Cary's "advice" is often less than worthless, but this time out he was pretty good. The LW painted a portrait of a chaotic life, and it's hard to imagine her being able to think things through without paring things down a little first. Sometimes the best advice to give somebody concerns *how* they should make their decisions, rather than what decisions they should make.

As Janice Soprano once said of Ralph Ciffaretto, "He bottoms from the top."

LW,

I hope reading your letter as published helps you to hear yourself.

Do you hear yourself?

What part of "scary and nauseating, and not a turn-on to me" sounds judgmental to you? There's nothing judgmental about saying, "None for me, thanks."

The reference to your molestation is just more of your husband's gas-lighting. Whether "a bit" or a lot, molestation is not the reason for being uninterested in scary nauseating turn-offs.

Scary nauseating turn-offs are no fun even for people who haven't been molested. The relevant difference is that people who grow up unmolested have no need to develop your level of skill for talking yourself out of your feelings and into things that you don't want.

The hope I hear in your letter is that the healing work you've done has had some results: You are no longer able to talk yourself out of seeing insanity when you see it (thank Goodness) and you don't need to. But awareness is not all you need for making big decisions.

I hope you follow Cary's advice to focus first on regaining your strength. You need some healing time to recover from this new and painful level of awareness. As you do that with the support you deserve, you may find acceptance for the reality of your situation and the options you face. Acceptance will enable you to choose a course of action that is right for you.

Don't decide by trying to figure out what other people need. When you know from the inside out what is right for you, it will be what's best for all others concerned, whether they like it or agree with it or not.

in a depressing sort of way

I've been reading Dan Savage for a long time, too, and he makes it pretty clear that GGG has to be, you know, consensual. I don't think he'd be pushing a survivor of sexual abuse to give it up for her husband's fantasies as long as she "gets something from it," when the LW made it pretty clear the chances of that are nil. But this doesn't make the LW the opposite of GGG--it's not like she's withholding because she's some kind of close-minded bitch. She has some pretty damn good reasons for not being into her husband's set of kinks. Doesn't mean there's anything wrong with him--but there's nothing wrong with her, either. Now, I think Dan Savage would have taken a break from his usual tongue in cheek humor and laid down some love on this LW. But basically, she didn't write to Dan Savage, she wrote to Cary. In doing so, she was almost guaranteed some TLC and outside permission to find a therapist, and well, she got it. Good for her.

Brilliant point. But is there anyway to make that insight help these people? Can we send her to some Top academy where she can learn to make him wash the dishes, clean the gutters and do her doggy-style before she'll give him his? What? That isn't a turn-on? Jeez, some people are sooo picky! I now feel better about my own, apparently modest, kinks. Hey, Honey, look at this! See, I'm not that bad! Thanks, Cary!!!!

He would probably have some useful advice for the LW. As well as the concept of being GGG about aspects that don't exactly float your boat, but you're not adverse to, he would also chastise your partner for being greedy. He often proposes that there is one kinky sex session (again, involving activities that don't outright squick you) per four (or more) "vanilla" sessions. In other words, your partner should be grateful that you're willing to peg him and suchlike, but not wear out his welcome.

Perhaps there are some more toppy activities that you might be willing to engage in if he is cross-dressing at the same time. I'm with you on the issue of abuse making d/s stuff problematic, but perhaps c/d might be humiliating enough. I understand your ire about the equation of femininity and humiliation - some people do have fucked-up wiring, but I don't necessarily think that might be intrinsically bad if it's kept strictly in the bedroom.

If he wants more hardcore activities and more overt d/s, I suggest a household fund for "treats". Maybe $300-$500 a month, if you can afford it. He uses his share to pay a professional dominatrix for monthly (or less) sessions, and you use yours for something that you get pleasure out of. That and the left-of-centre sex life you already share may be sufficient to stop him from moving the goalposts on you even further.

A more open relationship - if it's something you'd consider - might be another alternative. I'd also caution him to not confuse a fantasy online kink live with dealing with real-life weirdos he might encounter, especially when he's got a partner who is willing to do quite a bit.

I think my first letter directed at you was too strong--you weren't really making a judgment on the LW. It just seems clear that there's nothing in this particular fantasy for her. And given the circumstances, I don't think the husband can just crawl off to another dom to get his needs met. The LW is not withholding for the sake of it. Anyway, blah blah blah--you don't care. I overreacted.

and I think in this case his advice would be to DTMFA!

But since none of us are Dan, maybe we could ask him to weigh in.

Two dear friends of mine have been married for more than 10 years. Early on they came to terms with the fact they have what they call, "very different core erotic themes" which meant that over the long haul, they knew they'd run into trouble. They didn't want it to threaten their marriage and so they decided to do something radical and creative - they introduced polyamory into their relationship.

It's about opening up the relationship so that the partners can get their needs met without having to abandon all the good in the marriage. It wasn't easy; it seems to take an extraordinary degree of commitment to protect the marriage as the central relationship and be sure it's never put at risk.

It's a tough road to travel, but this seems to be the kind of case where it's worth thinking very creatively and opening up our minds to what a marriage - a commitment -- can look like.

The guy can't what turns him on. Asking him to repress or cease and desist will only make it bigger over time. But if he's a good husband and a good father, on the whole, it's worth taking the road less traveled on this one.

good luck