Slog

News & Arts

Line Out

Music & the City
at Night

« Escaped Cobra Found | "I'm going to show you God does exi… »

Thursday, March 31, 2011

Savage Love SL Letter of the Day: We've Been Over and Over This...

Posted by Dan Savage on Thu, Mar 31, 2011 at 2:52 PM

My boyfriend and I have been together for over a year and a half and have known each other for the majority of our lives. We are like two peas in a pod, and he is a wonderful partner to share life with. I am so in love with him. The frustration that I'm having is that our sex life is pretty much non-existent. We have sex probably twice a month, and when we do, its usually after I've had to beg for it, or during the middle of the night when I'm half asleep. During the act, its almost as if he's in a race with himself to see if he can finish even faster than he did the last time. I don't know what to do. When I've asked him why, he said that sex has never really been a priority for him, he's completely satisfied, and that I'm sex-obsessed, which I have to say this whole situation is beginning to make me. He even told me that as time goes on, we'll probably begin to have sex even less, which just broke my heart. I've offered to do anything he wants, whether it be lose weight, change my hair, dress up in crazy costumes...whatever it takes to get him to fuck me. I'm not jaw-drop gorgeous or anything, but I'm a cute and fun girl, and people seem to dig me. I feel like I'm a quality catch. I just don't understand why the one person that I want more than anything in this world doesn't. We've begun to talk about marriage, which has me imagining what a future void of sexual activity will look like. My questions...Am I being overly dramatic? Is there anything that I haven't already thought of or said that you think I should try? Is it possible to learn to become satisfied without sex and just be happy/grateful for all of the other wonderful qualities of the relationship?

Feeling Really Sad and Lame

My response after the jump.

················

DTMFA.

DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA. DTMFA.

Seriously.

Comments (185) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment

Well, that was pretty direct.

Posted by Backyard Bombardier on March 31, 2011 at 2:57 PM

He's probably gay. He's probably gay. He's probably gay. He's probably gay. He's probably gay. He's probably gay. He's probably gay. He's probably gay. He's probably gay. He's probably gay. He's probably gay. He's probably gay. He's probably gay. He's probably gay. He's probably gay. He's probably gay. He's probably gay. He's probably gay.

Posted by Frank Rizzo on March 31, 2011 at 2:58 PM

In addition to that great advice, I add:

DTMFA!

Posted by Medina on March 31, 2011 at 2:58 PM

This is THE most common letter you receive (different sex drives), correct Dan?

Posted by Urgutha Forka on March 31, 2011 at 2:58 PM

Why does Dan keep wasting bandwidth on this sad topic? I suspect it's because it allows him to post an SLLOTD without having to do any thinking.

Posted by tdalec on March 31, 2011 at 2:58 PM

But maybe the relationship can be saved?

Posted by Are You Sure? on March 31, 2011 at 3:00 PM

@5: Oh, this should be good for a lot of comments. Pretty soon some asexuals will show up and complain how unfair it is that they aren't allowed to have sex-free relationships with people who enjoy sex, and that if she really loved him she'd understand.

One hundred comments, easy.

Posted by Backyard Bombardier on March 31, 2011 at 3:02 PM

1729- for those who were wondering how many DTMFAs that was.

Posted by Freche_Lola on March 31, 2011 at 3:02 PM

@5, we already know he's on a book tour and busy as shit. You're probably right, but so what? People keep asking.

Seriously, though, if there's no good, obvious, and manageable reason - if it's not depression that he's actively seeking treatment for or something like that - then DTMFA.

Posted by balderdash

on March 31, 2011 at 3:03 PM

@6

Nope, DTMFA

Posted by lortext on March 31, 2011 at 3:04 PM

D. . .

Posted by seatackled on March 31, 2011 at 3:05 PM

@2 my thoughts exactly

@4 that might be all it is, in which case Dan's advice still stands, but the whole "it's almost as if he's in a race with himself to see if he can finish even faster than he did the last time" coupled with the convenience of having known each other for their whole lives tips the scale towards gay in my mind.

Posted by royalpigeon on March 31, 2011 at 3:07 PM

gee Dan, don't sugar coat it, tell her what you really think!

Posted by johnyawl on March 31, 2011 at 3:08 PM

FAKE!

Posted by boxcar on March 31, 2011 at 3:08 PM

Really? DTMFA? But he's such a nice guy. . . .

(Yep, I totally agree with you.)

Posted by Fifty-Two-Eighty

on March 31, 2011 at 3:09 PM

@5 Or maybe he keeps posting letters on this topic because it has yet to sink in with is readership. I mean, how many times have people written to him with the exact same problem? And yet here we are, yet again. I say keep posting these letters, and keep on with the DTMFAs, until people get a clue and the letters stop coming in. I actually view this like a public service as much as anything else. How many people doom themselves to miserable, sex-imbalanced relationships that eventually explode with deceit, cheating, heartbreak, and broken homes? It's bad for the high-sex drive spouses, the low-sex drive spouses, their children, etc. Keep preaching, Dan!

Posted by Hernandez

on March 31, 2011 at 3:09 PM

How can anyone who writes to Dan Savage, and therefore presumably reads his column not predict what his response would be in this case?

Of course, he left out the part about bringing up the subject of her getting sex outside of the relationship, but that would have lessened the impact of all those DTMFAs.

Posted by motomotoyama on March 31, 2011 at 3:11 PM

I could not help but hear Tim Minchin's voice (from the pope song), replacing fuck with dump.:)

Posted by nartweag on March 31, 2011 at 3:17 PM

Before you DTMFA, go pick up a random, bring him home, and fuck him like the world is about to end. In front of the MF, that is.

Posted by seandr on March 31, 2011 at 3:21 PM

I stopped reading at "two peas in a pod"...anyone who says that deserves to live alone and dispair.

Posted by Cato the Younger Younger on March 31, 2011 at 3:23 PM

Dan's right. And I'm betting you ARE cute, fun and a good catch. But this guy is definitely going to dump you at some point, either before or after marriage. So DTMFA and find someone who appreciates you the way you need to be appreciated. It might take a while to find him, but it's better to be single and occasionally getting laid (with the potential of permanently getting laid), than in a live-in relationship and rarely getting laid.

Posted by mitten on March 31, 2011 at 3:29 PM

I'm not sure what you mean.

Posted by Chicago Fan on March 31, 2011 at 3:29 PM

@20: Don't forget "we're like peas and carrots." Another execrable phrase that doom its utterer to the ninth circle of hell.

Posted by TVDinner

on March 31, 2011 at 3:31 PM

I really think women who write these letters must not think very much of themselves if they think they can't do better. There are cute, loving guys who would fuck them twice a day and treat them like royalty, but they settle for dickheads like this. And he will not change when you marry him. DTMFA!

Posted by Vince on March 31, 2011 at 3:31 PM

where are all these sex-starved guys whose girlfriends/wives aren't putting out? if you're 25-40, cute, smart, have a studly body, and can quote monty python chapter and verse, give me a call.

Posted by scary tyler moore

on March 31, 2011 at 3:33 PM

He may not be a motherfucker, but you do need to break up with him. NOW. Please.

Eventually, having known each other most of your lives, you can probably be friends again... but not BF/GF.

Posted by this guy I know in Spokane on March 31, 2011 at 3:34 PM

P.S. What @2 said.

Posted by this guy I know in Spokane on March 31, 2011 at 3:35 PM

"...its almost as if he's in a race with himself to see if he can finish even faster than he did the last time."

Funny how that applies to Dan and his response to today's SLLOTD.

Posted by nseattlite on March 31, 2011 at 3:38 PM

@25...Jesus, ditto for MY age cohort: where are all these sex-starved guys whose girlfriends/wives aren't putting out? if you're 45-60, cute, smart, have a studly body, and can quote Monty Python (Douglas Adams, Terry Pratchett), chapter and verse, give me a call.

Posted by Sarah in Olympia on March 31, 2011 at 3:40 PM

Um Dan, can you please clarify your answer?

Posted by despicable me on March 31, 2011 at 3:46 PM

@8: 1729? Perhaps Dan is a bigger fan of mathematics than his column would suggest.

Posted by en_cy on March 31, 2011 at 3:48 PM

@2-- The boyfriend, that is. We already knew about Dan.

Posted by eclexia on March 31, 2011 at 3:52 PM

@32 Dan Savage is GAY!?!? I'm telling Terry!

Posted by Frank Rizzo on March 31, 2011 at 3:58 PM

For some actual advice, there are a few possibilities here. Lettuce explore them (and explore these options with him):

1) He's just not all that into sex. Talk to your bf about opening up the relationship to let you get sex on the side. If he is opposed to that, there's a reason. This is a good option because it allows you and him to both be sexually fulfilled. He won't feel like he has to do it when he doesn't want to, and you don't have to feel like you're begging him for sex. You should never have to beg for sex, so let's work around it as best as we can.
2) He's just not all that into you. Find out your friends' and family's opinion of him; talk to him. If they think he's not that into you, perhaps they're right.
3) He's just not all that into sex with your "type." Does he masturbate regularly? What kind of porn does he look at? He could be a closeted gay/pedophile/furry/pink pubic hair/500 pound woman/20 foot tall woman fetishist, in which case there is no way that you can ever be what he wants to bang. Don't beat yourself up about it. Look into opening up the relationship or move on gracefully.

Under NO circumstances should you marry this person without having this discussion. If you can't, or if he refuses to have it, you have to move on. If he's minimally sexual then he should look for partners who are also minimally sexual. If he likes a different body type then he should look for that. Getting down to the meat and potaters of the situation, point blank: you aren't doing it for him in the same way he's doing it for you. Move on if you have to.

Posted by Rach3l on March 31, 2011 at 4:00 PM

Yeah, what despicable me said...Dan is so cryptic, he always pussyfoots around, it's no wonder people keep writing in about the same stuff.

TVDinner@23 My high school boyfriend was completely shitfaced once, and as I sat on the ground trying to hold him up in a sitting position, he vomited peas and carrots
all over. I have not partaken of that food combo since, and agree that it is a harbinger of death for any relationship.

seandr@19 I am getting the impression the recent nuclear scare/end of the world scenario has been providing some good solo material lately...??? :)

Posted by Canuck on March 31, 2011 at 4:00 PM

@2 for the Duh win.

Posted by Will in Seattle

on March 31, 2011 at 4:04 PM

I'd like to ad another "DTMFA" just to make it an even 1730

Posted by TreGibbs on March 31, 2011 at 4:07 PM

@2 and so many others: why does everyone immediately think gay when they read this? Dan has field a metric buttload of letters and calls from people who have stated that they have a low sex drive; this guy may just fit in that category and need to find someone who actually has a similarly low sex drive. Sure, he might be gay, but that's not automatic.

That said: DTMFA, of course.

Posted by theseamster on March 31, 2011 at 4:09 PM

@25

Why? Are you recruiting for the gays? Or do you think they're all bi? As it happens I'm bi, not getting much from the wife (seriously? twice a month? mazel tov!), cute, smart, and can quote MP. I'm 47 and my BMI is 17.2 though(yep, that's <2nd percentile, aka invisible when viewed on edge).

How desperate are you @29? Can you work with skinny and bipolar?

(just kidding. Hopelessly monogamous here)

Posted by jenesasquatch on March 31, 2011 at 4:12 PM

guys have lived with this shit for ever (at least I have). We just have to get used to it or be considered pigs for wanting more. I can't remember the last time I had sex with my wife :-(. I work out everyday, cook dinner, bathe and watch our child on the weekends.

My wife is a stay at home mom with part-time childcare. Dan would probably say dtmf to me too, but the reality is I love my wife and cannot bear to leave her and my family. Not everyone's solution can be a dtmf. It's the easiest advice to give yet hardest to take, how about some better f'n advice dan, like how to feel taller than two inches tall when your love won't love you. I'm personally tired of the dtmf sticker slap approach you've got going on.

What i suggest is a healthy self love life, coupled with some fantasy time without masturbation for keeping it hot with yourself, some wardrobe changes that make you feel good about your ass, and some hot yoga (the closest thing to group action that you can get with your cloths on -- plus its great for weight loss). Once you start feeling less dependent upon their affection you'll be more open to sexuality from other places -- that doesn't necessarily mean an affair but can if you want that.

Posted by jaansdornea on March 31, 2011 at 4:16 PM

@34
Nothing to salvage here. She told him that she wasn't happy and he responded with dealWithIt.gif. DTMFA.

Posted by lortext on March 31, 2011 at 4:17 PM

@38 Of course he might be completely straight and have a low sex drive, or be into one of any of the things @34 mentioned and more, but he sentence "it's almost as if he's in a race with himself to see if he can finish even faster than he did the last time" instantly reminded me of the way I've heard Dan and other gay-but-fucked-ladies-before-they-were-out dudes talk about sex with women.

Posted by royalpigeon on March 31, 2011 at 4:18 PM

I'm sad that nobody's bothered to unpack for FRSAL just why this is a 1730x epic-class case of DTMFA:

He's playing the it's not me it's you card. He's not only saying that he doesn't have a problem, that it's your problem, but that it's a problem that's not worth working on.

That's why this relationship isn't worth putting through therapy, medication, opening things up, etc.

Whether he's gay, minimally sexual, or just not that into you, he not only doesn't give a shit about your sexual fulfillment, he doesn't give a shit about your resulting unhappiness.

Get out now. If he really is all that wonderful in spite of your sexual incompatibility and you've got that whole pre-sexual sandbox-love thing going on, I've no doubt you can salvage your friendship. But only if you get out now.

Posted by The Max on March 31, 2011 at 4:18 PM

@40

You might have found another loving wife, had kids, and a great sex life too if you had the courage to DTMFA before getting into marriage. Who knows :-(

Posted by lortext on March 31, 2011 at 4:24 PM

How does one break up with a person over sex without seeming like a total asshole? I really hope that I'll never have to do it, but I've realised that if the situation were to occur, I wouldn't actually know.

Posted by Aly on March 31, 2011 at 4:24 PM

DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU DESU MOAR DESU

Posted by venomlash on March 31, 2011 at 4:26 PM

@40: I think Dan's quick draw on the DTMFA is mostly for those who aren't married, and don't have kids precisely BECAUSE it sucks, as you know, to get in that deep only to find you're with a non/rarely-sexual. His goal is to nip that shit in the bud before it flowers into full-blown relationship/familial dysfunction.

Posted by schmacky on March 31, 2011 at 4:27 PM

folks, remember that there are people who are just hearing about Dan and the idea of DTMA. I started listening to Dan in 2008 (I could never stand the column, but I love the podcast), and now I can usually predict what Dan is going to say, but for some people, this way of looking at relationships from a sex-positive point of view (ie. sex is an issue worth dumping someone over) is very new.

Posted by gordonburkholder on March 31, 2011 at 4:33 PM

maybe try the pretzel position with the feet behind the head. then offer any hole. if you still cant get any, then ok.

Posted by aardvark on March 31, 2011 at 4:33 PM

@40

Thank you! I made that same complaint on SL not that long ago. DTMFA might be approriate before the wedding (to a guy who is probably "gayer than Elton John's fanny pack" *) but sometimes this situation arises later in life when there is much more to consider.

*Will and Grace

Posted by jenesasquatch on March 31, 2011 at 4:34 PM

*puts on the mask of [varying-username-troll]*

Why Dan, you appear to be suggesting that a relationship make its participants Happy. How un-holy of you! God does not want married couples to be happy! He wants them to suffer in silent, glowering resentment of one another for decades upon decades! And God is the best guy ever.

*removes the mask of [varying-username-troll]*

Posted by CharlesF on March 31, 2011 at 4:36 PM

Oh that was the most lawl-inducing after the jump evers! Thank you, Dan.

Posted by OuterCow on March 31, 2011 at 4:42 PM

I was in the same position as the letter-writer six years ago -- unfortunately, I didn't DTMFA, I married her. Five increasingly desperate and unhappy years and one divorce later, I'm happier than I ever was being married to her, and I only wish I hadn't wasted so much time.

It's hard to DTMFA, but you'll never get over having no sex, you'll start fighting about it more, and you'll have an unhappy end to finish off an ultimately unhappy relationship. Get out before it gets worse.

Posted by I should register one of these days on March 31, 2011 at 4:43 PM

@49 aardvark, FTW!

Posted by despicable me on March 31, 2011 at 4:44 PM

@45: How does one break up with a person over sex without seeming like a total asshole?

I think the sex is irrelevant to that question: how does one break up with a person for any reason without seeming like a total asshole?

Be honest. Be direct. Be firm. Be as kind as possible.

And be prepared for the fact that no matter how much you try to not seem like a total asshole - no matter how much you are, in fact, not a total asshole - the person you break up with will probably think you are an asshole.

No one likes to be dumped. They are going to be upset about it. They are going to take that out on you.

But what is worse: having someone you don't want to be in a relationship with mad at you for a few weeks, or being stuck in a relationship with someone you don't want to be in a relationship with?

Just pull off the band-aid.

Posted by Backyard Bombardier on March 31, 2011 at 4:44 PM

@35: Fucking like its the end of the world is more of a philosophy than a fantasy. Given recent events, I can see it gaining in popularity.

@49: LOL.

Posted by seandr on March 31, 2011 at 4:46 PM

@49, I think that's a pretty good test.

Posted by biffp on March 31, 2011 at 4:47 PM

@26: Yes, he is a MF. He calls her sex-obsessed for wanting sex more than twice a month.

Posted by yuiop on March 31, 2011 at 4:51 PM

It will ALWAYS be this way. If you can't accept lack-luster sex twice a month, then don't stay with him.

@45: Aly, you don't have to go over every reason you're breaking up with a person. Sometimes it's even cruel to do so. It's enough to say that you're not compatible, and leave it at that.

Posted by Brie on March 31, 2011 at 4:58 PM

What @43 said.

Posted by MythicFox on March 31, 2011 at 5:00 PM

I'm not seeing any options for you, FRSAL. I'm inclined to think that it doesn't matter what his orientation or sexual/mental health may be, because he doesn't want things to change. Which means he isn't right for you. You may think that being sex-less is worth the price of admission, because he's such a lovely companion, but you're still in the dating world and the length of your relationship seems short to already be suffering "bed death" due to young children, etc. It seems to be suffering from he's not sexually into you "bed death". Take Dan's advice and move on.

Posted by kim in portland

on March 31, 2011 at 5:03 PM

@ 40 & 50 - yes, it's not always as easy as DTFMA. And your situations might garner a different response from Dan - because your situations are different from the LW's. Dan wasn't/isn't giving you advice here. He didn't tell either one of you to DTMFA, he only told the LW to. 1729 times over! but his advice is directed at the LW. Sorry that you're stuck in sexless, unhappy situations but there's no reason to take Dan to task for his advice to the LW.

Posted by moosefan on March 31, 2011 at 5:06 PM

I know plenty of Indian couple who have very little sex but happy marriges, it can work for some people.

Posted by Democrat1234 on March 31, 2011 at 5:07 PM

The Max is absolutely right. This guy doesn't give a shit about her sexual fulfillment and is trying to make her feel like the weird, perverted one, when the truth is that they're just not sexually compatible.

LW do not marry this man. DTMFA indeed.

Posted by planned barrenhood on March 31, 2011 at 5:09 PM

@62
Yes, we understand that distinction. It's more a matter of us wanting less of the DTMFA letters/responses and more advice along the lines of staying together and coping in our circumstances. We don't see a lot of those letters though surely it's a common situation. Perhaps it's too complicated and individual a situation for short-form advice? I really don't know.

Posted by jenesasquatch on March 31, 2011 at 5:18 PM

She could probably learn to love her sexless life. She could always join a scrapbooking club, or maybe take up drinking every kind of scotch made on the planet.

DTMFA.

Posted by procupcake on March 31, 2011 at 5:30 PM

@63: Absolutely. Specifically, it can work for people who have no libido. For the rest of us, that would be a "deal-breaker".

Posted by long-time reader on March 31, 2011 at 5:31 PM

@38

As @42 pointed out, the race to finish thing screams gay to me. Why? Because when I was a college-jock-not-yet-out-gay-boy-dating-women that's how it was for me. The rest of the letter sounds like a scared closeted homo to me as well.

Posted by Frank Rizzo on March 31, 2011 at 5:44 PM

Jenesasquatch,

Do you have children? I don't know if this will be of any encouragement. It has been my experience that women with young children get their need for affection met primary through their kids, and their primary identity is 'mom'. I saw it happening in myself, I saw it happen to my friends. I heard complaints of how their husbands pestered them and how they felt they could live without ever having sex again. I don't think I'm the only woman who heard these things, or even thought them in very stressed moments. (Our eldest was a very sick child for a while.) But, things changed with time for all of us. For some of us it came quickly, myself included, with a very heart to heart discussion of how resentment was building and the importance of physical expression beeing needed to communicate love. Some it came after their youngest hit about fifth grade (11 y.o.), suddenly they were receiving less hugs and kisses from their kids. Kids grow up and need to assert their independence. They found themselves lacking, and very likely their fertility dropping (testosterone rising), and they wanted sex again. Now, I'm the pain in the arse who pesters these days, mostly because he travels every week, but I'm not alone. And, it is wonderful to see my friends identify as women who happen to be wives and mothers. Woman who love sex and want it. I hope the same happens for you. I hope this is just a chapter. Nonetheless, I wanted to tell you that I admire your strength, transparency, and fidelity to the commitment you made to your wife. And, hopefully this isn't out of line, but that makes you sexy in my book.

Maybe, a little Pride and Prejudice is on the books after I finish messing with these guitars? The version with MacFayden crossing the field as the sun and mist rise. ;-)

Cheers.

More...

Posted by kim in portland

on March 31, 2011 at 5:57 PM

Kimmie, it's my impression that Jenesasquatch is a guy. I could be wrong, though - you never know.

And yes, I got your message this morning, and thanks for remembering.

Posted by Fifty-Two-Eighty

on March 31, 2011 at 6:04 PM

@40: Hang in there bro.

You're doing the right thing by staying in shape. If you can build up some pecs and biceps, women will notice you among all of the lumpen straight guys out there, and that kind of attention definitely feeds the male soul.

Also, read Kim @69.

Posted by seandr on March 31, 2011 at 6:13 PM

@69: PS to Kim, you might want to start your own "It's get better project"

Posted by seandr on March 31, 2011 at 6:14 PM

Whether it's this thread, or the Savage Love one from last week, I think it's a huge wake-up call for anyone who's fallen into that "mommy place of no return," where we let our kids become the focal point of our existence. The men who are talking about their lives are so obviously really great guys, not "pigs who only want sex," and I wish there were a way for them to communicate that to their wives, that they can't come last forever.

Posted by Canuck on March 31, 2011 at 6:16 PM

You're welcome, Fifty-Two-Eighty.

I've also had the impression that Jenesasquatch is a man. If I'm wrong I think women are sexy, too. Did I say something wrong? I knew the husbands of my friends and that they were frustrated. I know men (straight, gay, and bi) who enjoy Pride and Prejudice.

Plus, everyone here should fill free to toss anything I say in the dustbin if they disagree. I'm only an authority on my life, so I'm cool with being wrong.

Posted by kim in portland

on March 31, 2011 at 6:18 PM

Thank you, Seandr. Take care.

Posted by kim in portland

on March 31, 2011 at 6:25 PM

Don't you have monkey butlers to filter this crap for you?

Posted by Caralain on March 31, 2011 at 6:29 PM

It doesn't matter, hon - it's all good. You too.

Posted by Fifty-Two-Eighty

on March 31, 2011 at 6:30 PM

Re the mom-zone, Salon just printed an interesting perspective. The author gets it, but check out her friends.
"How a gross word [MILF] made me feel sexy again"
http://www.salon.com/life/feature/2011/0…

Posted by EricaP on March 31, 2011 at 6:46 PM

...you know what's funny? I actually DID date a closeted gay guy for over a year, and somehow we never had a problem with infrequent intimacy (his technique left something to be desired, but the willingness and the frequency were always there). We're still good friends (we parted amicably when he finally came out, about 7 years ago) and I asked him recently why in heaven's name he did that, and he just said, "Well I wanted to be a good boyfriend! And it made you happy and it still felt good to be cuddly and close to a person I cared about, even if they weren't sexy feelings." He's not interested in girls, not been with one before or since, and somehow he still managed to acknowledge that sex is part of a relationship and commit to providing that while in when. Now that's GGG. I'm glad he figured things out, and now he's a happily out gay man with more attention than he can handle. : )

Posted by Elisabeth on March 31, 2011 at 6:48 PM

@69

Thank you, Kim. I am a househusband and my wife is an executive who is extremely driven. She is also getting a graduate degree. She's exhausted. If she weren't in school she'd be working harder. Our circumstance is more one of mismatched libido, mismatched sexual interests, and mismatched prioritization of sex. This has evolved over the years.

We have a son who is 12. He couldn't be more loved by us and we couldn't express our deep love for each other any more openly without causing him to throw up.

Ah to be on that field at the center of a MacFadyen/Knightly sandwich.

Posted by jenesasquatch on March 31, 2011 at 6:49 PM

@65 -how should people cope, who want more sexual connection than their spouse is willing to provide, but who won't consider leaving the marriage?

They could try connecting more with other people, sexually (with permission, if they want an EricaP merit badge :) or non-sexually if that makes more sense in the circumstances.

The reason why many moms need less sex when the kids are under 10 is because they're getting lots of physical and emotional connection from the kids. Maybe sports can fill that role for some men? Or yoga, as jaansdornea said @40. Or follow the advice for single people: if you want more connection, join groups where other people are also looking for connection. Go out dancing; find some fellow runners; help build houses with Habitat for Humanity. Feel more alive, and maybe you can wake up your spouse to the joys of being alive and connected as well.

But mostly -- as Dan always says -- don't let yourself think that a low level of sex early on is going to improve over time. Early in a relationship, let your lack of compatibility in this area come to the forefront so you both see you aren't meant for each other.

Posted by EricaP on March 31, 2011 at 6:56 PM

80,

Thank you for writing back, Jenasasquatch. I wish you joy.

Take care.

Posted by kim in portland

on March 31, 2011 at 6:57 PM

Thank you, EricaP. My belief is that because our marriage has evolved in so many ways over time that any current problems we have can be fixed or at least better managed. I have made significant improvement lately and I see a path for her to make some changes.

Posted by jenesasquatch on March 31, 2011 at 7:14 PM

Let's just pretend I preceded this comment with 1729 DTNFA (Dump the NON fucker already).

I'm always fascinated to read the "I love ... BUT" letters. In this case, there were three lines of I love him so much; we're perfect; two peas in a pod; I could see myself with him forever ... yadda, yadda and twenty lines of the misery of her existence with him.

LW, not only is he not into you, you're nothing more than a masturbatory sleeve to him, where he'll do it in the middle of the night, because he can't be half-assed to even approach the concept of making love to you. Um ... if you've forgotten the principles, sex (in a love relationship) is supposed to be for sharing and caring and making each other feel good. Has he ever paid attention to you or tried to make you feel fabulous?

Instead, he makes it a speed contest, because his ONLY goal is to get off as quickly as possible, so he can roll over – completely satisfied - and go to sleep. I don't think he's gay, but he could be very weirded by guilt over the physical aspects of sex and that's why he's doing it so rarely and by totally ignoring you (while he's in the middle of humping and then entirely at any other time).

He may have certain nice qualities in other areas of his life but, when it comes to his relationship with you, he's not making any attempt to be reasonable and has gone so far as to berate you for your alleged sex obsession. ::bangs head against wall:: When twice a month is the definition of obsessed, then I'm speechless.

You are definitely NOT sex obsessed; you merely want to have a reciprocal sexual and intimate relationship with him. Well, you're not going to get the first one and I'm pretty sure you're not going to get the second, not when he appears to belong to the deflect and deny school of interacting with the woman he's supposed to love.

Right now he's got you so befuddled that you're starting to doubt yourself, your attractiveness and self-worth. How much farther do you want him to drag you down. Please, LW, for the sake of your sanity and potential of a fulfilling relationship in the future where you are not only loved but respected by your mate ... DTNFA !!!

More...

Posted by Helenka (also a Canuck) on March 31, 2011 at 7:30 PM

Okay, Dan, you made me laugh out loud with that one. (Usually "LOL" is used to mean that something was mildly amusing, but no, I really did laugh out loud at your response.)

Posted by Corylea

on March 31, 2011 at 7:37 PM

"The reason why many moms need less sex when the kids are under 10 is because they're getting lots of physical and emotional connection from the kids. Maybe sports can fill that role for some men? Or yoga, as jaansdornea said @40. Or follow the advice for single people: if you want more connection, join groups where other people are also looking for connection. Go out dancing; find some fellow runners; help build houses with Habitat for Humanity. Feel more alive, and maybe you can wake up your spouse to the joys of being alive and connected as well."

EricaP., I sincerely hope you are not partnered, and will never, ever be partnered, with either a man or a woman or anything that breathes.

If your wife doesn't want to have sex with you, shoot a few hoops with the guys, do yoga stretches, and hammer nails into beams while thinking of the homeless?

You. Must. Be. Out. of. Your. Fucking. Mind.

Which you are, but besides that, if a mother is "getting lots of physical and emotional connection from the kids" to the point that it makes her lose interest in having sex with her husband, then she is very likely exploiting her children's natural dependence on their mother for said "connection", which is unhealthy for her, and unhealthy for the children, but very easy to do because a child, unlike a spouse, is not an equal, not an adult, and therefore does not pose the challenge to one's ego that relating to an adult does.

Seriously, EricaP.,, whomever you are, please isolate yourself from humanity until you begin to resemble a sane human being.

Posted by Harry Lime on March 31, 2011 at 7:45 PM

@86 LOL. Did you read @65, the person to whom I was responding?

jenesasquatch has asked repeatedly for advice on how to cope with a wife who won't provide the sexual connection he wants, but he makes it more challenging by wanting advice other than DTMFA, cheat, or try to persuade her to be different. He has said: she won't change, and he won't leave. (@83 he sounds as if maybe he does think she could change, but that's new.)

So, Harry, seriously, please isolate yourself from blogs until you are better able to keep up.

Posted by EricaP on March 31, 2011 at 8:01 PM

@87 - also, I recommend @69.

Posted by EricaP on March 31, 2011 at 8:02 PM

@58 -- 26 here. Right. I take it back. DTMF*MFA.

*motherfucking

Posted by this guy I know in Spokane on March 31, 2011 at 8:07 PM

Hi, OP. I know what you mean. I just ended things a few days ago. And it SUCKS. It sucks so much. (I ended it for other reasons! Not even the sex part. But I knew what it would come to eventually.)

So, Dan is right. Even though DTMFA is an easy acronym for something that's going to be painful and sucky and hard, because "what if you never find someone better?" "it's just sex" (etc. etc. etc), this will destroy your self esteem and make you very sad if you stick it out. I really believe that.

Good luck.

Posted by sympathizer on March 31, 2011 at 8:08 PM

@86 lulz.

I don't follow slog that closely and thus don't know the ins and outs of all of the regular commenters' lives, but I find Harry Lime's rant pretty funny because it's like he's implying that EricaP is some dried up old hen who's always trying to justify not having sex with her husband and help those she knows do the same. Or something? When from what little I've read here, I've gathered that EricaP has quite a satisfying (and open) sex life with her husband of many years.

Posted by royalpigeon on March 31, 2011 at 8:24 PM

@Harry Lime, this thread is also a carry over from last week's Savage Love column, where, as EricaP mentions, there were some particular circumstances that led to her giving the advice she did. As everyone who reads this on a regular basis knows, EricaP has quite the adventurous sex life, which a lot of us envy and enjoy hearing about in equal measure. So yeah, I can see where someone coming into this blind might make some assumptions...but, unlike me in high school...do yer homework!

Posted by Canuck on March 31, 2011 at 9:05 PM

Kim @69: (Huh huh. "69." Huh huh.) Fucking brilliant. Lil TVDinner is stumping around right now, picking up my shoes, depositing them in strange places, and otherwise absorbing a joyous - but sizable - amount of emotional energy. Not to mention the grad school. Mr. TVDinner and I are getting through it with grace, but I think you might have saved us from a future pitfalls.

Thanks, as always, for your fierce and searing honesty.

Posted by TVDinner

on March 31, 2011 at 9:59 PM

I'm glad, TVDinner. It is easy to become so besotted with our children and to slowly loose touch and the connection that inspired their conception. For both parents, maybe more so for the primary care taker. I hope you and Mr. TVDinner have opportunities to date each other and remember all the reasons you decided to build a life together. Make it a priority. It was worth every dime I paid the babysitter and every babysitting exchange I participated in. So very worth it.

Posted by kim in portland

on March 31, 2011 at 10:13 PM

@Harry Lime:
You've misdirected your crazy rant at one of the most sexually open and adventurous moms I'm aware of. You owe her a groveling apology. Hell, you owe everyone here on Savage Love a groveling apology.

Posted by seandr on March 31, 2011 at 10:26 PM

@95 that would be fun to see :-)

Posted by EricaP on March 31, 2011 at 10:30 PM

Sex without love. Love without sex.

Who designed this MF shit?

Posted by tunanator on March 31, 2011 at 10:32 PM

Most importantly, EricaP, what would you wear to receive your groveling apology?

Posted by Canuck on March 31, 2011 at 10:44 PM

You have mastered the copy and paste commands. Well done, Dan.

Posted by I have always been... east coaster on March 31, 2011 at 11:38 PM

100

@96, @98
Hmmm. Now I'm wishing someone owed me a groveling apology. Which, of course, I'd only accept if she was wearing an especially apologetic outfit, and she made a special effort to earn my forgiveness...

Posted by seandr on March 31, 2011 at 11:38 PM

101

I liked the part in your response where you said, "DTMFA."

Posted by trollollol on March 31, 2011 at 11:53 PM

102

It seem sadistic to dress Harry in an appropriate outfit, but I like Canuck's query as to what I would wear. Something like this?
http://whutsgood.com/wp-content/uploads/…

Certainly not this:
http://www.j-lou.co.uk/wp-content/upload…

If he did well I do have some extra merit badges to pin on:
http://www.maryyaeger.com/posterimg/high…
http://www.cracked.com/blog/wp-content/u…

Posted by EricaP on April 1, 2011 at 12:07 AM

103

@34 read 43. He's a MF because his response to her stating that she is unhappy and unsatisfied is for him to tell her that she shouldn't have the feelings or desires that she has. To respond to somebody's emotions and drives by stating that they are wrong to have them is a MF move. You may have bad actions, but your feelings aren't wrong. And people who tell you that are trying to make you feel broken. Also, he doesn't really care that she is unhappy and unsatisfied as long as he gets what he wants, which is lack of sex. He has unilaterally stated the terms, is aware that they hurt her, and doesn't care. Maybe it's what he needs, but then he still shouldn't be telling her she's broken for not being compatible with her needs. He should simply state honestly what his needs and desires are, and if she's a bad fit let her find someone else and let him find someone else. Instead, he's trying to ruin her self esteem by claiming their lack of compatibility is an inherent flaw in her. MF needs DA.

Posted by uncreative on April 1, 2011 at 12:12 AM

104

@50: "Thank you!"

Fuck off, the both of you, who would get a poor woman trapped in a marriage with kids so she can be as miserable and mismatched as either of you.

Posted by seriously, it's like you don't want to warn anyone on April 1, 2011 at 1:00 AM

105

@104 - seriously, it's like you can't read. Both 40& 50 understand that their lives are lessons in what not to do if you can avoid it. But they can't imagine leaving their wives, and would like advice on how to suck it up and live with it. How you imagined that they would wish this on someone else, I have no idea.

Posted by EricaP on April 1, 2011 at 1:38 AM

106

@40, is your wife aware you'd like the situation to be different? Have you seen a marriage counselor? Because it would seem to me in a loving and supportive relationship the less libidinous partner - barring any physical problems - would be willing to do a little fucking and put some effort into it because they know it makes the person they love happy. And I don't think anyone on this particular blog is going to suggest a guy is a pig for wanting more - is that what your wife tells you? Dude, see a couples therapist. Because eventually your love for your withholding wife is going to turn to resentment and things will be much harder to fix then. And if you've already seen a couples therapist and still are unhappy in your marriage but don't want to leave, get your own therapist and try a different couples therapist. At the very minimum, you do this for the sake of your kids - and I say this as the child of an unhappy marriage.

But these people aren't married yet and sex is clearly important to the LW, while her significant other has been up front about the fact that he doesn't really care, so yes this is an obvious DTMFA situation.

Posted by JrzWrld on April 1, 2011 at 2:14 AM

107

I'm not sure I quite got that, Dan. Could you please repeat your advice again with less sugar-coating this time?

Seriously though, I'm relatively new to this column/blog, and I'm bewildered by the sheer amount of people claiming to be in sexless marriages with "wonderful partners".
He might indeed be a wonderful person, I would not know enough to say, but a blind drunk should be able to see that he is not, for you at least, a "wonderful partner to share life with".

I guess I am quite young and inexperienced in such matters, but doesn't it seem strange that we put so much time and energy into trying to have the best sex possible, yet somehow think it's normal to stay with someone who is not (or not interested in becoming) a compatible sex partner? Do people genuinely believe love conquers all?

Posted by heartofgold on April 1, 2011 at 3:04 AM

108

Love Dan Savage !!

Posted by RocNY on April 1, 2011 at 5:40 AM

109

Okay, I'm back now. I just got to @86.

EricaP is one of the very few great women that I have had the privilege to speak to. The help she has given me literally saved my life. She is intelligent, caring, persistent, loving, sexy, classy, nurturing, beautiful, loyal, funny, wise, artistic, responsible, faithful, strong, and although I've never met her in person I have absolutely no doubt that she is unbelievably great in bed.

Elizabeth Bennet: "I am no longer surprised at your knowing only six accomplished women. I rather wonder now at your knowing any."

Posted by jenesasquatch on April 1, 2011 at 6:09 AM

110

EricaP, that subtle black outfit would be just the ticket! And yes, he should be dressed like an Eagle Scout, with a sash for those completely fabulous badges!

seandr, from what I've heard, if someone's really sorry, their outfit includes kneepads...

@107 The mismatched libidos develop over time, that's what a lot of the people on these threads have experienced, that ten years into a marriage with multiple children, the sex tapers off, and the friendship/shared experiences/life with kids is important enough that it doesn't seem worth breaking up the marriage. I think the problem is that simmering resentment JrzWrld@106 mentions can really eat away at the overall health of the relationship. And about the "love conquering all"...that hasn't been the case for me, anyway. I don't think my husband would feel very loving toward me if I were constantly rejecting him, it all seems to go hand in hand, but that's just my marriage.

Posted by Canuck on April 1, 2011 at 6:23 AM

111

@40 "Dan would probably say dtmf to me too"

You new to reading Dan's column?

Dan's advice to you would most likely be to open up the marriage or, barring that, cheat. He would most likely preface that advice with, "If you didn't have kids, I would tell you to DTMFA....."

He wouldn't just give you permission to cheat. He'd tell you that you owe it to your marriage and family. He'd tell you that your best chance to keep the wife and family that you want so desperately to keep is to cheat. He might just tell you that you owe it to your family.

Read the archives. You'll see.

Posted by shw3nn on April 1, 2011 at 6:42 AM

112

@109 continued

..., kinky, adventurous, forgiving, a good wife, a good mother, a good daughter, a good friend, tolerant, open minded, soulful, articulate, insightful, direct, bold, heroic, honest, kind, polite, stylish, generous, and hardworking. No doubt I'll think of more but I think that's enough to nullify @86 both above and in any future version that might have the impertinence to appear.

Posted by jenesasquatch on April 1, 2011 at 7:23 AM

113

I'd only add, "Tell him to ask his doctor if he has a low-testosterone hormone imbalance," but yes, after that.

Posted by DRF on April 1, 2011 at 7:39 AM

114

To me there's no debate to be had about whether or not the dude in question is asexual, disenchanted with her, closeted, or whatever other reason for his lack of interest in having sex with his girlfriend.

What matters is that he's being a cruel asshole to someone he claims to love--rejecting her, making her beg, using her when it suits his occasional whim, and then slut shaming her by making his ongoing rejection and selfishness her fault. I couldn't give a good goddamn what the underlying reason is, the most important point is that she shouldn't be in this inherently abusive relationship--this is slow psychological torture, not love.

If someone doesn't want to fuck you, turns that lack of desire around on you by painting you as deviant, and shows no long term concern about your sexual well-being, it's not just DTMFA x 1729, it's GTFO x 1729.

Don't subject yourself to this humiliation and cruelty. Please. And dissecting his potential hangups just contributes to that humiliation and cruelty. It's not your business what his hangup is because he's wounding you to conceal it from even himself. GET. THE. FUCK. OUT.

now.

Posted by maddy811 on April 1, 2011 at 7:40 AM

115

But Dan, tell us how you really feel! Stop holding back!

Posted by LML on April 1, 2011 at 7:46 AM

116

@110 Canuck

You put that very well. I would say that if you both love each other then love may indeed conquer all.

Rejection can happen only if you ask for something. The longer two people are together the better they should be at understanding each other's feelings. To refuse to "see" your spouse and to continue to ask for that which you should know you aren't going to get is immature whining. Instead ask yourself how you got where you are and whether there are things that can be changed to make you both happier. Dwelling on the fact that there is a lack of sexual fulfillment will not produce more sex.

In my case I started by confronting a profound problem within myself. Having done that I am looking to my wife to see if she will rise to the occassion and do the same. She has some real insecurities that she may or may not be able to master. We'll see. I accept that I may not be able to stay married but I will do everything in my power to try. Know your partner's limitations and sensitivities and you will know how and at what pace you can push for change.

Posted by jenesasquatch on April 1, 2011 at 7:52 AM

117

@111: Is it my imagination, or do I detect a certain note of acid disapproval in your comment?
@110: I'm adding my vote for the subtle black outfit. I'm sure EricaP will look both stunning (and forgiving!) in it as Mr. Lime, whose post made me laugh and laugh, grovels before her. But seriously, so much good advice here from all the usual suspects.

Posted by Lissa on April 1, 2011 at 8:08 AM

118

@116:Jenesasquatch, having never addressed you directly before, I feel a little shy saying so, but judging form your posts, you seem an admirable, clear sighted human being, and your wife, family and friends are lucky to have you in their lives. I feel it most likely safe to say, that we here on slog, are all pulling for you. Maybe even Period Troll!

Posted by Lissa on April 1, 2011 at 8:18 AM

119

I do think that love can conquer all. But, that love that conquers all is a choice, I think the Greek word for it is 'agape'. It is active, working and humbling form of love. All parties must be actively working and choosing to develop in themselves the means to meet the other's need. It's the love that says "How did we get here? We both need to change inorder to go forward." It's a courageous love that requires strength and determination.

In the case of the LW, I don't read a willingness on the BF's part to make changes within himself or to work with her. And, I firmly believe that we can only work on improving ourself, we can't change others. And, we can't inspire or encourage others to change if they aren't committed to choosing how to meet us, that active form of love isn't there.

Just my $0.02.

Posted by kim in portland

on April 1, 2011 at 8:26 AM

120

jenesasquatch, you're right, whining about the lack of sex won't change things, but please don't sell yourself short. It sounds like your wife has certain priorities (work, school) that she puts ahead of you, and you could, perhaps, draw the comparison that just as a healthy sex life makes you feel "whole," her need to work so hard is what makes her feel "whole," and that essentially saying no to the sexual part of your relationship would be like you asking her to drop out of grad school. That would be unfair, because it's obviously something that's important to her. Maybe that analogy is a stretch, but sometimes that sort of thing helps me to put things into perspective. And forgive my armchair psychology here, but in my limited experience, people who are workaholics usually do that out of a need to prove something, or because they derive their self-worth through the accolades they get at their job. Sometimes circumstances dictate long hours (medical intern, new lawyer), but you've said if she weren't in grad school, she'd just be working longer hours. Again, forgive my nosiness, but you've said you've worked on things within yourself, on issues you had, and you are hoping she'll meet you there, and work on her issues, presumably? I don't think it's possible to change a person's inherent personality (a Type A workaholic will never become a mellow Type B sofa sitter) but it's helpful to look at the underlying reasons why she feels such a need to prove herself. Or am I just completely stating the obvious, and this is something you're already doing? My own marriage has had its ups and downs, as they all do, and I'm glad I haven't bailed at the first sign of trouble, because things have had a tendency to work themselves out...but if they weren't, if all the talking and effort still weren't producing results? I wouldn't stay in it, no one should have to live in unhappiness for an unlimited amount of time. And the funny thing is, when you've openly talked about this, I think it makes things better, because both people know their marriage isn't written in stone, they can't just act badly toward each other with no repercussions.
And not to be a fly in the ointment here, but it sounds like you do a lot to facilitate your wife's work life and grad school/study hours--I was a stay home mum for 20 years, so I know the kind of work you're doing--don't forget that your needs are as important as her needs.

More...

Posted by Canuck on April 1, 2011 at 8:48 AM

121

117 No. Yes. Lemme 'splain.

40 was upset with Dan because of what he imagined Dan would tell him to do...DTMFA. Then 40 proposed some "better advice" that was just a really weak, watered down version of what Dan would, in all likelihood, actually advise him to do.

Does my tone make more sense to you, now?

Posted by shw3nn on April 1, 2011 at 8:58 AM

122

What a nice way to start the morning! Thanks, jenesasquatch, that's amazing, I'm going to print that list out and keep it for when I'm feeling blue :-) And thanks everyone for sharing your experiences and great advice this morning - Hugs!

Posted by EricaP on April 1, 2011 at 8:58 AM

123

@118 Lissa

Thank you. That was very sweet.

Don't be shy. It's the internet:-)

Posted by jenesasquatch on April 1, 2011 at 8:58 AM

124

Good Morning All,
Thought you might get a kick out of this:

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/feature…

It's an article on Dan Savage from Washington Monthly via Arts & Letters Daily:

Posted by lark on April 1, 2011 at 9:05 AM

125

oh damn, EricaP. how is it that you continually raise the bar for slog/slotd comments?

Posted by semi-crepuscular on April 1, 2011 at 9:10 AM

126

This is why I love this blog. So many amazing people!!

Posted by Canadian Nurse on April 1, 2011 at 9:35 AM

127

@121: Ah! Thank you. I didn't read it that way, but I see your point.

Posted by Lissa on April 1, 2011 at 9:48 AM

128

pay no attention to harry. he's full of shit after crawling through all those viennese sewers.

Posted by scary tyler moore

on April 1, 2011 at 9:48 AM

129

@122 EricaP
Good morning! Hugs back to ya.

@120 Canuck
She doesn't do it to prove herself to anyone. She is just one of those people who can't sit still. She works just for the pleasure of it.

I learned early on to avoid keeping pace with her. It only pushes her to go faster or do more. For example there is a limit to how clean I'm going make the house because no matter what I do she'll pitch in and add to it. I half expect her to boil the coffee table some day. So I leave a little laundry for her or let her clean the bathroom. I know that sounds bad --a guy "letting" his wife clean the bathroom-- but it's true. If it helps to know what that entails at least I sit when I pee, as any man would if he had to clean the toilet. (if men cleaned toilets there would be power tools designed for that purpose)

I love her personality and wouldn't change it. I fully support her in everything she does, even to the extent that I have had to push her to do things (grad school) that she was timid about deciding to do because I knew that was what she really wanted deep down. She has total freedom to travel as much as she needs for work, work as late as her job demands, meet whatever friends with whom she wants to socialize. I can do that because I know that she really cares whether those things affect me.

The change I'm looking for is more balance. She is delighted with the sex we're having. I am not. I need greater frequency and variety. My interests have grown considerably since we first met but hers have remained almost unchanged. And if you've been keeping up you know I'm bisexual. 25 years is a long time to go without cock. I'm reasonably certain she's never going to grow one at this point.

This is the person I fell in love with. She is monogamous. That's extremely important to her. I think it has to do with her insecurities and that's where I want to see if she can improve herself. Maybe we can open the marriage or more likely maybe we can achieve a better prioritization of sex in our life together.

More...

Posted by jenesasquatch on April 1, 2011 at 9:52 AM

130

@EricaP, I just read the salon article you linked to. The most disturbing thing for me wasn't her friends, but was instead the comments section of the article. People were so angry at her for accepting the term MILF; for allowing herself to get validation from men; for worrying about her attractiveness when she's only in her thirties (apparently anxiety about aging is not allowed until you hit fifty); and for not knowing that "men will fuck anything" so being told she's a MILF means nothing.

There are a lot of angry people when it comes to thinking/talking about sex.

@jenesasquatch
I'm a super type A, and while I find pleasure in my work, I've learned that "desire to not sit still" is seldom the driving force for those of us who work until the point where it throws other areas of our lives out of balance. I'm not going to put a label on it, because I don't know her. It could be about proving herself (to self or others), it could be about avoiding dark thoughts (anything from specific trauma to the general existential malaise common to all humanity), it could be about anything, really, but when someone allows their partner to be unhappy because they're super-focused on their work, there's usually something deeper going on. It took me a while and a really awful break up to realise that keeping the person I love happy is as important as keeping the people I work with safe and healthy.

Posted by Canadian Nurse on April 1, 2011 at 10:14 AM

131

Wow. This isn't a normal comment section is it? Kind of interesting, but there are a lot of continuing conversations going on here. I feel like I'm at a party where people keep talking about other people I don't know.

Posted by First timer on April 1, 2011 at 10:25 AM

132

I'm guessing she's a porn widow rather than him being closeted gay.

Posted by Marrena on April 1, 2011 at 10:30 AM

133

@131: Welcome to Slog. One big disfuntional family. Wait until you meet the crazy uncles!

Posted by Lissa on April 1, 2011 at 10:43 AM

134

@131: Welcome! Just grab a login name and you'll soon be the hit of the party.

@132: I don't get that. Who watches porn and gets less into sex? Perhaps if he's got some online relationships I could imagine him getting less into sex with her. Or, if he gets to watch the porn he's into, he might get less interested in vanilla sex. But watching porn makes you think that people who like sex more than twice monthly are sex-obsessed?

I think you've bought the Christianist porn bullshit lies.

Posted by Canadian Nurse on April 1, 2011 at 10:44 AM

135

Concise answer, Dan.

How about going poly? Can you have sex outside your relationship with this sexless dude? Is it possible to have a platonic relationship with the man, and get plenty tail outside? Or is he or you wired to be monogamous?

If you are definitely monogamous and can't imagine have other partners, then yeah, don't marry this dude. Sounds like if you are sad now, marriage will be a depressing cell of masturbation. Followed by divorce. Don't make that sort of mistake. Follow your gut's instincts!

Posted by treacle on April 1, 2011 at 10:48 AM

136

@114, Wow, Maddy811, the words you chose to make your points really resonate with me. I'm in a situation similar to the LW's (genders reversed, among other things) and, seriously, your post really helps me see things more clearly. Thanks!

Posted by Evn on April 1, 2011 at 11:02 AM

137

@135 The boyfriend stated that she was "sex-obsessed" for wanting more than twice a week. For an "open" relationship (let's not even talk about poly) to work, I will make a wild guess and say that being "open" minded is necessary. He is satisfied with the present situation, so there is no reason for him to do an effort.
I think most people write to Dan because they know they should break up (anybody reading/listening to these advice could have guessed they answer) and but breaking up isn't easy so they need to hear it from someone else. People need more means friends. (or at least friend who'll say the painful stuff)

Posted by Kyrie on April 1, 2011 at 11:36 AM

138

@131 - Welcome! Don't worry, it's gets better :-)

@137 - we need a website called "What Would Dan Say?" where people can post the problems they're having with their relationship, press "submit" and be directed automatically to a scrolling list of DTMFAs, or one HUGE BLINKING one.

Posted by EricaP on April 1, 2011 at 11:53 AM

139

jenesasquatch, just so you know, you come across as such a generous, thoughtful guy, just wanted to say that. Do you and your wife talk much about your being bi? This might seem silly, but reading MM erotica might help her to see that part of you as a turn on, rather than as a thing to be insecure about. Also, for me, reading through all of the SL archives was HUGE in terms of no longer seeing potential "open relationships/affairs" as deal-breakers. I was raised to believe cheating was the worst possible thing, and after reading through all of the archives, I've realized it shouldn't be a deal-breaker at all. Also, perhaps an unwelcome suggestion, but personally, I have much lower inhibitions in the absence of kids and in the presence of tequila...just saying--sleepovers elsewhere and margaritas have produced good results in our marriage... :)

Posted by Canuck on April 1, 2011 at 11:56 AM

140

Does this make me vote # 1869 to DTMFA? Seriously, why do people without kids ever dream of taking the plunge into a sex deprived relationship. I have got to imagine it is even worse on the psyche of women with the higher libido since men are expected to want it all the time. How can you not take that personally?

@69 Kim in Portland - I have my stop-watch set until my youngest hits 11. Tick, tick, tick....

@130 Canadian Nurse - I completely agree re the Salon article. I thought the idea of the article, a 30-something mom feeling sexually alive from adolecent male attention was heartwarming. Slog commenters 1 - Salon commenters 0.

@139 - Canuck, Savage has opened my eyes on the cheating/why do we expect everything out of one person thing too. I would love to bring my wife on an exploration. Based on her porn preferences and expressed fantasies, she probably would do it if she felt secure. I have heard EricaPs story, and as much as I love dreaming vicariously through her, my wife would never respond to an ultimatum. Is there anything your DH could say to you to allow solo or mutual outside exploration? Sloggers? Any magic words?

Posted by Tim Horton on April 1, 2011 at 12:53 PM

141

@138 Lets be fair, there are other answers (he can't say dtfm to single people) So, what about a magic ball? "DTMF", "Fuck him/her/them", "Kinks are ok" "Porn isn't evil" "Go tell that to him/her" And the most controversial: "Go to gym, stop eating shit"

Posted by Kyrie on April 1, 2011 at 12:57 PM

142

Tim Horton (ha!) @140 I think if my husband had suggested this out of the blue, I would probably have freaked out, I would have taken it to mean I was no longer desirable, etc. So, it wasn't a magic word from him, but rather hours and hours and hours of reading, not just SL, but a bunch of other books on how men think about things (I tend to go overboard when a new subject fascinates me), because I was so intrigued by this idea that SO many men were feeling sexually unfulfilled in their marriages, and reading about the way men often continue to fantasize about, as one book so gracefully put it, "strange pussy." I'd find a way to have your wife do some independent reading first, maybe including Sex at Dawn (haven't read it yet, but it sounds like it supports the idea of non-exclusivity). Also, I think giving your wife tons of attention would offset her feelings of insecurity about opening things up. It sounds like that's the way EricaP and her husband do it, he seems to be really turned on by her adventures. So much easier to have negotiated this from the outset, as Dan did, but in lieu of that, I think getting your wife thinking about sex (reading erotica, watching porn together) and reading tbe other tjings I mentioned would go a ways toward, uh, preparing the soil, as it were...good luck, TimBit!

Posted by Canuck on April 1, 2011 at 1:27 PM

143

@140: I'm not Canuck—she's generally more insightful than me—but I'd suggest starting from the viewpoint of her fantasies. Can you make the discussion be about "We're the people who are meant to be fulfilling each other's fantasies, even if the fantasy won't always involve the other person."

Fulfill some of her fantasies with her. Fulfill some of yours with her. Start with fantasies that are easier and less threatening than solo outside exploration. Perhaps some kinks/fetishes that you haven't explored together, then role plays or dirty talk about other people while it's only the two of you there. If it's natural that what you two do is fulfill each other's sexual fantasies, then fulfilling fantasies that involve thirds or involve sex when the other isn't there becomes easier to imagine.

So many of us woman have been raised that desire for monogamy=love that it takes time to trust that nonmonogamy =/= counting down 'till the breakup. I think the experience of having other people in your sex life (whether physically there or psychically there through roleplay/dirty talk) and having your relationship become stronger rather than weaker is so important to helping her feel secure. That means, of course, that you also need to ensure that your bond is getting stronger through this process.

Posted by Canadian Nurse on April 1, 2011 at 1:34 PM

144

@139 Canuck

We haven't talked much about the bi. She finds man-on-man sex kind of gross (my words not hers, but it's pretty clear). I absolutely adore all of you ladies here who find it attractive. You have no idea how helpful that is to me. One thing I've resolved to change is to make orientation more a topic of conversation.

We do have a place to get away from The Boy™ for the weekend and for me especially it always brings high hopes of carnal delight. But here's the thing: I have a few hard limits -kids, animals, scat, and serious injury or death. I'm willing to do anything else and I'm actively interested in quite a few things that I won't trouble you with. She on the other hand is willing to do about 4 vanilla things and nothing else. GGG is an alien concept to her. I'm working on that. Patience. Progress has been made.

We've gotten a lot of mileage out of that overlap. We have had mind blowing sex and have each on more than one occasion been reduced to free flowing tears during the experience. That doesn't happen every time. It ruins you for any thought of casual sex or cheating ever again.

Canuck, you dear lady, no suggestion of yours will ever be "unwelcome."

Posted by jenesasquatch on April 1, 2011 at 1:58 PM

145

jenesasquatch, that's great you have a place to get away to, as you know, it can make all the difference in the world. For me, reading makes a huge difference. In fact, stumbling upon some crappy porn dressed up as a "romance" novel helped me to journey out of the "mommy zone", so seeing if she'd be game to read some silly novels...it seriously gets your mojo mojoing. I'm at work, and suck at copy/paste on my phone, but check back later tonight, I'm going to post some novel ideas (or if you have a generic email, I can send it there.) I started reading MF traditional stuff, and, shall we say, "broadened" my horizons a bit...those types of books pretty seamlessly transition into mild kink, MMF threesomes, etc, she might be surprised at how turned on she is by the non-vanilla stuff...it worked for me, but we're all different. I think how you're raised to think about sex also plays into it a lot. My husband was raised in a household where sex was never discussed, while my mom left the Joy of Sex out on the coffee table, so that's part of it (although being raised by fairly conservative Catholics doesn't seem to have held Dan back at all... :)

Canadian Nurse: pish posh, you give great advice, hon!

Posted by Canuck on April 1, 2011 at 2:37 PM

146

PS I meant to add, jenesasquatch, your description of sex with your wife was beautiful. Good luck.

Posted by Canuck on April 1, 2011 at 2:40 PM

147

Well, Tim Horton @ 140,

I hope good things for you. I hope you and wife are making time away from the children, to remember why you each thought each other so lovely to start with.

Posted by kim in portland

on April 1, 2011 at 3:06 PM

148

Oh, I'm prone to think many of us find bi men more than attractive. Good luck, jenasasquatch, I'm rooting for you.

Posted by kim in portland

on April 1, 2011 at 3:21 PM

149

@25. Right here. "I don't care how f@#$ing runny it is. Hand it over with all speed.

Posted by Alki72 on April 1, 2011 at 3:22 PM

150

@148 Hi Kim

I'm fascinated by that. Again, lots of women on here say things like that. Just for fun take a look at online personals sometime. Couples seeking a third almost invariably want a woman. "No single men" is a common phrase among swingers. Do you think that's because there just aren't that many married bi men?

Posted by jenesasquatch on April 1, 2011 at 3:44 PM

151

Canadian Nurse, Kim, Canuck, all awesome insights!

@142 - non-monogamy is likely the default for men, or as you put it so much more elegantly "the desire for strange pussy." Don't women have the desire for strange cock?

I was about to adopt the nickname TimBit but that evokes images of women holding their thumb and index finger 3 inches apart......

Posted by Tim Horton on April 1, 2011 at 3:48 PM

152

Hi Jenasasquatch,

I don't doubt it. You could be right about there not being many married bi men. But, I also think it may be due, and I have no data to back this up, to the fact that the idea of sexual fluidity in woman is more widely accepted. Thus, women have a level of permission to experiment without having their heterosexual status questioned. Men don't have that permission, so they may fear loosing their heterosexual status. Stupid, in my opinion. Also, a single male may be seen as a threat as a single male lion, wolf, gorilla is seen in the wild, I'm think of Dan's podcast recently of the guy who was upset about his girl having vaginal sex with another guy in a MMF threesome even though he told her to. It could be the way men are socialized to be tough and to fear, and that creates a huge wall in their minds. But does seem that when a woman writes to Dan to tell them that they had a threesome it is a FFM and that she often adds that she hopes that it will lead to a MMF one in the future, and the FFM had to be first because it was less threatening. Those are just guesses, though.

I think Slog, and Dan, bring together people who find the wide expanse of human sexuality and its expression beautiful. We like life colorful. We find people who are comfortable in their own skin very sexy. And, what many in society would think should be taboo, we see as an opportunity to at minimum to become educated about or even explore. (There are exceptions, of course.) And, we seem to share an ethical expectation that integrity is of extreme importance. It may also be that our openness allows us to consider that we could find pleasure in a person of the same gender if we are straight, or the opposite gender if we are gay, etc., and maybe that makes us think that we may be a bit bi ourselves or bi for that one person that defy all and turns our crank? Hence you find women who get why a man would find another man attractive here.

On a side note. Have you introduced your beloved to our Dan? My husband gave me a print copy of Savage Love and it was helpful many moons ago. It made me start thinking. Little did he know that I was so skilled with knots, that I play my best on the guitar/bass when I'm wearing nothing but stilettos or high heeled boots, but he doesn't seem to be sorry. Just a thought.

Sorry to be so wordy.

Cheers!

More...

Posted by kim in portland

on April 1, 2011 at 4:34 PM

153

@150 The husband might be up for some guy action, but not be able to cope with seeing his wife having intercourse with another guy... I think that's pretty common.

@151 I bet more women picture strong, unfamiliar hands on their bodies, and not so many picture unfamiliar cocks in their fantasies.

Posted by EricaP on April 1, 2011 at 4:35 PM

154

@151 Tim Horton (I had that same thought about Timbit about 10 seconds after I posted, oops!) No, Tim Horton sounds much, uh, bigger... :)

Speaking for myself, well yeah, I think about other guys, no one specific, just random bodies like the headless torsos on the Hollister shopping bags...which probably means it's the newness, or "strangeness" that appeals, not the idea of connection or romance (wow, I sound like a total douche, don't I?) But those are just thoughts, I've been completely monogamous in my marriage. But yeah, I think about it!

jenesasquatch, re: the 3 ways, could it be men have been socialized to ignore any bi leanings they might have, where FF action is such a mainstay of porn that both men and women are more likely to accept that? Just thoughts...and yeah, I'd give my eye teeth to see that in real life...TMI??

Posted by Canuck on April 1, 2011 at 4:40 PM

155

@137 (Kyrie), the LW didn't write "twice a week"; she wrote "twice a month" and her bf considers that frequency to be a symptom of sex-obsession.

Posted by Helenka (also a Canuck) on April 1, 2011 at 5:08 PM

156

Ms Kim: @69 - Rosamund Pike's Jane Bennet may be one of the five most spot-on portrayals in all performed Austen.

@119 - While love can conquer all, it's so rarely possible and adherence to the idea under mistaken premeses can be so dangerous that I rather suspect the net effect is deep in the negative column. But you're a much nicer person than I am. Your conditions seem quite exact, though.

Posted by vennominon on April 1, 2011 at 6:14 PM

157

Ms Elisabeth @79 - I don't think one can get much higher on the GGG scale than that. I can sort of sense how he felt; personally I'm so bad at refusing anyone that, had I been pursued by any of the women for whom I've had a genuine regard, I'd probably have been too polite to say No.

Posted by vennominon on April 1, 2011 at 6:19 PM

158

Mr Jenesasquatch @109 - I like your six accomplished women; this seems apposite too:

Charlotte Lucas: "Happiness in marriage is entirely a matter of chance. If the dispositions of the parties are ever so well known to each other or ever so similar beforehand, it does not advance their felicity in the least. They always continue to grow sufficiently unlike afterwards to have their share of vexation; and it is better to know as little as possible of the defects of the person with whom you are to pass your life."

@129 - It's too bad your wife doesn't have a stronger sense of guilt. That was one reason why I always felt lucky that none of my SOs were bi. Although I'm as monogamous as anyone, it probably wouldn't have been one year, let alone 25, before I'd have felt so guilty that I'd have pushed him into opposite-sex experiences on the side.

Posted by vennominon on April 1, 2011 at 6:28 PM

159

@152 kim
Terrific response! Thank you for all of that. I have discussed particular columns with her but she has yet to develop any interest in reading it on her own.

@153 EricaP
I would be shocked to find that the men want anything to do with the other guy in the room. Then again women being interested in male homosexual acts seemed like a major disconnect with my experience.

@154 Canuck
Did I read that correctly, that you'd "give my eye teeth" to watch 2 guys get busy? That sounds like a big deal to you. Have you not yet seen that live show because your husband is not into it?

Posted by jenesasquatch on April 1, 2011 at 6:37 PM

160

vennominon,

I agree that Rosamund Pike was wonderful.

As to love conquering all. I think the English word for love is too limited. I prefer the many forms of Greek. And, 'agape', is not for the weak or the cowardly. It is not the passion of 'eros' or chumminess of 'philo'. It's power relies in the commitment to change oneself to meet the other, while they in return do the same. It's actively choosing to love through the alteration of the beloved, locking on to the fixed target, and altering oneself to relinquish that which is inflexible within. It takes very committed people to succeed. And, I have no idea how successful it is, because I only walk in my own shoes and I only know the depth of my own ability to commit. So, it may indeed be rare.

As to one of us being a better person. You are very kind, but I don't think that is a possibility. I think there are many ways to respond to life, and the important part is being true to oneself. I appreciate reading you.

Take care.

Posted by kim in portland

on April 1, 2011 at 6:52 PM

161

@158

I wouldn't wish her guilty feelings. For me being bi does not mean requiring both sexes any more than being kinky means requiring indulgence of every filthy act that occurs to me (I'd need a team of experts for that).

Posted by jenesasquatch on April 1, 2011 at 6:53 PM

162

jenesasquatch, if presented with tbe actual possibility, I'd probably chicken out, but yes, there's some appeal in that department! And no, that would never happen in a million years at my house, my husband is definitely not wired that way...apparently, it's just us Sloggers who are freaky... :)

Posted by Canuck on April 1, 2011 at 7:15 PM

163

@ 159 You're welcome, jenesasquach. How I wish you joy, love. And, heaps of fun, too.

Take care.

Posted by kim in portland

on April 1, 2011 at 7:37 PM

164

@159 - I have no experience, but reading Slog I have learned that many "hetero" guys will say yes to guy-on-guy sex if they are horny and they think no one will find out. I have no idea what the statistics are. But then I also have no idea what the statistics are on men wanting or fearing seeing their wife with another man.

Posted by EricaP on April 1, 2011 at 7:43 PM

165

@163 My love to you.

Posted by jenesasquatch on April 1, 2011 at 7:44 PM

166

@162/164
Now we're getting somewhere. For many who express that it's a turn-on it's probably just a fantasy not to be acted on. And for many men who identify as straight there is a terror of teh gay getting on them. Men and women on slog say these things but how many have or would do them? And how many of their spouses would permit it or come along for the ride? Not that many I'd bet. Canuck only wants to watch and that isn't happening. I think that's perfectly normal.

Posted by jenesasquatch on April 1, 2011 at 7:54 PM

167

Wish that folks who were new to Dan Savage's column would read the old stuff "for the fun of it" before asking what is a pretty basic (and oft-repeated) question.

Posted by samanthaf63 on April 1, 2011 at 7:54 PM

168

@161 - You are correct; guilt isn't really the right word. I was going backwards - thinking about your remark about 25 years, that, even if that wasn't what a partner of mine had intended, a remark like that even before the end of the first year would have made me feel horribly guilty, and the rest came from that.

At any rate, I certainly admire your sense of dedication. In my relationships, I tended to feel each time that I could never give him as much as he deserved (shades of the silver casket!). Lukcily, this never killed anything, but for some odd reason life is much happier now that I've Retired from Romance.

May you soon be bathed in bliss.

Posted by vennominon on April 1, 2011 at 7:59 PM

169

Fascinating conversation all around.

@166: Re the whole MMF/MFF thing, pairs looking for thirds, etc., I think it's all down to society's fucked up attitudes towards sexuality. Remember the "one-drop rule" about race? All it took was one drop of African blood to make you black. Similarly, for many people there is a "one-cock rule." You can fuck a thousand women, but if you suck one cock, you're a faggot.

The same rule does not apply to women, of course. MM is gay. FF is hawt.

It's ridiculous of course.

My wife and I have discussed threesomes, opening things up, etc. We haven't done anything yet, but it is something we both want to do. And we're open to both female and male thirds. If there's another man in the bed, I expect I'll be quite happy to lend him a hand - or anything else he needs.

Will that mean I'm no longer straight? Fuck no. My sexual identity is about a lot more than about who I get off or who gets me off. It's about who I lust after, and who I fall in love with - that is to say, it's about women. A man would just be for fun.

Posted by Backyard Bombardier on April 1, 2011 at 8:06 PM

170

Canuck, it's late where I am so if you still want to pass along those references maxbosco1 at hotmail.

Posted by jenesasquatch on April 1, 2011 at 8:12 PM

171

Man you are sweet, jenesasquatch. I just read you comment @ 161. I think if my husband was bi I would want and expect that he fully express his sexuality. For a purely selfish reason, too. I wouldn't want to limit the fullness of who he was. As I love all of him. And, I find sexual expression lovely. I suppose if he didn't wish to express it, then I would support that, too. Still, I wouldn't want my monogamous tendency to alter who he was. And, I would wonder. Plus, I've always thought a man into something sublimely sexy, and that includes a man into another man as well. I see beauty. Canuck may be correct. I'm glad I'm not alone. And, I'm glad to be freaky if it empowers others.

And, back at you (@165), platonic-ally sent.

Posted by kim in portland

on April 1, 2011 at 8:13 PM

172

EricaP @164 - the thought of my wife getting PIV from another guy doesn't phase me. The thought of her getting ready to go on a date with another guy before getting the "p" or getting frisky with another guy while I was stuck at home - that would cause a bench clearing brawl.

As my best friend who is in the swinger lifestyle says: "the sting of watching your wife get fucked by another guy is taken away by the sight of his wife bent over screaming in pleasure with you inside her." I am paraphrasing.....

Posted by Tim Horton on April 1, 2011 at 8:13 PM

173

@ 166,

I would. I'm GGG with a few limitations. I'm not/was not pulling your chain. As to my better half, we've talked.

Posted by kim in portland

on April 1, 2011 at 8:22 PM

174

Ms EricaP @164 - While one would hardly expect you to be able to back up your first sentence (SM-G/BM) from experience, you have made me curious. Do you have any orientation-crossing experience (say, GM-S/BF) you can share? Over decades of fiction writing with wildly variable success, I've tried to write that sort of thing on occasion, but, as it was always entirely speculation, never felt quite confident in the result.

Posted by vennominon on April 1, 2011 at 8:38 PM

175

@172 funny how people are different. My husband likes imagining me with other men. He used to, in fantasy, before we opened up the marriage. And now he explicitly encourages me to go out with other men, whenever I need reminding. He does, also, like screwing other women, but there's less of that to go around. And we have only occasionally found a couple where I wanted the other guy, and the other woman wanted my husband.

@174 - several gay guys on Slog have posted that they often ask their straight male friends for sex, and are often accepted. It's not all fantasy, jenesasquatch @166.
In my experience, gay guys don't ask straight women for sex. I have a couple of gay friends I would love to fuck, and I've made that clear, and they are sweet and flirty with me, but the whole va-jay-jay thing is disgusting to them, so no, ultimately, they're not going to hit it.

Posted by EricaP on April 1, 2011 at 9:27 PM

176

@174, gay/bi girls will hit on me, and I like that... but I still get awkward when it gets past the flirting and kissing and necking phase, so I don't think anyone's going to write stories about that :-)

Posted by EricaP on April 1, 2011 at 9:30 PM

177

BB @169...totally cool comment. It would be a happier world if all the straight guys were as open-minded as you are.

jenesasquatch, sending you an email with book ideas, let me know if you don't get it...

Posted by Canuck on April 1, 2011 at 11:14 PM

178

@177 - I read that, and thought that you were talking about your own book ideas, or maybe for a book you and jenesasquatch were writing together -- and I'm like, wow, I would read that!

But now I remember you just had erotica references for him. Sigh. Off to bed to dream about the book the two of you would write together.

Posted by EricaP on April 2, 2011 at 12:30 AM

179

@171 kim

You are incredibly generous. That's how I feel about her, that she should follow her path. I would love her to be able to enjoy sex with others but that's not who she is. I know it isn't. She is indifferent to porn and finds extremely few men attractive (and women not all).

"platonic-ally"
Don't be concerned. You clearly understand there are different varieties of love as do I.

@169 Backyard Bombardier
Great comment. I'm impressed that you can be so free. I suppose it follows from having the security of knowing who you are and being willing to imagine things that would unhinge lesser men. Have fun! 5280 isn't around so I'll say "pictures or it didn't happen."

@178 EricaP
Tempting idea. I draw and I have thought of doing an erotic comic some day. Or maybe I could get permission to do a HUMP! movie. Then again on camera I look like one of those skeletons in an old Sinbad movie.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PiTSyZbIj…

Posted by jenesasquatch on April 2, 2011 at 5:29 AM

180

Ha, EricaP, now you're making me think of those writing clubs where you pass around a piece of fiction, and everyone writes a paragraph or chapter...one can only imagine how that would turn out on Slog.... !
I would do a terrible job writing those kinds of books. It drives me nuts when the main characters keep getting interrupted, or change their minds, or whatever, before they finally get it on...my characters would never get interrupted, have wild monkey sex in the first chapter, and wrap things up by page 42...maybe I should consider the short short story...

Posted by Canuck on April 2, 2011 at 8:56 AM

181

Can't argue with Dan. The relationship is perfect, except for that one thing that has begun to raise itself among your priorities is especially low in his. DTMFA, and don't spend another moment worrying about that sexless future!

Posted by suddenlyorcas on April 2, 2011 at 9:12 AM

182

@ 179 No worries, jenesasquatch. I'm glad to know you understand the many forms. "platonic-ally" was for the general readership.

Take care.

Posted by kim in portland

on April 2, 2011 at 9:32 AM

183

It's a lot easier to find someone who can ride my cock like cyclone and suck it like a lollipop.
Versus finding someone who communicates well with me, is attractive, educated, similar hobbies, and all that jazz...

If it was about sex, why would anyone get into relationships? I refrained when I was younger so I could bone a different guy/girl regularly.

Posted by Mizzzzz on April 4, 2011 at 6:51 AM

184

@183 - why do you see it as an either/or proposition? Because you secretly think that a girl who can "ride [your] cock like a cyclone and suck it like a lollipop" is a whore, not good enough for you to marry?

Posted by EricaP on April 4, 2011 at 11:03 AM

185

@111 - i've been listening/reading D. Savage for the last 10+ years. That said, maybe you're right, Dan wouldn't necessarily give me an dtmfa.

@121 - I'm not upset in the least at Dan, just calling out that he's being lazy (or not giving his column much energy with all the other side projects going on)

I think the tone of the 'dtmfa' acronym is simply negative. Its very easy in my humble opinion to discard an argument with a short negative acronym. It puts things in a more concrete state if its spoken with a negative pitch. Its also very boring and while maybe leaving is the right answer a 'dtmfa' probably isn't. Unless you've been cheated on or robbed, etc, you're probably not going to think of your love as a mother fer -- especially if she/he just doesn't want to get it on. For everyone who will disagree with this, try to do it in a positive way and you may see that its a little more difficult than just labeling it in a negative light.

In my case, we have a 16th month old daughter and a dying grandma. Excuses, excuses, but thinking in terms of the other person may shed light beyond a dtmfa. I personally think that my sex life is toast... I don't really see it coming back unfortunately, but I do love my wife and that's where it stands right now.

I do appreciate so much compassion and support from so many random individuals. Makes me feel like DS's readers are a top tier group of people.

Posted by jaansdornea on April 4, 2011 at 1:20 PM