boyfriend and I have “history.” We dated casually and weren’t
ready to stop seeing other people, so we had an open relationship.
This phase was awful: lots of fights, a couple minor breakups,
and eventually I called it quits for good, cutting off all
contact. A month later, we started talking again and decided
to commit for real. No fucking around this time. This is his
first monogamous relationship, and while he claims to miss
the variety, he says he wouldn’t trade having me for having
Here’s my question: I’d like to have a three-way. Will it
open up the vault? While I trust him, I don’t want to make
it seem like it’s OK for him to fuck around again. Is this
too dangerous a proposition?
disclosure: I’m on an airplane, under the influence, and in
coach (which means I’m typing with my computer resting on
my chest). So this week’s advice is sure to be extra sucky.
OK, OMT, if you make the mistake of having a three-way, you
could wind up fighting, breaking up, and calling it quits
all over again. But all of that could happen if you make the
mistake of not having that three-way. And then, my
God, just think of it: You would have gone through all of
that again without having a three-way.
Err on the side of the three-way.
People in monogamous relationships get cheated on, OMT, even
though their partners understand that it’s not OK to fuck
around. So keeping the relationship officially monogamous
doesn’t necessarily protect you from infidelity. Keeping it
honest, keeping it communicative, and being in a relationship
with someone trustworthy does.
After you discuss this with your boyfriend, OMT, if you believe
him when he swears that he can be trusted—when he swears to
fully understanding that he’d still be in a quasi-monogamous
relationship (you only have sex with other people together)—then
why not satisfy his desire for a little variety and your desire
for a three-way, aka “a little variety”?
For the past six months, a very attractive, put-together
auburn-haired man has come to my attention, but I have not
done anything about this because he is a total stranger. He
waits at the same bus stop as me in the morning. We also transfer
to the same streetcar. I’ve been dating other people since
I’ve noticed Hot Bus Stop Man, but no one incredible, and
I can’t seem to get Hot Bus Stop Man out of my mind.
I’ve only made eye contact with this cutie a few times because
I’m not in the habit of asking complete strangers out. This
morning, though, I attempted a smile in his direction, although
I can’t be sure he saw because, of course, I was trying my
best not to look at him and give myself away. What else can
Crushing On Hot Bus Stop Man
only running your insanely boring letter on the off chance—two
very off chances—that HBSM is (1) a reader and (2) not a fag.
Hopefully, he is and isn’t, respectively, will recognize himself,
and will ask your demure little ass out. (If you’re reading
and you’re gay, HBSM, compliment GCOHBSM’s new shoes the next
time you see her and put her out of her misery, OK?)
If he’s not a reader, GCOHBSM, you’ll just have to risk saying
something to him. Try “Hello.” Then smile at him—at him,
not “in his direction”—and give yourself the fuck away, already.
Rick Santorum is definitely running for president. A
member of a forum I frequent referred to him as “Senator Frothymix.”
You should refer to him as such if you mention his presidential
hopes in your column.
right. Rick Santorum.
About a year ago, when Santorum first leaked . . . er, signaled
. . . his intention to run, I asked if any of my readers
had a desire to blog at spreadingsantorum.com, my long-dormant
Santorum-bashing/redefining blog. It’s still the number-one
internet search result for “Santorum” and “Rick Santorum.”
(This has been described as Santorum’s “serious Google problem”
by political reporters and bloggers.)
Anyway, people wrote in and volunteered for the gig, and I
somehow lost all of the e-mails. Sorry about that. If there
are still folks out there who want to blog about Santorum
at the number-one site for his name—people who want to be
a part of Santorum’s Google problem—and want to do it for
free, please write me at firstname.lastname@example.org.
Men enjoy porn, but women don’t. Here’s something women
enjoy that men don’t: vibrators. Just as men feel threatened
by vibrators (“My cock isn’t good enough for you?”), women
feel threatened by porn (“My tits aren’t good enough for you?”).
And when women cry, “What if the children found those stashed
in the garage?!” men can respond, “What if the children found
Erotic Balance should use a vibrator while her boyfriend uses
porn. They should also film it and put it up on the internet.
Is Barely Erotic
vibrators are probably a better example of something dirty
that women enjoy and (most) men do not—certainly better than
cupcakes with pink sprinkles. I stand corrected. (But most
people don’t have incriminating porn stashes in the garage
these days, VIBE, they have incriminating browser histories.)
And speaking of vibrators: Taylor Momsen—one of the stars
of Gossip Girl—recently “divulged” to Disorder Magazine
that her “best friend is her vibrator.” Fox News wrote up
the “scandal,” of course, but got quotes only from antisex
nutters: batshit Catholic reactionary Bill Donohue, conservative
radio yakker Michael Medved, an elderly grandmother who runs
a parenting organization and some douchebag from the National
Center for Biblical Parenting who predicted that Momsen’s
actions “will result in failure in her life.”
There are no quotes—in the interest of fairness and balance—from
anyone who doesn’t see vibrators as battery-operated tools
of the devil. No one is allowed to point out that sex toys
are common, completely mainstream, and safe for use by young
women. A vibrator is a low-risk alternative to intercourse
with, say, Chace Crawford. (No risk of pregnancy, disease,
or Axe body spray.) And no one is allowed to point out that
the age of consent in New York is 17. Momsen may not be old
enough to walk into a sex shop—which I find ridiculous—but
anyone old enough to have a dick in her twat is old enough
to have a vibrator in her nightstand.
And social and cultural conservatives are apparently unaware
of e-commerce. It’s true, Bill Donohue, that the young lady
isn’t old enough to walk into a sex shop—or as Fox News so
delicately put it: “[Momsen] is not legally of age to enter
venues that sell sexual paraphernalia.” (She is, again, of
legal age to consent to sex in New York.) But vibrators aren’t
just sold in sex shops anymore. Amazon has a nice selection
of vibrators. So young ladies who require vibrators don’t
need to be of legal age to enter venues that sell sexual paraphernalia.
All they need is internet access and a credit card.
Find the Savage Lovecast (my weekly podcast) every Tuesday