Harsh!

Or instead of immediately dumping her you could just talk to her about it a bit more. Maybe just start out by explaining that you don't need to be cured. She may have never considered that you had fantasies like this and just had a shitty initial reaction because she was completely taken by surprise.

I'd say if your relationship with her is otherwise happy, it seems silly to throw it away without even attempting more of a conversation about this.

Yeah, Dan, I think more talking is in order before this couple should call it quits. I can easily imagine how the young woman could misunderstand what her partner was proposing.

2 makes a good point.

Rape porn or fantasy is one of those things your partner might prefer never to know you enjoy. It's hard to shrug off a taste for fantasy you find viscerally upsetting (of any variety) even if you intellectually accept it's just fantasy.

On to nitpicking phrasing: after two years together she would try to introduce him, ever so gradually, to the idea of learning to enjoy consensual sex?

Either she's nuts (and I'm not ruling that out, but he never suspected until now?) or he's ramped up her "being molested upsets me on multiple levels, how could you suggest that?!!!" response in the language of oppression himself.

Also, his phrasing of "Let's pretend I was into this thing that really squicks you out, hypothetically how would you feel about accommodating that?" strongly suggested the real fantasy would squick her out ten times as much. So while her extreme pathologizing response is wrong, I also don't see him handling this with notable panache. And, yes, suggesting squicky things that might affect your partner's view of you do need more panache and attention to details than is coming across in his letter.

(And Dan, just because you think something is mild does not mean everyone out there is going to say "hey, it's not an anonymous gang rape, so this is mild stuff!") I can see the subway groping as hitting particularly close to a raw nerve because it's such a common threat.

I'd be pretty squicked out if my lover confessed to having rape fantasies. The LW doesn't mention or seem to consider if his GF has ever been, say, felt up on public transit or otherwise sexually assaulted-- I think most people would agree that if she had, we shouldn't expect her to indulge this particular kink. They should break up and he should disclose much sooner in his next relationship.

While I rarely resort to those particular letters, I have no problem whatsoever with stating firmly and unequivocally that anyone who thinks a partner needs to be CURED of his or her (if anyone wants the caveat non-child-based, so be it) desires qualifies for the biggest, brightest and most scarlet MF that Mr Savage, Mr Miller and Le Fils all working together can embroider.

Even though I allow that I might react just the tiniest bit more strongly to the C word than most, no voluntary breakup is a bad breakup. Besides, if LW and GF got from that conversation to LW's receiving the advice and D'ing TMFA without any clarification that there was a misunderstanding, at least one of them doesn't communicate well enough yet for a good relationship to be safe in his or her hands. Also, that this has occurred two years in (not to mention that its taking two years for either partner to begin a hypothetical conversation about kinks and accommodation probably says something) may well reduce the chance that they're each having a separate conversation here.

What interests me is that the conclusion to the letter suggests that she feels entitled to use his male guilt to shape the relationship as she pleases and get him to acquiesce to it all and second-guess himself. It's pretty clearly working that way now. But I wonder if that's the sort of thing he likes, and how general this element might be in opposite-sexer feminist-feminist (or pro-feminist for those who don't think men should call themselves feminists) relationships. Or can we take this even farther and suggest that OSFF relationships ought to be based on Reasonable Woman-driven standards? I am quite open to the answer's being Yes to that question; it wasn't framed with the intent of getting people to declare their relationships entirely egalitarian.

There's was no chance for this one and I hope he dumped her right away. If he didn't they surely broke up within the year.

He didn't share his "rape fantasy" with her. All he did was bring up the much more innocuous pretend subway groping -- very tame role playing, as Dan said. And she was ready to pack him off to be "cured".

What if a straight guy fantasizes about being dominated? Pegged, or even trying out being a male-male bottom? And she had wanted him to go get "cured"? You know what kind of shrinks are in the business of these sorts of sexual "cures"? Not the good kind.

The poor guy just wants to role play with power dynamics. He's not sick.

Run away.

@6: That's a great point. I have always found that when I'm making the case to a prospective partner for a sexual adventure scientific research can really help seal the deal. After all, we're sentient beings and therefore governed by reason.

@6 - [I can see why she might reasonably think that the appropriate solution to that kind of sexual fantasy is to try to *cure* it, because it is a fantasy about doing something *evil*. It's not like she had a giant fit and told him he's a horrible person.]

Our posts crossed. Wanting to "cure" one's partner of desires is as much stating to that partner that (s)he is a horrible person as if one opened one's mouth and said, "You are a horrible person." Although the words were not delivered by a significant other, I was told exactly that, that I needed to be "cured" of my "evil" desires, which were considered by those who spouted that line to be more evil than rape. The suggestion is not at all reasonable; at absolute best, she has out of ignorance made a huge mistake that rises to MF level.

I don't disagree with your first two paragraphs with regard to what she thought about the conversation, but her response, besides being extremely offensive, shows that she views it to be her prerogative to "fix" him, and she has him second-guessing himself into going along with being "fixed" [the assembled company is welcome to insert the pun of one's choice here]. This is not the sort of pattern that tends to confine itself only to one issue, nor is it likely to be a model for a successful relationship (with the possible exception for those who specifically sign up for that sort of thing going in).

Does anyone else think the letter is fake?

@10 - I'm pretty sure feminists don't use the phrase "real man" non-ironically.

I bet the girlfriend eventually ended up with a closeted necrophiliac.

@10- grow up.

@15,16: I get that you're repulsed by this kink but please don't presume to speak for all feminists or women. Thanks.

My husband - who is, by all accounts, a wonderful and GGG guy - has a thing for rape fantasies. The whole idea squicks me out. The fact that he ISN'T squicked out by them squicks me out. And yeah, sometimes I want to sit him down and beat him over the head with all the sexist stuff I have to deal with every day that he doesn't even have to see. But when it comes to kinks/fantasies/other bedroom activities, we took (what I believe to be) the healthy approach - we were together for quite a while before the conversation came up, it was in the context of "hey, anything else you've ever kind of wanted to try that we haven't done yet?", and once we talked through it (he'd love to role-play some sort of non-consensual scenario; I really am squicked out by even mild dubcon), we decided to leave it there. It's happened for one or two of my fantasies, too. We're both fine with the other watching whatever porn we want, and it works out.

Healthy sexual relationships don't have to involve both partners doing EVERYTHING the other wants - the only obligation is to thoughtfully and non-judgmentally discuss it.

kim2013: I'm thinking someone with a new-as-of-today account who posts things in other threads like "Like a typical Caucasian you aren't satisfied unless your boot is on someone's neck." is maybe sort of possibly trolling? Am I way out of line?

Geez, @21, you are SO out of line. Can't you see we have an official spokeswoman for all REAL feminists and women in the hizzie? Sit rapt at her feet, damn your eyes.

Although maybe that was some kind of satirical comment regarding that post's question that I am too tired to parse correctly. So I withdraw. However, not so sure bringing up some kind of groping fantasy with one's date = acting like a rapist. So, maybe I'll stick with my first instinct: if someone acts like a troll, they're probably a troll.

@20: You can't speak for anyone but yourself, so sit down.

Yes, LW should DTMFA, or to put it another way, he needs to set his girlfriend free of his oppressive ways. Given how susceptible the male brain is to patriarchal thinking, and how blind men are to their privilege, the only honorable thing a man can do if he finds himself dating an orthodox feminist is to get out of her life and allow her to flourish as a woman.

Oh, and @kim2013 certainly doesn't need any of you to mansplain whether this guy is a rapist.

I'm a feminist who has ravishment fantasies, if not violent rape fantasies. And I've played out more hardcore rape fantasies with lovers who really wanted to do that. For the record, I consider those men to be feminists, too. But since I have ravishment, rather than violent rape fantasies, those rape scenarios, enacted, end up being more ravishment scenes.

Also, although I have indulged or even gotten into a partner's rape fantasies, the groping-on-mass-transit bothers me, and I don't think I would be able to go along with it. Probably, this is in part due to the fact that, having been groped on mass transit, I can only identify this as harassment which is at its best annoying, and at its worst, scary. Still, I can't imagine telling a partner that his fantasies are the product of a sick mind or that they are wrong. Most of the time, however, I can talk through the fantasy, narrating it verbally, and this might be enough.

It takes a lot of vulnerability to share a taboo fantasy, which suggests a high level of trust. I would never want to make any partner of mine who trusted me with himself at his most vulnerable regret placing his trust in me. This doesn't mean I'd necessarily be down with fulfilling any fantasy someone had. If the fantasy involved animals or poop, for instance, I would decline to participate. And still, I wouldn't suggest that having that fantasy to begin with was the sign of a sick mind or was wrong or evil.

I've never heard the term "squicked out" and I'm not particularly interested in hearing the term "squicked out." Thanks.

@29: Where were you when we had that "all PIV is rape" thread going? You'd have fit right in there.

I can see how a particular scene might bother a partner. If a partner proposed subway groping to me, I'd decline. I ride the subway every day, and, while I've only been made to feel uncomfortable a few times, I did once extricate a woman from a groping situation, with great abuse from the groper and NO help from other passengers. It's just not comfortable territory for me. Same with break-in play... I've never been subjected to a home invasion, but it is something that scares me (although, I do know it's rare and try not to worry about it too much...it's a long story involving long-had nightmares I have no control over). But a GGG partner doesn't say "you are broken, get fixed or get lost" when something they're not comfortable with comes up. They ask what the root of the fantasy is and fulfill it in some other way. Just because I wouldn't let my partner act out feeling me up on the subway or invading my home doesn't mean I couldn't allow a fantasy of consensual non-consensual activity happen. It would just have to be a different scene. If it ever came up, and the scene proposed bothered me, I'd suggest a sit-down involving some thinking and some porn to come up with something on the marker that turns us both on. So long as HE was as GGG as me in fulfilling the need, but maybe not the exact scene that first jumped to mind, it would be cool. He needs to find someone less uptight, and she needs to get a grip.

kim2013 is probably some bored dude who should be ignored. Carry on, everyone!

@kim2013: When you hump your washing machine, do you get consent first? Or do you tell yourself that if it didn't want it, it wouldn't have gone into such a slutty spin cycle?

I doubt this GF would be pathologizing if it were two men playing out rape fantasies. If homegirl wants people to check their patriarchy, then she better check her homophobia.

Consensual rape fantasy play is CONSENSUAL. So STFU. Where are are the modern feminists who have gotten over this freudian psychobabble bullshit?

Two things:

1) Agree with some commenters that Dan was a bit too harsh here. Young people are especially prone to ill-considered comments and/or internalizing misguided dogma; she can be saved. He should give her another chance, perhaps even show her Dan's response, and try to make her understand that as long as there is mutual respect and communication, a scene is just a scene.

2) Repeated studies have shown that one of the most common sexual fantasies among women (no matter how irritating it is for "feminists," whatever that word means in 2014) is rape/coercion. Given that, the guy actually had a decent chance of success here. He may still have a chance even...maybe she's just too immersed in gender politic bullshit to be honest with herself. Or maybe it really does freak her out and it will never happen.

Either way, he should give it another shot before bailing entirely. Doesn't matter anyway since this letter was penned in 2010.

Goddamn Kim2013, you sure are boring. You are one of the worst trolls I've ever seen!

Please get out of your parent's basement and learn a new routine.

Kim2013 sure is having fun here. I guess "she" got over her ennui. (At least judging from her first post, "How much meth do I need to smoke before this shits entertaining?")

Hey, kim2013, you need some more meth. Also, maybe a new calendar.

@39/40: I'm just assuming Kim2013 is kidding and/or trying to make some meta-commentary on reactionary feminist culture (or just trolling). So at best, it's a poorly executed joke. At best.

Kim is the boring post-positivist feminist that really ruins it for the rest of us. Real actual rape, that's a pretty anti-woman activity, but that's not what's being proposed. What's being proposed is a consensual, previously discussed scenario in which the imaginary is indulged. If you're going to come down on this kind of consensual fantasy, then you basically have declared all bondage and kink play to be somehow unethical.

Incidentally, one of the tenants of sexual freedom (which, let's insist is part and parcel of modern feminism) is that society and the state keeps their fucking nose out of the bedrooms of the people. So if your idea of feminism is to react to the word rather than the reality, then you aren't representing feminism- you're representing post-positivist feminism. Which is more concerned with words than it is with true equality.

Also, you know another thing that shitty feminists do? Try and insist other people are shitty feminists for not agreeing to be intolerant. I will fight with the best of them against the trivialization of rape, with the commercial fetishization of rape, but when someone expresses a scenario-based fetish based on an imagined circumstance, it becomes a complete double standard to insist that person is somehow sick or deranged. You have no evidence to demonstrate a correlation between a rape fantasy and a rapist. And if this woman is taking a similar line, she has the right to do that, but she doesn't have the right to shame this guy for expressing a desire while asking for permission. The point of REAL RAPE is that permission isn't given.

I happen to agree that this is not a kink that should be bandied about because of the reality of rape and sexual assault, and its frequency, but as you see, several women in this threat have openly stated they share this kink. Nobody invested the power of feminism in you. You don't represent all of us, or even most of us. Spell it with me: w-o-m-e-n. You can keep your fucking Y.

Ooooh, I'm so happy the queen of feminists is here to revoke some membership cards!

Seriously, don't judge people for kinks that can be (and are) acted out privately, safely, and consensually. ANY KINKS. It's immature, and disrespectful. Save your fire for when someone is actually being wronged, and you'll do more good for the world.

I don't think kim2013 is troll. This way of thinking seems to be spreading recently. And look how it only works on people like the LW here who is obviously vulnerable to think all sorts of bad stuff about himself. Insane rethoric like that does nothing to stop actual rapists of course but that's not the goal of people like kim2013 anyway. In their worldview all men are inherently evil and all women are inherently helpless and clueless and possess no sex drive whatsoever, let alone kinks.

The fact that there are a lot of people like kim2013 is part of why I no longer feel comfortable describing myself as a feminist. I don't think she's a troll; she seems pretty typical.

@ venn: Yeah. The parallels between the LW's girlfriend and the "cure the gays of gayness" team are deeply creepy.

@ 5: I'd be pretty squicked out if my lover confessed to having rape fantasies.

I'd be confused if, after 2 years, my lover didn't confess to having the occasional rape fantasy, because most women do.

@7

While I rarely resort to those particular letters, I have no problem whatsoever with stating firmly and unequivocally that anyone who thinks a partner needs to be CURED of his or her (if anyone wants the caveat non-child-based, so be it) desires qualifies for the biggest, brightest and most scarlet MF that Mr Savage, Mr Miller and Le Fils all working together can embroider.

AMEN.

Dan is absolutely correct.

Look, once he's copped to liking something she feels is that abhorrent - regardless of her "justification" in feeling that way (say, having been felt-up on the subway) - it's probably going to permanently damage her lady-boners for him, then they're done. She will see him very differently (rightly or wrongly). So, it's over.

That said, the sine qua non of contempt is pathologizing your partner. If she thinks he needs to be "cured" it's way beyond just not being attracted any longer. Now we are in DTMFA territory. Substitute any other consensual and harmless fetish OR any other kind of condition (eg, I'll date you only if you get therapy, join a 12-step, enter rehab, etc.) and you'll see the question of feminism, the patriarchy and the rest of that crap is a red herring.

Well, here's another feminist with ravishment fantasies. A feminist who's been subjected to plenty of harassment and sexually dangerous situations. A feminist who's sister was a victim of a violet rape and knows other victims as well.

And there's nothing like be overtaken by lust and desire, of feeling the other persons need. Here's the thing, my boyfriend, likely my life partner, doesn't know how to fill this fantasy. He's all hunk and muscle and he would do anything for me. But he can not get the notion of over-whelming me. I can barely get him to press me against the wall. It so goes against his nature that he can't understand.

@12: I did, because it was such a perfect parody of The Emasculating Feminist. (Though as always, this is hypothetical to either everyone or everyone but the LW, so have at it. Something similar is probably happening to someone.)

@8: But he brought it up in a really dumb way, trying to use all sorts of hypothetical hedging. Consider:

a) How would you feel about role-playing Kermit the Frog and Janice?
b) So hypothetically, if I were to bring up something involving role-playing, like hypothetically say I wanted to be Kermit and you would be Janice, how would you respond to that? Just hypothetically, if I did that.

In (b) it sure sounds like the actual fantasy is far more extreme, but something he doesn't want her to think about yet while he starts her off slowly, which is going to set off alarms. Especially if the hypothetical "small step" is something she thought it was crystal clear she wasn't into, which she might have thought fit public molestation.

And he isn't asking clearly, or (even better) laying out a mild "I fantasize about this sometimes, is that something that you'd ever be into? No pressure." He's hinting that he wants something which is more extreme and off-putting than what he's willing to ask for, trapping her in a "well if you said yes to hypothetical A I thought it meant B was okay" morass.

And you and Dan are not the arbiters of "mild." As 5 et al mention, being groped on the subway is a fear many women have as the car fills, and you two don't get to dismiss it because hey, as a guy you don't go around worrying about this stuff so it must not be a big deal.

@47 (phuni44):
Yup. I am perfectly capable of distinguishing between my fantasy ravishment and true rape. And I've been raped (non violently, by an acquaintance), and my 16-year-old daughter was violently raped in a home invasion, during which she quite seriously and rightly feared for her life. I still have ravishment fantasies which don't worry me because I know the difference between fantasy and reality, and between an act of violence and aggression such as rape is, and being overpowered by one's own lust as well as being the overpowered object of someone's overwhelming lust.

And I'm a feminist. I get to decide that identity for myself, just as women who--baffling to me--seem to be in favor of having full equality and self-determination and yet do not identify as feminists get to designate themselves as not feminists.

Here's my warning: I was married to a man like your boyfriend, and I'm starting to date another one. They just can't understand or share that desire, and no matter how hard they want to please you, it won't feel right. If you need that feeling of being overtaken by lust and desire, or feeling the other person's need, of being taken, you have to know that this man is not capable of giving you that, and make your decisions as regarding the future of your relationship accordingly. (This warning is for me, too.) Can you live without that?

Ladies and gents, don't feed the troll. He's not even confusingly close enough to be a Poe.

@50: you do need to recognize that while feminism is not gendered - you're just as much of a feminist as your girlfriend is - sexism certainly is, and you can't understand what it feels like for your girlfriend to be reminded every goddamn day, just because she's a woman, that she's a helpless sexual object. Just try to keep that in mind.

See how that sentence is self-refuting? Either feminism isn't gendered, or it's a belief structure that holds that men are inherently incapable of understanding things that women can.

I wish comments like kim2013's were actually the reason feminism has a bad name; "troll problems" are easier to fix than hypocrisy problems.

His mistake was proposing such an unimaginative gateway fantasy. He fantasizes about rape and steps it down to an annoying subway grope? (She should've replied, "Only if I get to live out my fantasy of kicking a subway groper in the balls.") An alien abduction fantasy -- now that she might have been willing to play along with...

@53: (She should've replied, "Only if I get to live out my fantasy of kicking a subway groper in the balls.")

Because the best way to respond to a partner's fantasy is to threaten them with assault. Right.

@33 That is my guess, the dogma is so rigid,

@49: It's the flip side of "He's into rape fantasies, her libido drops at the thought." "She wants to be ravished, his libido drops at the thought."

Neither of them is wrong. But either, like 19, they make this work by leaving some things solidly in fantasy, or they break up because they either just aren't sexually compatible or the squicking fantasy, once disclosed, forever changes how the partner feels even out of bed. (Which is the argument for disclosing early, and why a genuine late-arriving kink can feel like an ambush to someone who thought this would never come up.)

Also, 50 makes a strong point about how "I fantasize about being forced" and "I fantasize about forcing someone" are not mirrors: only one carries that background of, "So wait, would you hurt me?" And to bear in mind that the prior experience (of fearing being groped on the subway, of being treated like a passive object, etc) of you and your (different gendered, different sized, etc) partner is going to be different.

@49: I gave up on the word 'feminist' a few years back, when the necessarily-appended paragraphs of what I did and didn't believe made it clear the word no longer had any objectively-understood meaning.

When I identified as a feminist, I used a spin on Hillary Clinton's work: That women are human, and we don't talk about women's rights as distinct from human rights because women are a special and unusual category. When I gave up on the term, it was when women who identified as feminists kept asking (on the opinion pages of major newspapers, not just blog comments) why it couldn't be enough that Hillary Clinton had two X chromosomes.

@ 49: Here's my warning: I was married to a man like your boyfriend, and I'm starting to date another one. They just can't understand or share that desire, and no matter how hard they want to please you, it won't feel right.

Yeah. A few years ago, the same study I heard about that said most women have force fantasies said that most men do too, but about half the men had fantasies about being forced, rather than about being the one to do the forcing. I don't know if that will be any consolation to someone who wants a man who's into the "aggressor" side of that fantasy, or just depressing. If it's the latter, I'm sorry. It seems like that would suck.

@49, I appreciate your thoughts. My soon to be ex was very good at this, but so much else sucked.

I'm willing to forgo this fantasy with this man. His attributes are numerous. He genuinely likes and respects women, which helps explain his reticence. He cares for and about me, his heart is generous and large. He gets me. Sexually he's not as experienced as I am, but he's a willing and capable student and his passion and lust are ever present.

This particular desire is easy to let go of; there's so much else of more important things.

I am not entirely sure that having fantasies of being the rapist are necessarily so wildly different from fantasies of being raped--at least not in all cases. I think it could often be a matter of semantics.

Just as what most women mean when they confess to having "rape" fantasies are really ravishment fantasies, many men who say that they have rape fantasies could really mean that they have fantasies of overpowering someone with their overwhelming lust, of "forcing" submission on a partner who has no choice or say in the matter. Perhaps they don't have another way to express it.

I have had several partners who had rape fantasies. In 2 of the 3, the man didn't fantasize about violence, just about taking away the woman's agency and volition. Both wanted to surprise an unsuspecting--and initially unwilling--woman, but both wanted that woman to be turned on by the experience, by the sense of the man's desire. Both of these men wanted, once the scenario was underway, to give me pleasure; both went down on me as an act of "ravishment" before they wanted me to give them head. Both wanted me to be excited by their attentions, though they wanted me to be aroused "against my will," and shamed by it. I was happy to oblige. Ah, fond memories. Good times.

I did have one boyfriend who, while he wasn't at all turned on by the idea of violence, wanted me to pretend to be truly unwilling throughout--which was hard to do, because I was never not aware that we were playing, acting. (I never forgot he was my boyfriend, whom I cared for and who cared for me. In other words, I knew that he would stop if I used the safeword. ) He was aroused by the idea that the woman was feeling genuine distress. But in his non-sexual life, he was vehemently opposed to rape, and I have not the slightest fear that he was an actual rapist-in-waiting.

Frankly, I think it is doing men a disservice to assume that their rape fantasies are much different in the abstract, and as a whole, from women's ravishment fantasies. And it seems downright dangerous to assume that any man who has such fantasies is simply waiting for the opportunity to commit a true violent crime.

@35,

"Where are are the modern feminists who have gotten over this freudian psychobabble bullshit? "

We're right here... Trying to have a conversation about some very common fantasies.

@47, That's kind of nice in a way. That being said, kim2013 my dear, there is no way you can ever strip me of my feminist bone fides just because of my fantasies (which are numerous and varied). You're 'splaining how/why force fantasies are off the table for heterosexual couples without really acknowledging reality (that most women have these fantasies while simultaneously abhoring non-consensual activity) or even explaining why exactly such fantasies are wrong. Plus, your arrogant bossiness is annoying as shit.

Part of what makes a rape (or other power exchange) scene sexy is that unlike the real thing, everything is under the participants control.
My spouse and I have a rape fantasy we act out. When spouse is feeling it, they use a code word, and I 'force' them to do sexual things. They chose what things could happen, I choose which of those I want to do in any given scene, and they can stop the scene at any time.

It's not part of our regular routine, but we do it a couple times a year, and both enjoy it.

You know, I used to be on the side of the fence that fantasies were their own beast. And then my life had a major upset when I found myself as an observer in a bad situation that involved non-consent. Supposing that this guy isn't talking about a seduction scene -- she's protesting her honor, her good name, the fact that good girls 'don't', etc, etc, and he's smooth talking his way past the barriers -- and he's really talking about a rape fantasy.... I think his girlfriend has a point.

The trouble with non-consensual fantasies (the trouble with all fantasies) is that the more you fuel it, the more it takes to get the payoff. So if the girlfriend does the 'subway scene', then the next time, it will have to escalate. Pretty much every predator, and in fact, one guy that had a thing for kids that wrote to Dan said, is that the more they try to take the edge off with fake situations, the more they wanted the real thing. It's why sadists hit their partners with real whips -- they want to cause real pain. It's why masochists let them -- they want to feel real pain. The illusion does not do. While I think there are loads and loads and loads of fantasies that are safe to indulge, and I used to think this was one of them, I don't anymore.

@ 63: While I think there are loads and loads and loads of fantasies that are safe to indulge, and I used to think this was one of them, I don't anymore.

I agree completely! I once saw a person doing something bad, therefore science is wrong and all people are bad. I once saw a person wearing pants do something bad, therefore pants-wearers are bad. You know who wore pants? Hitler, that's who!

You are a brilliant human being and definitely should not take any of this post as being sarcastic. You're definitely a great great person too, for believing his girlfriend "has a point" in thinking she's entitled to tell her boyfriend what he is and isn't allowed to think. The people who think that are definitely the best humanity has to offer!

Pretty much every predator, and in fact, one guy that had a thing for kids that wrote to Dan said, is that the more they try to take the edge off with fake situations, the more they wanted the real thing.

You are completely right! You are obviously so right that you didn't need to do any research, or much of any thinking! Please, tell us more of these things you know!

@64 -- god forbid our personal experience EVER throw up any red flags, eh? Because if it did, people like you would never get dates. I see what you did there. This is like the bikinis are empowering argument that's so popular in the western world.

It's nice that we have theories and hypotheses that say that fantasies and pornography and all this other stuff has no negative impact, but the unfortunate reality is that none of these hypotheses (which I used to believe) have played out in experimentation. Not one of them. I read the studies and I'm afraid that they put plenty of my beliefs in the blender and hit the 'pulverize' button without an ounce of guilt.

The evidence is in fact mounting for the opposite case -- that these kinds of fantasies ARE bad news, and that pornography creates dissatisfaction in real life as well as desires that are against our own best interests (biologically speaking.)

But don't let a little science stand in the way of your soapboxing.

@ 65: god forbid our personal experience EVER throw up any red flags, eh? Because if it did, people like you would never get dates. I see what you did there.

I love how you immediately tried to suggest that I'm a failure at dating, rather than actually trying to support any of the brilliant, brilliant observations you made! It totally makes me think you are smart! Totally!

The evidence is in fact mounting for the opposite case -- that these kinds of fantasies ARE bad news, and that pornography creates dissatisfaction in real life as well as desires that are against our own best interests (biologically speaking.)

You are a brilliant human being for decoding the Secret Mystery Code that makes science say the opposite of what it actually says! Your bizarro-world understanding of science is definitely reliable enough that you don't need to cite any of the evidence that you say exists! Given that everything you've said so far has been wrong, we definitely can just take your word for it that you know things! Even though all of the science says that you are wrong!

Yes, he should DTMFA.

If, however, he wants to pursue this with other women, who may be more willing:

I personally might do a "private" scene with a guy. I would never do a public scene with groping because:

(1) It is the type of assault that most women have experienced. Far more women have had groping and other unwanted touching than have been penetrated w/o consent.

(2) It is involving other people (i.e., the other people on the bus/subway/whatever) in their fantasy play.

(3) It won't feel right or be good enough for him UNLESS she has a specific type of reaction. She can't do that and make it clear to other persons it's ok.

What are they going to do if the cops get called? The bus driver kicks him off? The bus company bans him? Some idiot trying to help (rightly) pepper sprays him or pulls a gun?

This is why you do these type of fantasies in private, controlled circumstances.

What he is proposing may not be morally bad or mean he's a rapist, but it does mean he's careless and clueless.

Yes, he should DTMFA.

If, however, he wants to pursue this with other women, who may be more willing, some advice:

First: ask the woman first if she's ever been assaulted or raped or been close to someone who has. Ask her about her thoughts on "consensual" assault and rape scenes and whether they are ever ok. Do this before raising the fantasy.

Two years in, he should have known about this, but obviously, there are communication issues.

A caring partner would not want to trigger a loved one by bringing up a fantasy out of the crystal blue sky. A woman who has been assaulted might flip out by this. (Would explain OP's GF over-the-top reaction).

Second: There is a HUGE difference between scenes done in the bedroom and those in public. Everyone whose already posted things this is "less extreme" than a private rape fantasy. Maybe not. Maybe not for the GF he asked. Don't assume that, for her, the public groping wasn't worse than a private consensual "rape".

Third: Doing these types of fantasies in public is a problem.

I personally might do a "private" scene with a guy. I would never do a public scene with groping because:

(1) It is the type of assault that most women have experienced. Far more women have had groping and other unwanted touching than have been penetrated w/o consent. I would NOT want to risk triggering anyone. (He may have triggered her by asking w/o known her history on this).

(2) It is involving other people (i.e., the other people on the bus/subway/whatever) in their fantasy play without their consent in a way that may be triggering for rape victims, but is, at a minimum, sexual and public.

(3) It won't feel right or be good enough for him UNLESS she has a specific type of reaction. She can't do that and make it clear to other persons in the area it's ok.

What are they going to do if the cops get called? The bus driver kicks him off? The bus company bans him? Some idiot trying to help (rightly) pepper sprays him or pulls a gun?

This is why you do these type of fantasies in private, controlled circumstances.

The problem with dating or being someone who identifies as an "something-ist" is that you don't see your significant other as someone with individual thoughts and feelings, only an archetype. This all feels very "liberal arts 101" and they'll both probably mature out of it...just not together.

@67 -- that's a good point.

@ 67/8: Right. Especially point #2 is a good one--if they were going to actually act it out on a real-life subway, instead of doing it somewhere private and pretending they were on a crowded subway, that's an issue.

of course he needs a new girlfriend, if his motor is revved by pretending to molest women in the subway, and she doesn't like role playing being molested, but it's possible she just doesn't like pretending to tell a man no but have herself invaded regardless.

Before dumping her, perhaps, doctor savage, he should ask if she wants to roleplay some disrespectful schmuck on the subway grabs her ass (or some other act of molestation) but then rather than not being able to stop him from overpowering and having his way with her, she gets turned on and chooses to have sex with Chester the Molester.

I doubt he will have to worry about it though, because it shouldn't take the holder of an honorary Yale degree to discern that a man whose kink is role playing rape, is not compatible with any women familiar with living in fear from experience (you know, as opposed to the fear some idiots claim is slut shaming or victim blaming by a woman choosing to take precautions and avoid situations known to be high risk)

when considering a intimate relationship, and one or more of the involved people are not compatible to the point where to expect a GGG attitude would be nothing short of abuse,

"dumping the motherfucker" might be the molester fantasizing thing to do, but if he is comfortable with position of NOT being in control of peoples ability to reject sexual acts, he might choose to word it as
"it doesn't appear that you and I in any sort of close or casual relationship is going to work out"

but as comedy, doctor savage, well I guess it would still only qualify as honorary. Lucky for all involved there isn't a degree in humor, unless you count Dawkin's PhD

there is nothing wrong with respectfully realizing you could never be lovers or role players with certain people, but being a disrespectful dick, even if masked with indirect subtlety, is just being a disrespectful dick

if you know what I mean

To be sure, this lw went about trying to broach the topic in the most clumsy, awkward, unlikely-to-lead-to-success-in-getting-what-he-really-wants way possible.

Not to mention that if they tried to play that game, others on the public transit would be made to feel very uncomfortable, and there would be a possibility of the cops or transit cops being called, or someone deciding to be a vigilante. Any women who witnessed it could quite legitimately be worried for themselves.

If he's bringing it up as a thin-end-of-the-wedge to introduce the topic and ease his way into what he thinks is a more hardcore fantasy, he needs to realize that this is not the best way to discuss the concept of a fantasy.

Sigh @49, because I confessed rape/ravishment fantasies to my husband, and he shook his head and suggested I must have my "wires crossed" I believe was how he put it. I've had the fantasies since forever, but never felt comfortable telling any previous sex partner. We are otherwise compatible and have great sex, but I suppose this one thing that will not happen.

@74: (sigh) is right! I have told partners about my very light D/s interest only to have them think I was sick, and/or had "obviously" been the victim of childhood incest. I used dirty talk during sex with a guy, calling myself a "dirty slut," etc. and later he told me he was concerned about my low self-esteem.

Some people just don't get it, and if you don't get it, you don't seem capable of faking it.

@ 74: ...because I confessed rape/ravishment fantasies to my husband, and he shook his head and suggested I must have my "wires crossed" I believe was how he put it.

You know, that seems like a generally applicable method of trivializing any kind of desire, since I'm pretty sure everything we want is something we only want because of the way our wires are crossed.

@76 True, but I suppose "kinky" is just another way of saying you are wired differently compared to the "norm" or whatever, like most people have nice linear desires, but mine are twisted into pervy pervy kinks. Also, the initial response has been tempered somewhat after explaining a little more explicitly, and with video assistance. At first, he literally thought I was asking him to beat me up. Even so, it's pretty clear he doesn't share this particular desire that I have, but I hold out hope I can get close to something workable. He's a former sailor for christs sake, he knows how tie shit up

I also suspect one reason it may be so difficult for a vanilla person to get into it, at least as the dominant one, it that it is considerable work and effort to screw like that. My job: submit and be ravished. His: sustained aggression and high cardio fucking performance. I'm not even sure I could take half of what goes on in the porn I watch, but I sure would like to find out

Absolutely DTMFA. Being sexual partners over the long term requires thoughtfulness and consideration, none of which his GF displayed. She could have declined in a mature way, but instead she judges him. BS. The letter that most closely resembles this is the one where the female LW confessed her enjoyment of gangbang porn to her boyfriend who suggested she was sick as well. I don't remember a lot of sympathetic nonsense being spewed on his account.

For people who want to be ravished but love someone who's not into it...I recommend taking your desires seriously, lest you find yourself completely bored, sexually, in a few years.

Don't walk away, but figure out some baby steps you can ask for (positions that make you feel vulnerable, hair tugging, being kissed up against a wall...) And talk about what makes your partner hot as well; make sure you give as good as you hope to get.

If your partner won't even try, or has no sexual desires of their own, then think about walking away. But this stuff IS teachable to a willing, open-minded partner. I've been a sub since I was a teenager, and now I'm learning how to find my inner sadist.

If they are willing to try, then train them to please you with specific praise for what they did well, and little or no mention of their failings. You want them to remember how fun the scene was, and how hot the resulting sex was, not how you spent the evening criticizing their efforts.

Ms Erica - I suppose that's an effective conversion technique, but I wish you'd show at least a little concern for the characters upon which you propose to inflict radical changes when those changes are (potentially) deleterious. Otherwise, you'll remind me of a cross between Sir William Bradshaw and Brittany Taylor (at least that's an original combination).

I can respect and honour you for being willing to darken your character for a partner's satisfaction, but, when the change is initiated from the other side, please don't treat it as some sort of game. Perhaps all that is required is to add to your post to consider the partner's next relationship, and not to leave anyone stuck at a point from where they cannot return. If one wants someone to play at being a monster, it's the creator's responsibility to make sure the partner doesn't become a real one.
**********

Ms Cute - I suspect that your situation requires almost as much trust as the LW's, as your partners will have to trust you, should they take to what you propose, not to like it too well. The line between being good enough at it and being too good may look very thin.

@ 77 True, but I suppose "kinky" is just another way of saying you are wired differently compared to the "norm" or whatever, like most people have nice linear desires, but mine are twisted into pervy pervy kinks.
As time passes, I become more and more skeptical of the concept of a "norm," at least where sex is concerned. If you like kinky stuff, it's because of the messed-up stuff in your head. If you like non-kinky stuff (whatever that means), it's... also because of the messed-up stuff in your head. The idea that people have preferences that don't come from some kind of crossed wires seems increasingly dubious to me--and everyone has preferences.

@81: I suppose that's an effective conversion technique, but I wish you'd show at least a little concern for the characters upon which you propose to inflict radical changes when those changes are (potentially) deleterious.

Teaching your lover how to satisfy you, and taking pains (no pun intended) to make the process pleasant for them, doesn't strike me as particularly likely to be deleterious?

@82: Mine was very simple: while both men and women can be feminists, the objects of sexism are women.

Women are the objects of approximately half of all sexism (I'm willing to be convinced that it's 75%, but not that it's 100%) and it takes concerted effort to remain ignorant of that fact. Since this fact is incompatible with your stated beliefs, you're either a hypocrite or an astoundingly ineffectual participant in the struggle against sexism. This whole "I'm against sexism, except when it targets someone different from myself, in which case I support in every way I can" shit needs to stop.

@80,

Being ravished isn't, as Dan would, part of the price of admission. My fellow's inexperience stems from being incarcerated for many a long year. And while I think I could teach him what I want, I'm not sure it would work. Also, what I want is more of the feeling than the actions, its kinda hard to describe. His desire for me is intense, but tapping into his wild side is difficult for him. After all, he spent a long time in a violent situation, and had to interact with rapist and deviants. And he hated them; he'd go to the hole rather than room with them.

We knew each other as friends before he went away, he loved me then and was always asking me to be his girlfriend and i never did. I remained his hearts desire over the years. Upon his release, he looked me up and asked me again. We are over the moon about each other, our connection and intimacy are amazing. He makes lovely sweet love to me, he wants to satisfy me in any way. He might yet learn to allow his innner ravisher to come out, but if not, I'm still the luckiest woman on the East Coast for having his heart.

EricaP @80, I know others aren't wired this way, but in order to deliberately hurt someone, I would have to despise them. So if my SO asked me to tap into my inner sadist for her, I'd basically have to learn to feel contempt for her in order to oblige. It's the only way I could do it. And I don't see our relationship surviving that process.

Also, now that I'm thinking about it, just despising someone wouldn't be enough. I'd have to short-circuit the part of me that says it's not okay to hurt someone even if you have contempt for them, and tap into some primal aggression I've spent a lifetime stuffing down a hole. And I think there's a lot of it there. I'm not sure, and I don't want to find out. I don't think I'd like the person I'd have to be in order to enjoy hurting/dominating someone.

@84, "what I want is more of the feeling than the actions"
For many people the feeling comes after the action, if it ever comes. "Fake it till you make it," as they say. If a faked version of aggression isn't acceptable to you, as part of your partner being GGG, then you'll have to find a different approach that works for you or give up on this desire. Good luck.

@85, many people can deliver fun pain -- the pain of a deep massage, the pain of an arm-wrestling game, the pain of a play spanking. If the activity isn't going to cause any physical damage, and if the other person actively wants it, then many people find it okay to help provide that deep massage or that play spanking. For most people, these fun activities have nothing to do with contempt, but with love and appreciation for the weird ways humans can be wired.

@85 meant to add: if that's not possible for you, then that's just part of your price of admission, right? You make clear that kinks involving pain are off the table, and you look for partners who don't have those kinks.

@81 Mr. Ven, I feel it's reasonable to expect your partner to take part in your sex life. If your sex life runs dark, then find out early on if your partner can happily go there for you. They're not quite two years in, they have no kids or other serious entanglements. This is a reasonable time to discuss this kink, and find out more about how compatible the LW and his partner are.

@87--Absolutely. I thought the discussion was about how to draw a long-term vanilla partner into delivering the kinks you want, and I was just pointing out why this may not be possible and why your nonchalant approach @80 might produce unintended and destructive results.

Nonchalant is the wrong word. Upbeat? Optimistic?

I've realized today, again, how pathetic it is to hear ignorance being spewed by dipshit seattleans, esp when it's done with impeccable grammar.

These "discussions" are never had without being masked by idiot males employing subtlety to hide what they really are, just beneath the surface

and that is itself a perfect illustration of what the real problem is, and just how gender specific THE problem is, yet still NOT an example of sexism

It's a common occurrence in the online world, esp since the disease exhibited by the idiot male is accentuated by the blogging type of idiot male

these aren't discussions, they are public pissing contests which is nothing more than some idiot male (and the women who adopt that mentality) gathered to force their sense of intellectual superiority --- which is a grossly false sense to begin with --- and the forcing of these ignorant views is nothing but an act of dominance without consent

The one thing a handful of grammatically correct stupid fucking males (and the few females who choose to frame their minds with the disgusting ivy league over privileged ignorance)

the one thing they fail to account for, is the true concept of duality

that there is and there isn't a strict definition of right and wrong, and it really is no easier to understand than within the topics of sex and religion

Not only is the difference between right and wrong absolutely defined with clear, bright white lines of being a knowledgeable adult who autonomously desires to participate, but once that criteria is met the boundaries are defined only by their wildest dreams

Hearing impeccable grammar that communicates an underlying utterly male ignorance, literally makes my stomach upset

it's because males more so than females fail to realize the mirrored Quaternarism that cannot be separated from these seemingly infinite freedoms and liberties which are unveiled with duality

the mirrored duality of these freedoms -- which are sacred -- is known as Love and Respect.

The ONLY way to responsibly exercise these freedoms and liberties, is for there to be Respect at all times when there is an absence of Love

I speak disrespectfully to the males (and females who adopt their mentality) because without understanding why that respect is necessary, you shouldn't be having these conversations except with people who choose and desire to be shown no respect

to those who desire to be humiliated or otherwise be believed submissive by these minds framed with the fallac male mentality, which is to NOT understand and compensate for their lack with perfect grammar

Until the day you dumb assholes understand that while it is OK to do anything in your private personal life (singular life of you who are already dead) and you realize that you do NOT have the right to even attempt to have influence on another person's choice regarding these sacred, personally and as private as they desire them to be freedom and liberty

until then you will always be dead, as you fail to qualify for life by respecting it when you do not love it

This is NOT sexism, it is plain and simple fact that males are not needed as anything other than a commodity in the production of sperm, and it is female who gives life and therefore lives.

I fully understand the desire to "put someone in their place" but you dumb assholes fail to realize that with sex and religion you will NEVER have the right to do so in certain places, and entering those places that are not yours against those whom it is their place, is what rape is

it is not wrong to play rape, it is wrong to claim an offense has been committed by a person for telling you to fuck off or that you have the disease of male mentalism for asking to play rape

because not only is the living male subservient to the female (except for those males who are dead) but being subservient in a real life as in no choice factual sort of way, means you just have to deal with it,

I cannot apologize for my insulting tone, but I guarantee you I would not choose insulting words if you would show respect when there is an absence of love

philosophical bullshit viewpoints carry no weight, no matter how logical they sound,

though I can sympathize with a small level of frustration no getting a choice in males being subservient to females among the living, you either get over it, or die, which really isn't anything different than now, seeing as how YOU ARE AS DEADMEN

you dumb ignorant grammatically correct men

this facts --- as with all things when the topic is sacred --- parallel perfectly with dumbasses like Dawkins et al, and the conservative mirror image of such dumbasses, in their pointless pissing contests about whether or not God exists

to you deadmen, "Go Fuck Yourselves"

or at least keep your attempts to fucking others here, in the land of Cattle where it's perfectly within your "can't take it but can sure dish it out" phony phantasy land which you wouldn't know science if it bit you in the ass Seattle publication

my record Is expunged in Heaven, I don't give fuck what anything says or records in hell, those among living come clean, so to speak

@90 my post @80 included caveats like "willing." You're pretty clear that you're not willing (since it would make you into a person you don't want to be). So a partner who dearly wants this stuff should realize the two of you are incompatible. I don't think most people would turn into monsters if asked to be a bit more aggressive. They might say no, or they might play along. Their version of playing along might be fun for both partners, or not. But "destructive" results seems far-fetched.

@Late Bloomer: I, too, have no "inner sadist" to set free or channel, and a partner's request for me to "fake it till I make it" or to try and perform to his standards would probably be a flop. But I don't think that EricaP's "optimistic" or "upbeat" approach, outlined @80, could lead to "unintended or destructive results." Unless by "unintended," you mean that the way your partner enacts your kink or behavior just leaves you cold.

Indeed, it seems fairly low-risk, though I also think that depending on the nature of what the partner who requests wants, and the sexual interests or personality of the other partner, it is not terribly likely to be very satisfying to either of them.

Sometimes, though, a person goes somewhere s/he's never gone before--either because the idea never entered his/her consciousness or because for whatever reason s/he shut that idea down as soon as it reared its head--for the sake of making his/her partner happy and it turns out that this new thing makes them both happy. It might even become the person's new metier.

Mr Monic - Embarking upon a lengthy procedure designed to instill into a partner a new taste that will change that partner's character in a way that many people will find problematic (such as the person with whom you are having a lengthy discussion) isn't something to take lightly. Ms Erica is well known for going all in, and advocating every possible way for partner A not just to satisfy partner B's kink, but to take it on for A-self. So the partner in question would not just be learning to satisfy a masochist, but to become a sadist and get off on performing sadism. I'd be far less uncomfortable with such a course of action if it were a little more upfront; I can easily see A thinking, "I'm learning to satisfy B," only for A to find, after the relationship ends, that A is now not just a masochist-satisfier but a full-on sadist - which A never wanted to become.
**********

Ms Erica - Oh, absolutely. Get it out early, and be clear that the partner is willing. I just think that there are possibilities for molding a partner's character into more than that for which the partner has bargained. My suspicion is that a good many people are unscrupulous when they are getting their kinks indulged, and extend willing into areas that the ignorant partner didn't know to forbid.

"Women are the objects of approximately half of all sexism (I'm willing to be convinced that it's 75%, but not that it's 100%) and it takes concerted effort to remain ignorant of that fact. Since this fact is incompatible with your stated beliefs, you're either a hypocrite or an astoundingly ineffectual participant in the struggle against sexism. This whole "I'm against sexism, except when it targets someone different from myself, in which case I support in every way I can" shit needs to stop."

only an over privileged male, trying to force his evolved [sic] sense of superiority, would ever say something so completely and utterly false. In his defense, he has obviously never experienced the hell that is afflicted upon some people's lives through either ignorance or evil and tyranny of idiot men

Not having the barista make your latte perfect -- even though a monkey could understand your grammatically correct instructions -- is not experiencing hell, in fact it is just another day in the life of an idiot male, too stupid to understand it's being an asshole that get's you your latte too sweet. And not that they're incapable of doing it

for everyone else who may be trying to honestly understand how they can be live out their fantasy, don't be a punk about it, if you can't write in without skewing the scenario to make you look right and your partner wrong, at least give them a chance to rethink there reaction

Because if you are an idiot male, the LW's partner's response should be written in an instruction manual and taught to all women as girls

and under the same subsection should be written that when the partner is not an idiot male, a few suggestions from the responses in this post may help you and your partner or partners make the right decision as to whether or not all involved will be able to show respect during the times that love is less involved. If you can't show respect your life is going to be a self-inflicted hell, as opposed to the afflicted hell suffered at the hands of idiot males.

And don't ever let a person tell you that you are wrong for not preferring their relationship dynamic or sexual dynamic

it's not wrong, but it may prove to be a choice that you will have to make as to whether or not you can at least respect yourself while loving or at least respecting your partner

mistakes will always made and it's how you handle yourself and what you and your partner or partners do after the fact that counts

and sometimes it is easier to recognize that your partner will not be able to respect their self helping you live out your fantasies, so figuring it out is always much easier when you help each other through it -- some people subscribe to the theory that it's the only way

so don't be an idiot male and need to be right and your partner be wrong, because in regards to sex or religion among consenting adults, needing to be right is possibly the only wrong way to do it, if you need to be right you'd should do it alone

so for all intents and purposes, going and fucking yourself is literally the only way to fulfill your fantasy

it's *almost* like a marriage proposal from me to you Eud, see how that works? No respect is needed cause I can show you Love

NoCute@93--Ya, I don't know. I was actually thinking about your ex when I wrote my first comment, and trying to imagine myself in his shoes. I don't know why he balked at indulging you, but for me, personally, I would be very confused if I were asked to hurt/dominate someone I love, and who normally demands respect and dislikes aggression. The desire to not hurt someone I love seems to be bedrock in my personality, and I'd have to do some serious tweaking to overcome that, and I suspect the process would be distressing for all involved.

I'm with Mr. Ven on this one--for someone like me, pain/dominance play is not something you ask for lightly. I realize others can approach it light-heartedly, but that's not me. I wouldn't be able to make it a game, or compartmentalize it, or fake it till I make it. I'd have to find somewhere emotional where hurting someone is okay, and the only place I can think of is contempt. Blech.

since I might not have been clear, Eudaemonic is who I am claiming to spew the seemingly logical, yet utterly false points of view.

Being aroused by fantasies of being the rapist in a rape fantasy is 99.999999% of the time a very dangerous and very unhealthy viewpoint to fantasize about.

It has one and only one exception wherein the fantasy can be healthy, and that's is when he gets explicit and unmistakable consent

to treat it any other way, or to call it sexist, is something only an idiot male would do

@94: Embarking upon a lengthy procedure designed to instill into a partner a new taste that will change that partner's character in a way that many people will find problematic...

This is where we diverge; I don't share the belief that taste and character are connected, or that one determines the other.

Ms Erica is well known for going all in, and advocating every possible way for partner A not just to satisfy partner B's kink, but to take it on for A-self. So the partner in question would not just be learning to satisfy a masochist, but to become a sadist and get off on performing sadism.

I'm aware of EricaP's occasional moments of excessive enthusiasm, but I don't think that's what was happening, and the second sentence doesn't actually follow from the first. Learning to satisfy a masochist, and being pleasantly rewarded for being so indulgent, does not necessarily transform you into a sadist.

I agree with Dan and vennominon. Someone who reacts to talking about a consensual groping scene with "you need to be cured" is someone who need to be dumped.

That the GF is right in refusing (don't involve the public in kinks) is not what's mattering here ; what matters is that she words her refusal in a way intent to destroy the LW's self esteem. She could have argued, she could have proposed alternate scenes, she could have said just "no". But she chose to go for his throat.

Destroying one's SO self-worth is the hallmark of an abuser.

Any way he would have approached her would still have been "the wrong way". It's like that for abusers : when called on their bullshit, there is always the littlest of thing that you did which set them off so it's your fault.

And he's already used to word violence : he doesn't see her advice of "getting cured" as one of utter rejection for his tastes, for his being, for everything he is, but as something worthy of asking Dan about. It works probably because he sees her as "the authority" on everything feminist, since she probably presents herself as such and he bought her self hype.

For the record, as a feminist, I wouldn't have accepted either. But I wouldn't tear from limb to limb the asking partner. I'd explain, all the more patiently because he'd be a partner and as such, someone I would value and care for.

This GF doesn't value nor cares for her BF.

@63: "(the trouble with all fantasies) is that the more you fuel it, the more it takes to get the payoff. So if the girlfriend does the 'subway scene', then the next time, it will have to escalate. Pretty much every predator, and in fact, one guy that had a thing for kids that wrote to Dan said, is that the more they try to take the edge off with fake situations, the more they wanted the real thing."

Troll or sincere?

@91: "I've realized today, again, how pathetic it is to hear ignorance being spewed by dipshit seattleans, esp when it's done with impeccable grammar."

Maybe you should go where they appreciate you, the Glenn Beck forums, RedState, Free Republic, etc.

@100 Can it be both? Given that he/she first claims that they used to believe the truth and then had an experience that convinced them otherwise, and when called on that made up a story about how they used to believe the truth and then saw a study that convinced them otherwise, they're clearly not wholly sincere.

Since these can't both be true--you can only have a given belief be shredded once--and if one of these stories was true they'd have stuck with the true one, we have someone who just made up two bullshit stories to support their ignorant prejudices. But that ignorant prejudice could be sincerely held, I guess.

seemingly intelligent people let ignorance cloud their mind everyday, like the fool who thinks males experience 50% of the sexism that happens, but you could be maybe convinced that it's as low as 25%,

the left wing fundies quiver of arrow ivy league over-privileged debate team rarely say anything or any significance, you be better salesmen or politicians who specialize is "looking" right but always have some slimy scheme

the bottom line is, the tweedles once again made out the woman to be wrong because she reacted to her boyfriend wanted a role play a "rape" scene with her.

yes she could have made sure he wasn't part of the point zero zero zero zero percent of males turned on by rape play, because there certainly are some people who do not have trouble discerning wrong from right, but she is a bigot because she reacted?

WTF!!??

yeah an ryand, I get that journalists close ranks like and abusive club, but you'd think they'd be smart enough to not get caught up saying such ignorant shit, because of their inflated egos

oh wait, five out of six of the profiles they comment from are sock-puppet propaganda side-step the irresponsible shit they say, then have the nerve to suggest some be gripped.

Yeah sock-puppet cat, sometimes by being subtle abusers don't get recognized, but sometimes it takes one to know them

and although you three usually give stellar advice, I will keep commenting until they ban me, because some people can't see through the slimy scheme of salesmen selling horseshit. The take control and it would be good for readers to know that the truth can shut down any sales gimmick

that's why it pisses me off when Dan encourages slimy sales gimmicks when he could so easily take the high ground, and his argument would be stronger

this isn't the first time he pulled an Eudaemonic, and mistook grammatically correct for knowing the first thing about psychology or science

I get it though, it would piss me off too if I couldn't take what I dish out,

but I don't do that, it's wrong on so many levels, but then again I am not like politico journalist and the weather doesn't affect my core beliefs and cloud my ability to see lies and truth as distinctly different as opposed to one big dynamic pool of words where right and wrong have a fluidity

oh wait, sorry I forgot to give you guys credit for being able to discern rape from molestation, a couple of months ago sock-puppet was so offended by me pointing of the difference they couldn't find words that could convey how fucked up my viewpoint was for pointing out the difference between rape and molestation

you three all deserve "atta-boy" and pats on the back, next week I'll teach you how to know when you are being honest and when you are full of shit

Is Dirtclustit getting more coherent over time ?

I mean, two paragraphs and it's still approximatively the same topic, what's happened to your ranting of last month, dude ?

Mr Monic - I don't think acquiring a new taste necessarily has to change one's character, but adopting one's partner's kink often will, at least, if done to the standard that it would be reasonable to think of as inspired by Ms Erica on her most enthusiastic days. As for your conclusion, I rather imagine that satisfying a masochist to the appropriate standard would make one a sadist, even if one didn't recognize it at the time, and that's where I see the danger.

I can give you a specific plot outline:

[A and B have a conversation about their kinks.

B presents a kink in which A acts like an X, a genuine X being very bad.

A is reluctant, and does not want to become an X, but tries to indulge B to be GGG.

B finds being indulged inadequate.

B uses Ms Erica's techniques to bring out A's inner X, but surreptitiously.

Eventually B has A so well trained that A's performance becomes second natur

B meets C, who's a natural X and better looking than A; B dumps A.

A looks in the mirror and is horrified to see an X, too well entrenched to expunge.]

And there we are. I won't fault B for finding indulgence to be inadequate; it is what it is. For so many people with kinks, satisfaction can only come from the Real Deal. The interested party should be the one following, not the one leading, the conversion.

@100,101

My bet would be sincere. I don't think there's much data to support the conclusion, and note that increased availability of porn strongly accompanies a decrease in sexual assault, rather than the reverse. Correlation isn't causation, but this kind of correlation is certainly a data point against the opposite conclusion (that porn/fantasy CAUSES assault). That said, even if fantasy scenarios tend to be healthy in general, there will always be people for whom that is not the case. If someone is exposed to a few of those examples, they may make a hasty generalization. It's definitely a cognitive error, but a common and sincere one.

@105, I don't follow. So A realized they enjoyed the kink, and now want to enjoy more. If B dumps A, and A finds they still enjoy those kinky things, A can go find another kinky partner, perhaps more suited them. I don't see why they would be horrified.

Or are you saying kinky behavior actually turns people into bad characters? I really don't think it's likely. As far as extream pain infliction, that's a pretty far kink and not necessarily a part of these types of fantasy. For many who consider themselves kinky, and enjoy the kind of play we're talking about here (rough sex, ravishment if not rape-play) the point is *it feels good* and many orgasms result.

If it's not your thing, then it's not, but trying it and liking it, and becoming good at it aren't drawbacks in my opinion

M? Bot - An inherent kink is what it is. Plenty of people don't like their inherent kinks. A kink of a dark nature (as Ms Erica acknowledges, though without specifying, in 88) which a person instills in a partner by surreptitious means could well leave that partner with a kink (s)he never wanted and currently hates, particularly post-breakup. Someone who is GGG enough to be willing to try inflicting pain but who is clear about not wanting to become the sort of person who can only enjoy inflicting pain should not be turned into someone who can only enjoy inflicting pain by a partner who wants to experience the pain and is willing to be unscrupulous in order to get the "best" pain possible.

Your argument makes me think of the narrator in "Mario and the Magician" after the mentalist Cipolla succeeds in making the gentleman from Rome dance against his will - "In a way, it was consoling to see that he was having a better time than he had had in the hour of his pride."

exactly right vennominon, and kinksters aren't have as unscrupulous and unethical as some of the dipshit bloggers that I've run into after they get butt hurt because of something someone said online

and if you think bloggers are unethical little weasels they ain't nothing compared to journalists

but honestly it is the real kinksters that is the acid test, the winnowing, separating the wheat from the chaff, and real kinksters have integrity, ethics, and are smart enough to understand that truth, honesty, and integrity are not debatable, they fully understand consent and that is why they are not dangerous

it's the lowlife pieces of shit in this world that believe truth is in the eye of the beholder, the ones that justify their behavior, the stupid fuckers that think so long as a victim doesn't know it happened, there is no harm in it.

and those fuckers who think truth is debatable are only kinsters in disguise, as they are the rapists and criminals who prey on innocent, who use the tigh knit communities to manipulate and get away with shit that people who are scrupulous wouldn't ever allow, but their hands are tied due to protecting privacy, and it's the rapist criminals who use that to their advantage while completely disregarding the privacy of an outsider

there is not a worse person than one who does evil believing he is a force for good, those are ignorant, dangerous motherfuckers