STRUGGLE SESSION: Quickly! To the Time Machine!

...hink-you-left-something/">three months ago! (No shade! I sometimes miss episodes of my favorite podcasts, too! We appreciate everyone’s suggestions for guests!) Says Michael via email… You need to have Matteo Lane on your show. His Liza Minelli impression is DEAD ON. He’s a gay comedian who is a really good singer and does WHOLE SHOWS doing nothing but giving people advice! Another great suggestion! Quickly! To the time machine! NoCuteName took exception to my P.S. in this week’s column addressed to Scents And Sensitivities, the LW whose new boyfriend — a man she thought might be “The One” — told her that he couldn’t go down on her due to the “aromatic” state of her pussy… Oh my god: as soon as I saw that SAS used the phrase, “The One,” I knew Dan was going to trot out his tired “there’s no 1; round up a .67″ nonsense. That had nothing to do with SAS’s question or predicament. If Dan is reacting to the idea that “there’s only one true love for everyone — a lid for every pot, but only one lid fits juuuuust right,” the tactic should be to point out that there is more than one person in the entire world that could be right for someone. Dan consistently conflates that idea with something that I would define as “the person I am looking for has to be 100% absolutely perfect in every conceivable way.” That is indeed a very foolish attitude, and that’s where I think Dan’s “rounding up to one” chestnut works. But it doesn’t work if the person is using “the one” as a synonym for “my person,” which is clearly how SAS is using the expression here. While “you find someone you can round up to one” may be an old chestnut, it was an aside — 20 words in an 1800+ word column — and not a broadside. It wasn’t my entire of my response, just a quick, base-tagging postscript. As my editor reminds me from time to time, I shouldn’t be self-conscious about repeating myself. New readers and listeners are discovering the column and podcast all the time, and they may not be familiar with “good, giving, and game,” my take on monogamy, the campsite rule, rounding someone up to one, monogamish, etc., etc., etc. ‘ And while SAS may not take “The One” literally, NoCuteName, I’ve received so many letters from people over the years who did take it literally. They would describe perfectly wonderful relationships that they were thinking about ending because they weren’t sure the person they were with — sometimes the person they had already married — was the mythical “one” they were promised was out there somewhere. So, while smart people may use “The One” as a synonym for “my person” (a rose by another name), people who believe in the myth of “The One” — stupid people — are inclined to take it literally. And the fact that the SAS didn’t mean it literally might fly right over their sweet, dim heads. ‘ Says LarryStone007… Agree with Thingamajig. Dan’s writing a national advice column. The primary audience isn’t the person who wrote in, it’s the millions of people who read it. And many of them need to hear that “The One” is bullshit. I’d actually argue that it’s malpractice to not call that out. Thank you, Larry. ‘ Says BiDanFan… Well, a caller recently talked about having threesomes with her partner and “girls,” and instead of gently or not-gently correcting her or even calling them “women” himself, he echoed her use of the word “girls” in his answer, so he’s not Mr. Pushback in every instance. I know it’s not an apples-to-apples comparison… but gay men refer to our adult male sex partners as “boys” all the time. Gay men call men in their 30s, 40s, 50s, and beyond “boys.” Now, I know “girls” has long been used to infantilize adult women — but just as people aren’t suggesting their sex partners are actual infants when they call them “baby,” I don’t think people who use “girls” (or “boys”) in reference to their adult sex partners are necessarily being sexist. Context matters. Consider the term “douche.” Decades ago, I would hear from angry readers who felt using “douche” as an insult — which I did in the column with douchey frequency back in the day — was misogynistic. But the only people who talk about douching these days are gay men, and gay men aren’t douching our vaginas. (Not even gay men with vaginas are douching their vaginas.) So, the term doesn’t come across as misogynistic anymore. “Girls,” of course, will always be associated with women, even though tons of gay men use the word to refer to their gay male friends. (We’re working so hard to make “girls” gender-neutral!) But here’s hoping “girls” will one day be so divorced from its sexist weaponization, e.g. the way it was used by the sexist bosses in  Mad Men era, that the affectionate, in-group use of “girls” won’t be anymore offensive and/or problematic than the use of “boys” (by adult gay men when referring to their adult gay men they’re fucking) or the use of “baby” (by absolutely everyone when referring to absolutely everyone they’re fucking). A long email from a listener objecting to the opening of this week’s Lovecast… Let me start by saying what a huge fan I am of your show! I’ve been a magnum subscriber for years now. I was, however, alarmed by your intro this week and I think you and your team may be in need of some additional information. You were absolutely, though unintentionally, blaming the victims of David Taylor & Michelle Brannon. And you were conflating abuse and kink. This is not a Dom/sub kink dynamic but coercive control. And we (the kinky pervs) cannot properly defend kink against bigotry if we cannot distinguish it from abuse ourselves. So this is important! Kink, as you’ve defined it countless times before, is a safe and consensual exploration of fears. But this the type of case where those very real fears are born. And the victims? They were being coerced. As soon as coercion is introduced, consent is removed. Once consent is removed, it becomes abuse. I would invite you to learn about coercive control, and/or bring on a guest who specializes in it; someone who can lay it out for you and your listeners, especially for those new to the kink space. Two come to mind: Laura Richards, who hosts the podcast Crime Analyst (this episode is great), and Dr. Ramani, who hosts the podcast Navigating Narcissism. Or you could speak with survivors of this type of abuse such as: Sarah Edmondson and Anthony “Nippy” Ames are survivors of Keith Raniere and the NXIVM cult and they host the podcast A Little Bit Culty. (Sarah’s Ted Talk is here.) Please Dan, for every one of your listeners who has ever been abused, and for those who may be at risk of it, please learn about coercive control. Thanks again to you and your team for all you do! GoldenGirlJane also took issue with that intro in the comments thread… Dan, I love you, and happy birthday, but I just listened to the intro, and what in the world was that? You compared kidnapped, forced labor victims to submissive kinksters who are just too ashamed to admit that they are into being submissive? I honestly thought you were joking at first, but then it kept going. These people were taken advantage of by master manipulators, who controlled them with the literal fear of God. Says YamatoGun… Victims of violence and sexual violence should of course receive empathy and support. But I did find Dan’s rant fucking hilarious! I think this was just a good stand-up comedy like rant about religious sects. For the record: I did express sympathy for the victims… right at the top… and I’m not the first to observe that people long sought religious outlets for repressed sexual desires. I frankly can’t understand why someone would commit sex crimes or send nudes to a dweeb who claimed to be Jesus’s best friend — but coercive control is a thing. (And we already had a guest lined up to come on the show who wrote a book about it.) But I think we can express sympathy for the victims while also saying “why the fuck were they doing what the fuck they were doing?” Yes, they were threatened with damnation. Yes, they were coerced. Yes, they were manipulated. I wouldn’t go so far as to say they were kidnapped, as it doesn’t appear to the be the case that anyone was held against their will. But if we don’t want more people to fall for this kind of manipulation and coercion, expressing sympathy for the victims isn’t enough. We have to understand why they were susceptible to this kind of coercive control. And seeing as they were part of a religious cult… I think religion might have something to do with it. And seeing as they were submitting to the sexual control of this dweeb, I think it’s possible that some of them were susceptible to this kind of control because being controlled sexually was something they longed for and couldn’t seek in a consensual way from a dominant kinkster because that would be sinful whereas submitting to your pastor is virtuous. (And, I’m sorry, but the link between Christianity and kink is text, not subtext.) Says Lewk… The opening talking about the sex cult of Jesus’ Best Friend reminds me of a fictional book I read called Lamb: The Gospel According to Biff, Christ’s Childhood Friend by Chistopher Moore. It’s a fun (and slightly heretical) account of the missing years of the Jesus tale told by a fun-loving sinner. Biff, while mischievous, wouldn’t force people into slavery and nonconsensual sexual submission with the authority of being Jesus’ best buddy. Vincent made a great point… For the woman getting into shibari with her partner: First of all I think it’s really sweet to have a “just us” thing in your open relationship, but maybe shibari is not the best choice for that thing. As Dan pointed out, in order for your boyfriend to improve, he’ll need to take classes, and practice on people with different body types, gender expressions, and comfort levels. Also, we know that in most open hetero couples, it tends to be much easier for the woman to find willing partners outside of the relationship. Being a skilled and safe shibari top is a HUGE selling point on his kinky resume, and could open a lot of doors for him. Says Wandcircular… If your caller wants to play with other guys’ sperm while mitigating risk, would pasteurizing it using a sous vide circulator work? You can pasteurise hen’s eggs this way without changing the colour/texture of the raw eggs much. Would pasteurising sperm kill all/most of the STIs people worry about, so people could play with it more safely? Seems like a lot of work! And finally: here’s a letter that came in this week that isn’t going to make it into the column… I’ve been in a relationship with another man for almost two years. He’s a recent immigrant (from the Caribbean), and has recently come to terms with his bisexuality, but knows next to nothing about queer life (I’m gay) and doesn’t care to want to know more. Much depends on me being a secret from his friends, although he comes with me to family events and the like. I’ve made it clear that I understand that I can’t satisfy all his sexual needs, and so I’ve said that if he wants to have sex with women he’s welcome to. But a few nights ago, he went to a strip club and one of the female workers there took a liking to him (as he told me) and wanted to get together, have a date, and he took her number although he said he has no plans to call her. I asked him why didn’t he just tell her that he’s in a relationship, and he had no reply. And I suspect this isn’t the first time. I’m now rethinking my offer to be understanding as I can see that, should this one adventure repeat itself, it can only undermine our relationship. Or maybe it’s already happening. We’ve talked openly about these things but I wonder that he feels he has carte blanche to wander. Frankly Frank If you have some advice for FF, drop it in the comments!