Sav­age love

The Georgia Straight - - Classifieds -

I’m a lady con­sid­er­ing tak­ing on a foot fetishist as a slave. He would do chores around my house, in­clud­ing clean­ing and laun­dry, and give foot rubs and pedi­cures in ex­change for get­ting to wor­ship and jack off to my model-per­fect feet when I’ve de­cided he’s earned it. Am I morally ob­li­gated to tell my room­mates? Tech­ni­cally, the guy would be in their com­mon space too. I will fully vet him with ref­er­ences and meet him in a neu­tral lo­ca­tion at least once—and any­thing else you might sug­gest I do for se­cu­rity’s sake. Though my room­mates are not what you would call con­ser­va­tive, I’m not sure they’d un­der­stand this kind of ar­range­ment. I would have my slave come over when no one is around, and then my room­mates could come home to a sparkly clean com­mon area! My slave would never have ac­cess to their per­sonal spa­ces, nor would I leave him alone in any area of our home un­til a strong bond of trust had been es­tab­lished. No harm, no foul? Or am I cross­ing a line?

> MAN INTO CLEAN­ING A SHARED APART­MENT

A friend in Berlin has a sim­i­lar ar­range­ment. This guy comes over to clean his apart­ment once a week and— if my friend thinks he’s done a good enough job—my friend re­wards him with a knee to the balls. It’s a good deal for both par­ties: My vanilla-but-kinkad­ja­cent friend gets a sparkly clean apart­ment (which he loves but doesn’t want to do him­self); this guy gets his balls busted on a reg­u­lar ba­sis (which he loves but can’t do him­self). But my friend lives alone, MICASA, and that makes all the dif­fer­ence. Or does it?

Time for some play­ing-gameswith-foot-fetishists the­ory: if you were hav­ing sex with a boyfriend in the com­mon ar­eas of your apart­ment when your room­mates weren’t home—let’s say your boyfriend (or even some rando) wanted to fuck you on the kitchen floor—you wouldn’t be morally ob­li­gated to text your room­mates and ask their per­mis­sion. But we’re not talk­ing about a nor­mal guy here or nor­mal sex—we’re talk­ing about a fetishist who wants to be your slave. Does that make a dif­fer­ence? It might to peo­ple who re­gard kinksters as dan­ger­ous sex ma­ni­acs, MICASA, but a kinky guy isn’t any more or less dan­ger­ous than a vanilla guy. And a kinky guy you’ve gone to the trou­ble to vet—by get­ting his real name and con­tact info, by meet­ing in pub­lic at least once, by ask­ing for and fol­low­ing up with ref­er­ences—presents less of a threat to you and your room­mates than some pre­sumed-to-be-vanilla rando one of you brought home from a bar at 2 a.m.

Strip away the sen­sa­tional el­e­ments—his thing for feet, his de­sire to be your chore slave, the men­tal im­age of him jacking off all over your toes— and what are we left with? A friendswith-ben­e­fits ar­range­ment. A sparkly clean apart­ment ben­e­fits you (and your room­mates); the op­por­tu­nity to wor­ship your feet ben­e­fits him. This guy would be a semireg­u­lar sex part­ner of yours, MICASA, and while the sex you’re hav­ing may not be con­ven­tional, the sex you have in your apart­ment—in­clud­ing the sex you might have in the com­mon ar­eas when no one is at home—is ul­ti­mately none of your room­mates’ busi­ness.

That said, MICASA, un­less or un­til all your room­mates know what’s up, I don’t think you should ever al­low this guy to be alone in your apart­ment.

con­fessed to me that she used to pee on her ex. I’m not sure what to do with this info.

> DUDE’S RE­LA­TION­SHIP IN PERIL

Did she ask you to do some­thing with this info? Did your girl­friend say, “Hey, I used to pee on my ex—now go make me a dream catcher with that news, would you?” Your GF got a lit­tle kinky with an ex, most likely at the ex’s re­quest, and so what? If piss isn’t some­thing you’re into, DRIP, don’t ob­sess on the dis­tress­ing-to-you de­tails and fo­cus in­stead on the big pic­ture: you’ve got an ad­ven­tur­ous GF. Con­grats. If she doesn’t have an equally ad­ven­tur­ous BF, here’s hop­ing she finds one.

started get­ting re­ally into gauze, splints, and ban­dages when he was three, and by the time he was four, it be­came clearly sex­u­al­ized. He gets a boner when he plays “bro­ken bone” or just looks at ban­dages, and he has ex­pressed how much he loves to touch his pe­nis when he does this. My hus­band and I (both hap­pily vanilla) have been ac­cept­ing and ca­sual about this. We’ve pro­vided him with a stash of “sup­plies”, taught him the con­cept of pri­vacy and alone time, and fre­quently re­mind him to never wrap ban­dages around his head or neck. Is it nor­mal to be so kinky at such a young age? I know kinks gen­er­ally de­velop from child­hood as­so­ci­a­tions. When he was two, he had surgery to cor­rect a com­mon is­sue on his groin. Might that have sparked this? I want my son to grow up with a healthy and pos­i­tive sex­u­al­ity. Are we do­ing him a favour or a dis­ser­vice by sup­ply­ing him with ma­te­ri­als, free­dom, and pri­vacy to en­gage in a kink so young?

> BOY AL­WAYS NEED­ING “DOC­TOR­ING” AND GET­TING EDGIER

Your son’s be­hav­iour isn’t that ab­nor­mal, BAN­DAGE. It’s stan­dard for kids, even very young kids, to touch their gen­i­tals—in pub­lic, where it can be a prob­lem, or in pri­vate, where it should never be a prob­lem. Lord knows kids ob­sess about the strangest shit. (What is the deal with di­nosaurs, any­way?) Right now your son is ob­sessed with ban­dages and splints and gauze; his in­ter­ests aren’t purely in­tel­lec­tual; it’s easy to see a pos­si­ble link be­tween his ex­pe­ri­ence with ban­dages and gauze in his swim­suit area and his ob­ses­sion.

None of this means your son is def­i­nitely go­ing to be kinky when he grows up, BAN­DAGE—NOT that there’s any­thing wrong with be­ing kinky when you grow up. There are lots of happy, healthy kinksters out there, and your kid could be one of them when he grows up. But it’s too early to tell, and so long as his in­ter­ests aren’t com­pli­cat­ing his life (he’s not be­hav­ing in­ap­pro­pri­ately with friends or at school), your son’s what­ever-this-is will be­come less of your con­cern over time and ul­ti­mately it will be none of your busi­ness.

In the mean­time, you don’t wanna slap a “so kinky” la­bel on a seven-yearold. (If he were to over­hear you us­ing

> BY DAN SAV­AGE

that term to de­scribe him, does he have the com­puter skills to google it him­self?) But you’re do­ing ev­ery­thing right other­wise. You aren’t sham­ing your son; you aren’t mak­ing ban­dages and gauze and splints more al­lur­ing by deny­ing him ac­cess to them; you are teach­ing him im­por­tant lessons about pri­vacy and what needs to be re­served for “alone time”.

You ask if it’s nor­mal to be “so kinky” (a phrase we shall both re­tire, at least when re­fer­ring to your son, after to­day) at such a young age. Prob­a­bly not—but so what? Ac­cord­ing to sci­ence, most adults have para­phil­ias, a.k.a. “non­nor­ma­tive sex­ual de­sires and in­ter­ests”. That means kinks are nor­mal—at least for grownups—so even if your son isn’t nor­mal now, BAN­DAGE, he’ll be nor­mal some­day. Most happy, healthy, well-ad­justed adult kinksters can point to things in their child­hood that seemed to fore­shadow their adult in­ter­ests in ban­dages/bondage/bal­loons/what­ever. Au­thor, jour­nal­ist, and spank­ing fetishist Jil­lian Keenan (Sex With Shake­speare) was fas­ci­nated by spank­ing when she was your son’s age; Keenan likes to say she was con­scious of her kink ori­en­ta­tion be­fore she knew any­thing about her sex­ual ori­en­ta­tion. So while your son’s be­hav­iour may not be “nor­mal” for a kid who grows up to be vanilla, it would be “nor­mal” for some­one who grows up to be kinky.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Canada

© PressReader. All rights reserved.