Savage Love
How can I find a younger man to sleep with?
By Dan Savage
I'm a forty-one-year-old, very attractive, happily married woman. My husband and I have been together for fifteen years. When we first met, the sex was absolutely incredible. After we got married, the sex was good, not great. This was because we were busy raising our children. (My husband had custody of four-year-old twins, children from his first marriage, when we married.) The reason I know our sex life suffered while we were busy raising the kids is that after the girls went off to college, things went right back to absolutely incredible.
One night, we were talking about our sexual fantasies, and I confessed that since my mid-thirties I've fantasized about being with a younger man. He told me that he'd be fine with me living out that fantasy if I would have a MFF threesome with him. I agreed, and we had the MFF threesome with a friend of mine.
Here's my question: how do I go about finding a gorgeous, college-age man? I thought about posting an ad on Craigslist, but you've said that most of the people on Craigslist are flakes and picture collectors. Do you have better suggestions for finding a straight college-age guy for a no-strings-attached encounter? I'm in the Pacific Northwest, if that makes a difference. Also, I'm a complete newbie to this, so I'd appreciate a rundown of all of the usual safety advice when meeting a stranger for sex.
P.S. Here is my e-mail address in case any of your gorgeous, male, college-age readers in the Pacific Northwest are interested: [e-mail deleted].
— Mrs. Robinson Seeks Benjamin
I don't print the e-mail addresses of readers looking for hookups, MRSB, as I am a professional advice columnist, thankyouverymuch, not a yentapimp for wannabe Mrs. Robinsons. (It also gives my lawyer fits. "What if you print this woman's e-mail address and this woman meets a nice young man who turns out to be Ted Bundy?" says my lawyer, who is old enough to remember who Ted Bundy was — and Mrs. Robinson — but somehow not too old to lawyer.)
But save for asking me to print your e-mail address in the column, MRSB, I approve of everything you and your husband are doing. Married olds everywhere should follow your example: you got through the lean years with decent-if-uninspired sex, you didn't become bitter about all that decent-if-uninspired sex, you got back to indecent-and-inspired sex once the kids headed to college (which you were able to do because you didn't let yourselves get bitter), and — most importantly — instead of freaking out and shooting down each other's sexual fantasies, you're helping each other realize those fantasies. Brafuckingvo.
So how do you find the right young man? Trawl the net, like all the other horndogs, and get your husband to help. (You asked your friend to have that three-way, right? Your husband can place a few "hotwife" ads.) Yes, there are fakers and flakes on Craigslist — lots and lots — but there are some real boys to be had; there's also FetLife.com and AshleyMadison.com and a million other hookup sites. Cast a wide net.
Once you've found a potential Benjamin: make sure you know his real name, meet in public, discuss safety (condoms) and sexual health (tested recently?), and be sure to let him know that someone else — someone heavily armed — knows where you are and who you're with and when you're supposed to be back.
Here's the tricky part: if you don't get a good feeling when you meet in person — if he seems dodgy, if his pics lied, if he gives off a rape-y/serial-killer-y/lawyer-y-fit-vindicating vibe — don't go through with it.
P.S. Oh, what the hell: MRSB's e-mail address is . Have at her, Benjamins.
I'm a twenty-four-year-old straight male. For the past six months, I've been dating an amazing GGG girl. We have amazing sex. The other night, after a week of no sex, I came on to her in bed on Saturday night. She turned me down and said that she was okay with me masturbating on the other side of the bed so she could sleep. After a very unsatisfying orgasm, I told her I understood her need to sleep, since we had an early engagement the next morning, but that this was difficult for me. She said we'd have great sex the next day, which we did.
Which one of us needs to be GGG in this scenario, should it happen again?
— Fucking Early Engagement Botches Lovely Evening
A week is a long time to go without at your age and at six months and prekids, I realize, but it sounds like the girlfriend more than made it up to you the next day. As for who needs to be GGG in this scenario, should it happen again (and it will)…
GGG demands a little something of both of you. GGG requires you to stop whining about having to wait twenty-four whole hours for awesome sex, FEEBLE, and GGG requires her — if she isn't completely exhausted (and it appears she wasn't, as she was still awake when your "very unsatisfying orgasm" was over) — to come through with a loving assist when you're desperate and she's not feeling it, i.e., lie with you, talk dirty to you, stick a finger up your butt — whatever — for the five or ten minutes it takes you to drain your sack.
I'm writing to ask you to help me spread the word about an issue close to my heart. I am a 23-year-old woman without medical insurance who relies on Planned Parenthood. They have done SO MUCH for me. They have provided me with birth control, annual Pap smears that I can actually afford, and emotional support that helped me get over an abusive relationship and sexual assault.
The US House of Representatives passed a bill last week that would cut all federal funding for Planned Parenthood. This isn't just an attack on American women. Planned Parenthood educates the entire community about sexual health and sexually transmitted infections. I know I don't need to preach to you. I plan to write to my senators about this, and I am encouraging everyone I know to do so. What I ask is that you mention this in your column as soon as possible.
— My Body, My Choice
Done and done, MBMC.
We used to have a regular feature at Savage Love called "Straight Rights Watch." It lapsed when the Democrats took the House in 2006 and political attacks on the sexual freedoms of straight people decreased. But the GOP is back in charge of the House and state houses across the country, and attacks on the sexual freedoms of heterosexuals — attempts to ban abortion, restrict access to birth control, destroy Planned Parenthood (which doesn't just serve straight people), even make it legal to kill abortion providers (!!!) — are back, and so, sadly, is Straight Rights Watch.
Hello? Heterosexuals? Your legislators need to hear from you, and they need to hear from you now. And there's an easy way to make your voice heard: go to www.istandwithplannedparenthood.org and add your name to an open letter to Congress, then swing over to www.plannedparenthood.org, click Donate, and give what you can.
CONFIDENTIAL TO MADISON, WISCONSIN: I've never been prouder of my connection to Madison than I am right now — and, hey, don't let those lying bastards at Fox News get you down. To everyone else: Meet the people who are taking a stand at www.youtube.com/wethepeoplewisconsin.
Find the Savage Lovecast (my weekly podcast) every Tuesday at thestranger.com/savage.
Commentarium (34 Comments)
Good advice for, really, very simple problems.
Great job on letter #1!!!! I'm the same age & sex as the LW, & dishonesty is the only sexual behavior I can't adapt to -- had my time, patience, and health wasted by partners who either didn't believe that or got off on lying. And also: she should have absolutely no problem getting what she wants, as often as she and her husband can deal with it.
I know Hooksexup isn't really the place to discuss it... but the people who work in the public sector in Madison make more than private workers. They also have pensions for the rest of their damn lives.
The republican solution is a terrible one, admittedly. But let's stop fooling ourselves about the usefulness of Unions. They've almost completely destroyed Detroit, and they've allowed government jobs to overtake private ones (which is a HUGE fucking problem). I'd rather not hold these people up as heroes just because they're sticking up to Neo-Con idiocy. They're still whining about something ridiculous while many people still can't find work.
Absolutely right!
Except for the part about making more money - public sector workers make about 15% less on average than private sector workers.
Oh, and the pensions - which was the trade-off for the lower up-front pay.
And Detroit - by which I assume you mean the auto industry - which is recovering quite nicely without the wholesale destruction of unions (just a change of management).
And finally, regardless of its factual inaccuracy, about how if someone has something better than you the only way to fix it is to knock down those doing better rather than demand better for those doing worse.
Other than that, you're comment is 100% correct.
Detroit was almost completely destroyed because of greed, and American companies being able to move to Mexico, where they can pay workers a very small percentage of what they were paying workers here. Unions aren't to blame, Mexican workers aren't to blame... The problem came when CEOs decided they wanted more to keep for themselves, instead of paying their workers a decent living.
I'm in I.T. in the Public Sector and, trust me, we make considerably less than our counterparts in private industry (MUCH more than 15% less) and get no bonuses, stock options, etc. We also DON'T GET SOCIAL SECURITY. I pay 8% of my salary toward a pension, while my private sector counterparts pay 4% toward their Social Security. We both pay into Medicare so that's a wash. The tradeoff is that I pay more now and make less now, but get to retire 5 years earlier for about double what I'd get from Social Security.
Yes, I was dubious, but then I was furious when I read that many of those so-called benefits are actually just deferred pay for the state employees and that the state just failed to maintain it. Horrible. How would you feel if your tax deductions were gone? Or your Social Security? Or your bank account, which you also fill on a good-faith basis?
If anyone wants to know, this was in Forbes: https://blogs.forbes.com/rickungar/2011/02/25/the-wisconsin-lie-exposed-t...
I can really relate to FEEBLE. This is actually one of the most hurtful things to me. That my partner wants to sleep instead of even watch me (not even play with me) when I touch myself when he doesn't want to have sex. Maybe it shouldn't be so upsetting, but it is, and he knows that now and helps (as in GGG but without the sticking the finger up the ass part.... but alas that is another story). I think he was just oblivious to the fact that it made an emotional difference to me, make it clear!
If your gf doesn't want to have sex, she doesn't have to have sex, or stick a finger up your ass, or talk dirty to you, or whatever else. If you make her or guilt her into it, she's going to end up resentful. Fair warning.
yes, truly. And whatever happened to suck it up once in a while?
Because when you want to stake your monogamous claim on someone, then you are at least somewhat responsible for their sexual satisfaction? I'm not saying that you have to sign a contract agreeing to sex once a day or once a week or whatever, but it is a _relationship_; sometimes that means doing something you don't necessary feel super-jazzed about.
You know how picking your partner up at the airport kind of sucks, but you do it because they need the ride and it makes them happy? Yeah, just like that. I've been with men who didn't think they needed to worry about my sexual happiness if they weren't in the mood; it gets fucking old, fucking quick to be told you can't sleep with anyone else even if your partner doesn't want to dance.
Yes, but ignoring your partner's sexual needs will, over time, also produce resentment. Women sometimes forget that this issue is a two-way street. Differing sexual drives are a reality of many, if not most, long-term relationships, but the partner who wants less sex doesn't automatically get his or her way.
The partner who doesn't want sex isn't always right, but they should always get their way. If they don't get their way, the sex is coerced, forced, or in other words... rape. This isn't fuzzy or gray. If someone doesn't want to have sex, they don't have to have sex and being in a relationship with someone who has a disproportionately high sex drive isn't a justification for making someone have sex. If the problem is that bad, the people need to find different partners. So they didn't have sex for a week -- big fucking deal. They had sex the next night. This guy sounds like an entitled jerk and I'm shocked anyone would support the idea that women should have sex when they don't want to.
Let me clarify, since you have distorted my position, one that was admittedly ambiguous. "Not getting his or her way" doesn't refer to non-consensual sex or rape; it refers to the fact that you may have to adjust the frequency with which you engage sexually with your partner if you want to co-exist happily with another person who has a higher sex drive than you. In other words, you may lose the relationship in the long-term if you think of sexuality as an area where there can be no negotiation. Is there honestly anyone out there who wants to be involved someone who NEVER has sex or engages in any sexual activity just because a partner is interested? (Sometimes people get interested once the festivities start, and they end up being glad they were talked into it.) In any case, to "guilt her into it," if that's the case, is NOT the same thing as physically coercing someone against their will; the latter is rape, but the former isn't. The arts of persuasion are always in play in matters of love and sex, and to imply otherwise seems to ignore the realities of human behavior. Getting talked into sexual activity by a horny partner is not a crime as long as there is consent.
I agree with Milo. Also, don't assume for a second that this is an issue of "men want sex, women should be respected when they don't want sex". I assure you, there are just as many women out there who are desperate to get off lying next to men who can't be bothered.
No one said anything about being forced. But being GGG means helping to accommodate the sexual happiness of both partners--that might mean accommodating fantasies, but sometimes it just means having the good grace to offer up a hand job or oral sex when you don't want sex and they need an outlet.
Taking it easy this week, Dan? Those were ridiculously easy problems. Where is your usual collective of far-out nutjobs with insane fetishes? Those are a lot more entertaining.
As far as letter number two goes, hey, sometimes when she's tired, she's tired. There's going to be nights when she's not in the mood, and at least she's open enough to let you blow off some steam in the same bed. Just remember that, because there may be a night when she's ready to go and you're too worn out/hungover/have a groin injury, and all you'll be able to offer is a set of fresh AA batteries.
On the other hand (so to speak) I've had situations with past girlfriends who would say "go ahead without me" and would sometimes roll over and go to sleep, but more often would decide after a couple minutes that maybe they were in the mood after all.
Um, guys, what does GGG mean?
Wikipedia:
In his March 1, 2007 column,[10] Savage summarized: "GGG stands for 'good, giving, and game,' which is what we should all strive to be for our sex partners. Think 'good in bed,' 'giving equal time and equal pleasure,' and 'game for anything—within reason.'"
Thanks, K!
The person in the photograph that you used for this syndicated column this week is really, really fucked-up. This looks like a 12 year old kid. You guys at the photo desk at Hooksexup sure do seem like a bunch of pedophiles today.
Yeah, that picture is no fun. He not only looks young, he looks like that picture was swapped for basic necessities.
Thank you for the support of Wisco workers Dan! I've always loved your column but I would be lying if I said I didn't like you even more now that I know you've got a connection to WI :)
God, it's hard not to just turn red and burst every time Fox "covers" the situation in Madison. Yesterday, they released a video of the protesting in Madison.... except there were palm trees in the background. I don't know how strong your connection to WI is, but I'm pretty sure you know that we don't exactly sport the palm trees and coconut bras in the middle of a Midwest winter...
Anyway, thank you again for your support. We love you too!
Ok, seriously Hooksexup staffers. Its been 8 hours since I first pointed this out and you still have that fucking creepy pedophile picture up. Its bad enough that you stopping paying real writers and turned into a shitty blog mill, but did you have to go the pedophilia route as well? This kid looks 12 or 13 years old. Hey, what do you think that Dan Savage will think if I email him a link so he can see what you are attaching to his work here? I bet he'd be likely to pull your syndication rights. Wanna find out? I'm going to bed in a few minutes. When I wake up, probably around noon, I'm gonna check back here and if you are still pimping the 8th grader here then I'm screen capping it and sending it to Dan. Fucking try me, pedos.
Calm the fuck down. He doesn't look 12 or 13 years old unless you've never seen a 13 year old. He could easily be a young-faced 18 year old--you really have no fucking idea. Even if he's not, it's not a pornographic image. There are no pedophiles jacking off to this. It's not going to turn anyone pedo. Dan Savage wouldn't give a fuck. Seriously, find a better issue to throw your weight behind.
Hooksexup is sexualizing what looks like an unwilling 8th grader. The context that the photo is placed in leaves little question of that. I'm not saying that they are technically breaking the law - I'm saying that they are crossing a line into territory that should not be considered socially acceptable to readers, writers or advertisers. There aren't many lines that most of us would have a problem with Hooksexup crossing. Kids and animals are just about the only places that aren't ok to go and they just went to one of them.
He does not look like an 8th grader.
https://1.bp.blogspot.com/_Vss3h-flb7A/SaXO6xNya1I/AAAAAAAAAH4/uYeaObAei_...
Those are 8th graders. See how they look like little boys?
The context makes it clear that he's supposed to be college-age. So honestly, fuck off. No one is sexualizing little kids, get over yourself.
You mad?
@Sin - you are a weenie
1. Geez, how to ruin a 41 year old's day! Who knew we qualified as "married olds"?
2. Dude in the picture looks like half the university students I teach. (Well, cuter....but definitely in the 18 to 23 bracket.)
3. Random observation: teaching them cures you of any desire to fuck them. Where Mrs. Robinson sees Grade A, I see C+.
you can see that the dude in the photo shaves. and from the tiny amount of shadow visible, he shaves his entire face, and it grows back pretty evenly...so, he's obviously a mature man, whatever his age. sure, mature men can be 16, but i'd guess that he's not.
bravo to mrs. robinson! if i was in the pacific northwest, i'd e-mail her, but she's probably already gotten what she's asked for...good for her.
I was looking everwyhere and this popped up like nothing!
Wait, I cannot fathom it being so straightfrowrad.