didn't have feelings for her so he intended to date other people while he used her for sex. I don't want to give him any kind of out, but " I politely broke up with over text, talking about how wonderful they were and how I was breaking up with them for reasons unrelated to them. My perception is that is the way to handle those situations" makes him sound an awful lot like a sociopath.

I think the real issue at hand is that this guy is not in good working order and probably shouldn't be dating at all. He states that "I was the definition of emotionally unavailable" and wants to end a relationship because she gently pressured to, not necessarily be his only partner, but just be labeled as his primary. It seems as though she, after being in a relationship with him for 1.5 years, just wants any indication that he cares, so he is going to end the relationship. That says therapy to me.

79

SM,

I read the letter as you did, but just to make the point even stronger:

"and wants to end a relationship because she gently pressured to, not necessarily be his only partner, but just be labeled as his primary"

He didn't say she wants to be labeled that way but rather "treated as" a partner which makes me wonder how he's been treating her for 1.5 years. If it's just as a fuck buddy, that's fine, but then there would be no need to break up right? Coupled with the other language in the letter about his emotional availability, the possible sex shaming, the lack of respect, etc it makes me wonder if he's been wanting to keep her as a regular thing while also keeping her under wraps so to speak- like a dirty secret.

This is conjecture and perhaps not true at all, but the "gentle pressure" to be "treated like a girlfriend" combined with the fact that she's been respectful of his privacy / solo time / other sexual relationships makes me wonder if she's simply asking to be treated with respect as one of his partners out in the open.

If LW wants a fuck buddy or a FWB in the future, he should make that clear, then there is no reason at all to break up anyway since they'd never have been together.

80

Curious et al, I agree there is no pain-free way to break up with someone, which seems to be the magic button many LWs are looking for. There also seems to be no way to ask someone, "If we were to break up, how would you want me to do it?" without tipping them off that you intended to dump them -- which, realistically, amounts to dumping them. Logistics matter; opportunity matters; the nature of the relationship matters; the person's likely reaction matters. If you know that someone is manipulative and that in person, they will talk you out of breaking up, then you will need to break up some other way. There are a million exceptions to the "you must break up in person" rule. And even if that would be a person's preference, it's not going to make the breakup not hurt. All one can do is break up with someone in a way that seems compassionate but final and let the chips fall where they may.

Savage @78, excellent post. I agree many people say poly when they just mean they are not monogamous. Words matter because if someone like EARNEST means "I won't commit to you emotionally" but says "we are poly," partners may get a very different idea of what he is offering.

81

@80 BiDanFan
I do acknowledge that it can be complicated. Reading @80 reminded me of a time I broke up over the phone. Why?

Well, it turned out she was a pathological liar. Then accompanied someone in armed robbery of me. Some months later she called to resume. It was a very short call. "I don't think we can trust each other anymore."

82

I can't believe the number of people willing to make so many logical leaps based upon facts not in evidence to make the LW a jerk.

First, he clearly used nympho in a complimentary sense. It does not matter whether any reader thinks it is always pejorative - it's his letter and he gets to decide what it means. Frankly, I personally think it's much better than "slut' and he would have definitely been jumped on by certain members of the commentariat if he had used that word. And yet those same people have used that word (as has Dan) in a complementary way.

There is no evidence that he has in any way treated this woman badly or misled her in any way. Further, there is no evidence that his lack of respect for her has anything to do with her sexuality - personally, I think it's her intelligence. But I am not going to assume that because, once again, facts not in evidence.

Facts that are in evidence is that they have dated/been FWB's for a year and a half and he has (presumably THEY have) dated other people. He thinks she thinks she would want it to be more and he doesn't see her as a long term commitment and wants to break up.

Here is the proper response without the unnecessary shade. Yes, LW, you should break up in the kindest way possible - the end.

83

@ Curious: I did say that it is a common trope that breaking up in person is better/kinder/more appropriate/less an asshole move/more mature than breaking up in writing or over the phone--but I did not say that most people prefer it. I don't know if many people have a preference for the way they wish to be broken up with; I assume that most people don't wish to be broken up with, and that they haven't given a whole lot of thought into which way would be preferable.

I don't actually have a preference for dumping remotely, but I was trying, way back @20, to say, that the insistence on the in-person breakup as the "best" or most mature way to break up is at least arbitrary.

But I'm fairly sure that the whole "he-didn't-even-have-the-DECENCY-to-break-up-with-me-face-to-face" thing is merely a convenient cover for some of the sting of being rejected. Because honestly, I can't imagine that having my heart broken when a man I was in love with broke up with me would be mitigated by his doing so in person; I can't see myself hurting and desolate saying, "well, at least he had the decency to to the right thing and break up with me face-to-face."

The reality is that breaking up sucks. Even when it's amicable. Even when both parties agree that it's for the best. It sucks for the person who wants to end the relationship and doesn't want to inflict pain, but knows that that's inevitable. It sucks most, of course, for the person who is being rejected and who doesn't want the relationship to end.

I don't think that those of us who have broken up via letter (which is what either an email or a text essentially is) or the phone were deliberately trying to be inconsiderate. Indeed, in the example I gave in which I tried to break up with a guy by phone and he wanted to come to my house, my reasoning was that
1) we weren't supposed to see each other for another 3 days (that's when our next date was scheduled for)

and

2) We were supposed to go away together for a weekend (to see HUMP in Portland, as a matter of fact) in another few weeks

and I didn't think it was fair to string him along any longer than necessary once I knew I wasn't feeling it. I am a rip-the-bandaid-off kind of person in general, but I also thought that the more time went by, the worse it was going to be: he'd be more invested, the plane tickets would be non-refundable if we waited much longer, he'd have no time to ask someone else to be his date if he wanted to still attend the event. Mostly, though, I knew I couldn't pretend to be invested in the relationship even just in phone calls or texting, once I had made up my mind. It was a get-this-over-with kind of thing.

However, he asked to come over (to talk me out of breaking up with him, no doubt, which is kind of funny, because he could have "talked" to me using his words over the phone or by text or email. He must have thought that he could hug or fuck me into changing my mind, which is particularly ironic, since the main reason I was breaking up with him was that I felt no attraction to him), and of course, I agreed; it was what he asked for, and I'm not an asshat. I think he also wanted to see my face, but I honestly don't know what he was expecting to see there that wasn't already being conveyed. (Btw, my exact words were: "I just don't feel it: I don't feel what I need to feel to continue going out with you. You're a great guy, but it's not working for me."). Nevertheless, I tried to do it the way he wanted.

You don't need to feel angry on my behalf that he directed that parting shot at me. ("I am really truly sorry that you received that horrible (and of course baseless) attack. People who leverage their closeness to harm suck terribly. Of course we know that his tears were from his own pain, while his actions were to hurt you. And I'm quite angry just thinking about it."). He may have been lashing out out of a desire to hurt me, but I choose to believe that he was earnest (see what I did there?) and sincerely wanted me to overcome what he thought was my problem. That's okay; as I said above, it helped to confirm my feeling that we were mis-matched. I wasn't hurt by it--but I did offer it up in response to the other letter to say that there are plenty of people who do get scared off or at least who disapprove of the most common and innocuous of kinks.

84

They clearly want different things. I don't see why this is such a drama. Hell, he can continue to bang her if she wants. Or not.

85

@82. The nympho part is right before the “i don’t respect her” sentence. Not 3 paragraphs away. Not even one paragraph away. The thoughts are separated by an “etc.” Most writers put connecting thoughts next to each other. For instance, the first three sentences and sentence fragments in this post would make no sense if we were taken as separate thoughts without each other.

Furthermore, you’re assuming that the woman in the LW’s letter is lacking intelligence speaks volumes on how you see women who like sex. LW mentions her sexuality but says absolutely nothing about her intelligence (and he’s not exactly all that bright himself).

I think there are a lot of straight men (or maybe just one with a lot of different alts) who might feel “seen” by my first post of not respecting some women just because the women happen to like sex; they’re of the same breed who would say “I don’t rape women so you can’t say ‘men rape women’ because it doesn’t apply to me.”

Straight men can be such trash.

The end.

87

@82: I think this comes down to a division amongst the commentariat about what the comment section is for. Some people here think of this as a space reserved primarily for LGBT people and straight women, in which straight men are basically guests and should act accordingly.

Others think it's a space for all people of all genders and sexualities -- sp that straight men's interests, perspectives, and opinions are no more or less valuable than anyone else's, and should be treated with the same respect we demand to be shown to women and LGBT people.

Under the second POV, comments like "straight men can be such trash" would be received no differently than "women can be such trash" or "lesbians can be such trash": namely, that calling a group of people "trash" -- even a subset of that group -- and defining that group by their gender or sexual orientation is a fuckheaded thing to do, because we've agreed that neither gender nor sexual orientation are predictive of character.

Under the first POV, no legitimate objection could be made to anything negative that might be said about straight men, because this is the era of Trump and so, under the "two wrongs make a right" principle, all rage is legitimate and not to be questioned.

Never mind that the era of Trump has as much to do with our toxic relationship with money, fame, and power as with anything else -- "one set of rules for the rich, one for everyone else" is something PLENTY of women endorse as long as they're in the first category: ever seen a Smith graduate magically turn conservative once she marries that hedge fund manager? -- or how the spectacle of affluent white women nitpicking speech used by men of the economic underclass (many of whom are, newsflash, non-white) is, frankly, distasteful.

But remember, "back in the 90s and early 00s when everyone still had money and nothing better to bitch about"! -- well, everyone who COUNTS had money, anyway. And health insurance, and job security, and parents who paid our way through college, whom we could call for a bailout halfway through that unpaid internship. If you didn't have those things, why would I even want to KNOW you, right? Poor people are such buzzkills.

89

lol Sporty complaining about "white feminism". I suppose he'd prefer the radical kind then? Maybe intersectional feminism of the sort that Crenshaw advocates? Or Combahee River Collective's black lesbian feminism? Socialist/Marxist feminists? Anarchafeminists?

There's a lot to complain about lib fems, Sporty, but don't do it when you actually just mean all feminists. As for being banned, I'm not a snitch and have never reported anyone primarily b/c it's pointless (as evidenced by your reappearance) and also I don't care that much, but I find it hilarious that you think the existence or non-existence of a white feminist circle jerk here in the comment section is in any way affected by your participation or non-participation. Like, if you were the gallant hero slaying the feminist dragon (to use some JP imagery that I'm sure you'll appreciate) then the saga lived only in your mind. We're all here in a circle jerk, you too, and best you can hope from it is diversion plus the possibility of learning a thing or two about human nature and ourselves.

90

@85: "Furthermore, you’re assuming that the woman in the LW’s letter is lacking intelligence speaks volumes on how you see women who like sex."

This is one of the most deliberately dishonest posts I've ever seen in this comment section, and that's saying something.

The issue, you prevaricating asshat, is whether the LW perceives his FWB that way. We know he doesn't fully respect her in some way, and it's not too hard to infer what it might be from the way he writes about her: either politics, goofy beliefs, or thinking that she's just not smart.

And most of us think that people with shitty politics and goofy beliefs aren't smart, at least not in the ways we want our mates to be: we think they lack critical thinking skills, and that's a bad trait in a partner.

It has ZERO to do with whether she IS smart. We don't know her; we don't have her voice. No one has claimed she isn't smart, only that it sounds like the LW thinks she isn't.

If you're not willing to make that distinction, and are so consumed by your rage that you don't give a shit what people actually say, then you and Trump are on the same side. Period.

91

Ytterby I mostly agree with that statement.

I'd say when someone says that a particular group can be trash, they are referring to negative tendencies of that group specifically. Straight women can be trash. Gay men can be trash, etc. Anyone can be trash. But groups tend to have trashy behavior in specific ways.

It's simply true that many straight men (not even "some" or "a few" but "many") categorize women according to how they behave in bed, how many partners they have, how much they like sex, etc, and also that they have hang ups around resentment of women for doing / not doing the things they desire in a way that most gay men do not towards other men, in a way that most lesbians do not towards other women, in a way that most straight women do not towards men, etc. I'm sure there are all sorts of ways that straight women or any other group can be trash too, but this isn't one of them.

Look at Sporty's disingenuous "how do we know he's not referring to her kindness not her nympho nature" @31.

It's because there are not straight men desiring a partner who is extremely kind to them but mostly inexperienced in kindness to others. There are not straight men with a complex about kind vs unkind women or who resent women for showing/witholding kindness, etc. That is not a trope because it's not a thing that happens. Madonna/whore, slut shaming, lady in the streets/whore in the sheets, etc are all tropes because those preferences do exist. Calling this trash is correct, and this particular form of trash is something straight men do- not others.

That said, I generally think it's unhelpful to refer to things this way, but it's also annoying to have an experience that most women have witnessed or experienced themselves be denied when it's right in front of our faces. If this guy didn't mean it that way, then he's clueless and should learn why it's a red flag for so many women to hear a man say that a woman is a nympho good time girl that he doesn't respect. So it's weird that someone like Misanthrope gets called out for their word choice when calling out the LW for his, like why is it OK to be sensitive to Misanthrope's words but it's "reading too much into it" to be sensitive to the LW's? Like either we read generously and assume best intentions or we don''t- you don't get to pick and choose whose skin is considered thin and whose isn't. If you acknowledge that wording things a certain way affects people, then that goes all ways.

92

@89: "lol Sporty complaining about "white feminism"...There's a lot to complain about lib fems, Sporty, but don't do it when you actually just mean all feminists."

I can't imagine you don't know that "white feminism" is a very specific thing, i.e. the utterly self-involved brand of feminism pushed by affluent white women who center their own relatively petty concerns at the expense of far broader issues that often involve economic and racial justice. (And who are often resistant to those things because -- whatever their feminist bona fides might be -- they don't want to give up their economic privilege, and/or just don't like black people.)

It's not a term that comes out of thin air, and it's coming from a POC. Don't treat it like some made-up neologism, or something that can't possibly be applied correctly given the source.

93

@90 Considering that you continue to project the LW complaining about intelligence when he absolutely did not say anything about intelligence, I’d have to say that I’m not exactly interested in your idea of what is and isn’t “dishonest.” I mean, maybe deal with some of your own insecurities before projecting it onto the LW’s letter and thinking the best. LW isn’t an award-winning golden flower. He’s a piece of trash who has been fucking a woman for 1.5 years but doesn’t respect her enough to “formally” date her, even though almost anybody in their right mind would think that seeing her 2-3 times a week would be dating her.

I could project any number of issues onto LW: maybe he’s athletic and she’s fat and he doesn’t want to be seen in public with her; maybe he’s kind of wealthy and she’s unmotivated to get anything but a menial job; maybe she’s a stripper and he is sexphobic; maybe she smokes pot all day while he only supports alcohol; maybe she is a punk while he’s buttoned up. Absolutely none of these have any basis in the letter and are just me pulling old Savage Love issues out of thin air.

The thing is, you dishonest asshole, is that you have no basis for even bringing in intelligence except for your own feigned projection. Based on your reading of this letter, I’m assuming that you use “intelligence” as a reason to break it off with women you’re fucking in order to feel superior to them while you really aren’t anything special yourself.

95

@91: "So it's weird that someone like Misanthrope gets called out for their word choice when calling out the LW for his, like why is it OK to be sensitive to Misanthrope's words but it's "reading too much into it" to be sensitive to the LW's?"

Well, for one, because one is an attack on a group en masse that expresses deliberate contempt and hatred, and the other is AT WORST the evidence of one person's poor use of language.

I really, really don't believe there's a Madonna/whore thing going on here. Like, at all. This isn't a 1980s romantic comedy-drama set in Queens, this is 2019 and someone who identifies as "poly" and writes to Dan Savage is extremely unlikely to hold those views. It just doesn't ring true to me, and seems like a case of jumping on someone for not writing something in Exactly The Right Way.

That doesn't mean the LW isn't a dickhead, but the reaction to that one word has been wildly disproportionate and has as much to do with preexisting chips on people's shoulders as anything. It's possible to make it a Teachable Moment without catastrophizing the whole thing.

96

lol Sporty, where can one access these cardinal rules? The pope of white feminism? Again, I don't really give a shit about your views on feminism. What's funny is that you think that you posed yourself as being in a position to prevent a circle jerk of some kind by your comments, ha ha. I'd wondered what it is you get out of posting here- others have expressed their motivations, but you just seemed to get mad all the time. Now I understand. You see yourself as preventing an inevitable lib fem circle jerk.

BTW the criticism of "white feminism" isn't that it rejects the validity of any criticism, but rather that it a) it's set upon the pedestal of Victorian gender roles- expecting both the special treatment and defense of white femininity while also rejecting the limited domestic sphere of those women (as mothers, in the home) without acknowledging that the dignity of motherhood and the special domestic sphere was never extended to women of color or working class women in the first place, and b) therefore focuses on things that offer no structural challenge to patriarchy or other oppressions leading to advocacy that focuses only on middle class access to power structures (female CEOs for example), as well as c) an emphasis on appropriate tone and manners which excludes people with other grievances and manners and rejects any action that could agitate for mass structural change.

The "no criticism is valid" talking point is just the whole right wing propaganda about free speech.

97

@Ytterby,

I understand that completely and have plenty of criticism for lib feminism (or "white" feminism).

What's ludicrous is thinking that Sporty's complaint about a white feminist circle jerk has anything to do with those critiques- as if he were an advocate for any other kind of feminism. And as a bicultural radical feminist woman myself, I don't need a lesson on it. The humor is in trying to picture Sporty positioning himself as offering critiques of white feminism from the Combahee River Collective or some such radical tradition rather than manosphere talking points as is actually the case. Not that white feminism itself does not deserve criticism.

As it stands, I don't think there is a bias towards lib feminism here- there are plenty of folks from queer theory and radical traditions as well. Best I can tell, the folks who participate in these things have a smattering of influence from a wide variety of feminist traditions, and Sporty seems to be critical of any of them without differentiation.

98

This is getting ugly.

First of all, come on. The only way the letter makes sense is if he at least intended “nympho” to be a compliment.

Sure it’s possible that her “nympho”-ness was the source of his insufficient respect. But that is not at all clear, and not, to me, worth arguing about.

It’s been argued that no one should date someone they don’t respect. Agreed, but maybe he is only realizing that now.

Anyway, yeah, he could very well be an asshole. Or not. There is not enough info to decide, and I don’t really care.

In general I wish these discussions spent more time on the advice and less on trying to judge whether or not the LW gives an asshole vibe.

99

@93: "Considering that you continue to project the LW complaining about intelligence when he absolutely did not say anything about intelligence"

He didn't say anything about "her political opinions or her belief in astrology or her climate-change denialism", either, but Dan was willing to speculate. Do you object to his whole column?

Most of us have known someone -- male or female -- who dated someone they perceived, RIGHTLY OR WRONGLY, as less intelligent than they are. Usually they don't come out and say it, because it's a shitty thing to say directly, so they circumlocute around it in fairly predictable ways.

The fact that 3-4 different people in the thread have had the same guess should tell you that, just maybe, we've had the life experience to recognize a POSSIBLE pattern, and a familiar attitude.

That DOESN'T MEAN WE ENDORSE IT, it means that we recognize what COULD be the speech pattern of someone who THINKS they're smarter than their partner. And quite often, that person is absolutely wrong, and the person they think is dumber is actually much, much smarter than they are.

Do you get it now? I mean, for fuck's sake, the Golden Girls, that well-known vehicle of misogyny, has done this plotline at least twice. Get off your unearned high horse.

100

Ytterby, I don't remember your gender or sexual orientation, but my guess is that you are not a straight woman having casual sex with men. I don't know if there is a Madonna/Whore thing happening either- we speculate as we do using the words given us. He chose those words, not us. But the combination of desire for sex with women with resentment over how those women have sex is extremely common among straight men, and so when you combine the two (his words plus this reality) it is totally normal that people will take the opinion that this LW is behaving in a way that is common trash among some straight men.

This could be a misinterpretation. If so, then the LW has extremely poor word choice that belies his complete lack of understanding of a very common stigma faced by women who enjoy casual sex with men, and as he is a man who has casual sex with women, he should know better. I do not see why calling him out on this is somehow less bad than calling straight men who express these common views trash. It's just that one affects you emotionally and the other doesn't.

When it comes down to it, either we are going to police the way people talk or we aren't. You can't have it both ways. If you think it's justified for your feelings to be hurt by a commenter saying straight men can be trash, then you must also acknowledge that it's justified for others' feelings to be hurt by a straight man calling a woman a nympho and then saying that he doesn't respect her and can't treat her like a girlfriend. On the other hand, if you think it's ludicrous to get worked up by people's word choices, then it goes both ways.

I personally believe that everyone should be way less polite and argue more as I think an over emphasis on good manners covers up a lot of problems and obscures how people feel about things, but likewise what goes along with not being mindful of consequences of your speech is that you will face the consequences of your speech. You don't get to cherry pick whose words hurt who and when that matters.

Finally nobody is attacking anyone, don't be daft. This is a conversation online about language.

101

"She is nice, kind, a nympho, and has other pleasant qualities. But I can't see myself respecting her enough for long-term, nor do I feel like she could carry her weight as a partner."

None of us can know for sure whether the letter writer intended "nympho" to be one the gf's more "pleasant" characteristics or whether he sees that as being one of the things--or perhaps the main thing-that keeps him from being able to respect her. In either case, in no scenario that I can imagine could her being a "nympho" prevent her from pulling her weight in a relationship.

He doesn't say what she does that keeps him from being able to respect her for the long term. Maybe it's her sluttiness; maybe she likes to burn scented candles or pronounces the word "espresso" as "ex-presso." Maybe she doesn't read anything but the National Enquirer. Maybe she runs a welfare check scam operation. Because the characteristic of her promiscuity was in a sentence enumerating her good qualities, I tend to think the lw considers it a good characteristic--at least as far as a casual relationship is concerned. He may well also consider it to be grounds for not respecting her, but until or unless he says that explicitly, it's impossible to tell and people are getting pretty harsh and judgmental toward him and toward anyone writing in who doesn't agree with their interpretation of what role her nymphomania plays in his inability to respect her. It's kind of ridiculous, really.

And none of that makes any difference to his question, which was how to break up with her. Dan got on the madonna/whore hypocrisy tangent, which, as an influential person with the platform to reach a lot of people, including straight men (see EmmaLiz's comment @91), is not a bad thing: he's in the education/entertainment business, after all.

But the guy is really trying to figure out how to break up with someone he likes well enough and to whom he's sexually attracted because in many ways he can't envision her as a long-term partner and he knows that she wants that. He's trying to do the right thing.

Which is for him to say to her (apparently, in person, next time they have a date): "You know, I think we want different things from this relationship and I don't think it's fair to continue dating. I will always think fondly about you, and hope you find what you're looking for, but we need to stop seeing each other."

The amount of animosity generated by the discussion of whether or not his "nympho" descriptor is the reason he doesn't have respect for her is way out of proportion to the letter.

102

Wow! In the amount of time it took me to compose my last comment, joeburner 2 has said essentially the same thing. Thanks. I agree.

103

@97: I think the point, at least for me, is that I know plenty of working-class men who have used "nympho" to refer to women with high sex drives, with nothing pejorative (let alone misogynistic) in mind. So when I see the LW put on blast for using that word, I'm unwilling to see these men subjected to the same treatment.

That doesn't mean it's the ideal word -- it obviously isn't, and people have the right to respectfully object -- but the catastrophizing, demonizing response is out of line.

And I think that a brand of feminism that better recognized its own economic privilege would be more hesitant to go into full-bore rage mode, because ultimately I question whether anyone affluent has the right to moralize to anyone who isn't, on ANY subject. If your bank account is full, maybe you just don't get to have the moral high ground on anything, ever, because money is still #1 in this world.

104

@99 I didn’t say that that trope doesn’t happen, but most people express those reasons. They have a reason like “she’s kind of an idiot,” “she doesn’t have her life together,” or something. Instead, the only other clue we have is “I don’t think she’ll be able to pull her weight in the relationship.” To me, that weight is probably emotional weight and it absolutely is also a trope that (mostly straight, some gay) men see sexually-active women as emotionally unable to pull their own weight in a relationship. There have been whole movies about that. Movies that were written and directed by men, even.

I think Dan is generously giving the LW an excuse that isnt so shrouded in misogynist bullshit. Dan doesn’t actually think those are the reasons LW can’t respect his girlfriend, but entertains the slim possibility that these reasons might exist. I don’t have to be as cordial. From the way that LW wrote his letter, it’s far more safe to assume that this sexually active woman is undeserving of respect because of her status as a nympho rather than any number of unmentioned qualities that you can dream up as excuses for shitty behavior.

105

@101 great comment, agreed with almost all of it. But I still want to insist, as a frequent reader of English, that in fact we can know for sure he meant the word “nympho” as a compliment. It is explicitly stated in the sentence that “nympho” is a pleasant quality!

I feel like we are treating this like an obscure passage in Milton. I just don’t see the ambiguity.

106

NoCute Name

Reading nothing but the National Enquirer would definitely be in the positive category for a long term partner, especially in a poly relationship in which you'd be likely want a partner who reads more widely to even things out, but how wonderful life would be if we all had a regular who kept up with all the illuminati and alien invasion stories and knew just where Elvis was at all times.

While I'm continuing to languish here in underemployed and unfortunate monogamy, I'm going to create a harem for myself in my head, and it will definitely include a guy who only reads the National Enquire. As well as someone who wants an expresso and can't phantom the likelihood of something and who could care less about things they couldn't and who hang their clothes on tender hooks and whose rerecurring dreams involve knightmares of live in our doggie dog world and whatever other sloppy misuses I might regularly contribute. Plus a starry eyed anarchofeminist who I can't quite trust to leave home alone. And a nympho to keep the others busy while I make pancakes.

107

@103 Wealthy feminism? Dude, now it’s actually getting Trumpian in here.

Dude. I’m a gay man. While I call myself a feminist, calling out LW’s letter as being trash was absolutely not about being a good ally but all about calling out bad behavior as I see it. Because you are making million mile leaps of logic to come to “maybe he thinks she’s dumb.”

Why would you assume that? Is it because of your perceived relationship between sexual activity and intelligence? Or maybe because it is a trope that straight men see sexually active women as unintelligent, and should also be called out on that bullshit if that’s what is happening. Heck, maybe she is a kind sexually-active idiot. Lord knows I’m related to a kind and generous idiot and whose idiocy is not tied to their promiscuity.

That said, you absolutely are getting defensive because you are ignorantly claiming that nympho doesn’t have a negative connotation, and now you’re bringing class and wealth into the argument by trying to say that a shitty well-known trope is an imaginary product of wealthy feminism? Dude. Really?

108

@105: I also interpret his description of her as a 'nympho" as a positive. But I admit that it's entirely possible that to him it's both a positive--in the here an now of a casual relationship that's primarily about sex--AND negative--in the Madonna/Whore dichotomy that keeps some men from respecting the woman they are more than thrilled to be fucking because the women are fucking them.

You say you can insist that you know what he meant, that he meant "nympho" as a compliment; I concur in the context of that relationship. But that's the whole way the Madonna/Whore thing works: one can be happy to date the "whore," but loath to marry her because she's a whore, and whores aren't for marrying (actually, the real Madonna/Whore dichotomy takes place after the wedding, when the man can't see his WIFE as the dirty girl he'd like to bang--and did bang, dirtily, when she was single. As his wife and the mother or potential mother of his children, she needs to be purer--hence no longer sexy or attractive. Which allows him to cheat on his saintly wife with another "whore," while the wife wonders what happened to that great sex they used to have.).

The point is that we don't know and can't know. And that really, it makes no difference insofar as the question he asks is concerned. The advice to break up with her by saying that they want different things and should stop is accurate and appropriate no matter what his reasons for not respecting her are.


    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
    Preview

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