I have a bit of an issue with a fantasy: I am turned on by the idea of a woman dying during climax. This would seem to be one of those fantasies that is impossible to fulfill, consensual or otherwise, as I cannot go around killing women. The police would find it odd. I am at a loss. Any ideas?
Like any poor motherfucker with an impossible-to-realize fantasy or fetish -- people turned on by giants, boytaurs, U.S. senators in diapers -- you're going to have to find an indulgent partner and "realize" your absolutely insane turn-on through role-play and dirty talk. (Unless you're an actual U.S. senator, of course, and then you just have to hire an escort to diaper you.) Find an indulgent girlfriend -- perhaps one of the many morbid Goth girls who stream by under my office window every day? -- willing to engage in safe, sane, and nonhomicidal "death play." She pretends to die; you derive as much pleasure as possible from the pretense.
But first, you're going to have to learn to talk about your fetish without sounding so fucking creepy, IF. Yes, it's an inherently creepy fantasy, but no sane woman -- not even one who shares your fetish -- is going to fuck a death fetishist who muses about "consensual or otherwise" scenarios or suggests that problems with the police are his first concern.
As a guy with a serious cuckold fetish, I agree with your assertion that a man can't require his wife to have sex with other men. So before my wife and I were married, I told her about my romantic abnormality (on one of our first dates, in fact). She was into it and we embarked on a series of sexual adventures beyond my wildest dreams. She enjoyed cuckolding me and was great in every other way, so I married her. A year later, the cuckolding stopped. She said it was time for us to grow up and be adults, end of discussion.
I offered a compromise: I'll jerk off if she makes up stories about fucking other guys. No deal. You've stated that it's OK for a spouse to go outside of the marriage to seek satisfaction when the partner refuses to help out. Obviously, this is impossible in my case. Am I doomed to jerking off alone with my fantasies for the rest of my life?
Unlucky In Cuckoldry
No, you're not, UIC, because you're going to get a divorce.
You were upfront about your "romantic abnormality," UIC, and your wife presented herself to you as someone not just willing and able, but delighted. And you married her in part because you were sexually compatible. If she felt that cuckolding wasn't something that adults should do -- was she a toddler when she was cuckolding you? -- then she was obligated to say so before the wedding.
I am a 48-year-old gay man and have been in a committed and monogamous relationship with a wonderful man for 20 years. I am not sure how often people together this long have sex, but for us it is about once every three or four weeks. This is plenty for me, but my husband's libido seems to be getting much stronger than mine. About two years ago, he asked that we add "adventure" to our sex life. He has bought dildos, vibrators, and leather garb and wants me to use them. He wants me to call him fuckhole or slaveboy when we are intimate, and he wants to try nude vacations and three-ways. I should add that my husband is coming up on 40 and is quite the hottie. I, on the other hand, have not aged as gracefully. We also have small children and I don't think it is appropriate to have these things in the house. Last week, he asked me to take him to a resort he found online for his 40th where I can fuck him in front of other men. Is this a normal gay midlife/about-to-turn-40 crisis?
Slaveboy's Husband Has Hesitations
No, it's not, SHHH, but is that relevant? Because like it or not this is the midlife crisis that your husband is having -- not that I would normally characterize a strong libido as a crisis. To me it sounds like someone who settled down at 19 and wants to live a little while he's still limber enough to really enjoy it.
And I'm sorry, SHHH, but it's your duty to indulge the little fuckhole. When two people marry, they're not only making a solemn vow to be there in good times and bad, in sickness and in health, but also to be complete and total whores for each other. It would save countless marriages -- and cut my mail in half -- if this was made explicit in standard marriage vows. Perhaps the American Family Association could get on this.
As for your issues, SHHH, bringing sex toys and fetish wear into a house with small children? You won't be the first or last parents with a lock on their bedroom closet. Slaveboy and fuckhole? Perhaps not every time you have sex, but a little dirty talk isn't too much to ask. Three-ways? Well, that's something you have to be down with or it could do permanent damage to your relationship. I prescribe more discussion. Public sex in skeezy gay resorts? Most skeezy gay resorts allow nudity, SHHH, they don't require it. He can run around naked and you can remain clothed. As for the public sex, if you agree to go to the resort, he has to agree to take no -- and take it cheerfully -- for an answer if you don't feel comfortable doing him with witnesses.
He's a wonderful man. He has needs. Meet 'em.
In your last column ("Jerking her around," June 4), you said Bi Bi Bridie's fiancé issued an "irrational ultimatum" because he didn't want his partner to sleep with another female. He made it clear before they were together that that was his preference. She agreed to those terms.
Yet in a column three weeks ago ("Monogamy, not jealousy," May 21), you told Confused In Canada, a guy in a long-distance relationship whose woman wanted an open relationship, that his reluctance to open up their relationship didn't mean he was jealous, just monogamous.
Maybe I'm missing something, but it sounds like both of these guys know what they want and stated their intentions clearly. Why is the first guy irrational for stating his intentions and the second guy "just monogamous"?
A Bit Confused
Because I said so, ABC. Because, unlike CIC's girlfriend, BBB is bi and, yes, that detail makes a difference. And, most importantly, because I said so.
BBB shouldn't make a commitment that she's already proven herself to be incapable of honoring; that's just setting her marriage up for failure. But BBB's fiancé shouldn't extract a commitment from his girlfriend that he knows she will either be incapable of honoring or will quickly come to resent him greatly for having to honor. He can say, "You can have me or you can have this very important part of your sexuality," to his fiancé, but by doing so he's setting his marriage up for failure. That makes his ultimatum irrational.
More letters about last week's column at www.thestranger.com/savage/bbb.
To ask Dan Savage a question, write to email@example.com.