I don't like being touched on the clitoris. I don't like being spanked hard. I don't like being blindfolded. And my attitudes toward anal play and heavy bondage are guarded and tentative. (Hole-y is really just a vagina slut.)
I've always been a bit ashamed of these liabilities, feeling that along with my limited pain tolerance and tendency to fatigue, they make me a suboptimal fuck. A real sex kitten would like everything, right? No holes barred. And if she doesn't precisely like an act, she should at least be "good, giving, and game" enough to do it anyway. (I like a lot of what Dan Savage writes, but "GGG" annoys the piss out of me with its new-age-frat-boy "if you were really sex-positive you wouldn't have all these pesky limits!" logic.") So I've tried, on some unfortunate occasions, to downplay my limits and do it all anyway.
The result was some really shitty sex. My partners weren't idiots or rapists; when I was doing something I didn't like they picked up on it and they didn't enjoy it. When you get down to it, not many guys want to touch a girl's clit just because it's there; they want to touch it to give her pleasure and experience her reaction. So letting a guy touch my clit because I didn't want to be difficult, then gritting my teeth at the discomfort, wasn't really doing either of us any favors.
Food analogy time: telling someone you'd like to have "sex" is about as helpful as asking them to cook you "food." And then getting angry--or worse, choking it down in visible misery--when they serve you a steak and you're a vegetarian. No, a vegetarian isn't the optimal trouble-free diner, but you could have had a delicious tofusteak or whatever the hell vegetarians eat if you'd gone ahead and presented your "trouble" upfront.
Sharing your limits may feel like a buzzkill, but not sharing your limits is a recipe for disaster. Limits can actually make for great sex--this may sound like low standards, but just knowing that a guy won't do anything I dislike is a surprisingly good and powerful feeling. It's all dessert and no veggies. Sex without doing X really means that you'll be doing Y and Z all night, and OH FUCK are Y and Z so fucking good.
(Note: I can't count the number of times I've had the following conversation with a guy:
"So, what are your limits? Anything I should steer clear of?"
"Nope, I'm not real complicated, I just like everything."
"So can I put my finger in your ass?"
"NOOOOO!")
"So, what are your limits? Anything I should steer clear of?"
ReplyDelete"Nope, I'm not real complicated, I just like everything."
"So can I put my finger in your ass?"
"NOOOOO!")
Were these the kinds of guys who think "kinky" means having their hands tied while you blow them? I've had that conversation entirely too many times...mention assplay or hair pulling or slapping or biting and they get all nervous.
Good thing nervous boys turn me on...
-perversecowgirl
I hate that conversation!
ReplyDeleteSomeone telling me I can do anything I want might as well be telling me I can't do anything, because it never ever means I can literally do what I want. It means they are extremely poor at communicating (or don't think they should have to... because that's so unsexy, right?), but will still want to place blame solely on you if/when you do something they don't like.
So, it's easier to steer clear of those people, and "anything" ends up being "nothing".
perversecowgirl, I got the feeling that the "NOOOO" person was Holly, not the boy in question.
ReplyDeleteTheDeviantE - The "NOOO" is the boy. Tops and vanillas have limits too, and vanilla boys have a horrible tendency to say they "just like everything" when what they mean is they like blowjobs *and* intercourse.
ReplyDeleteWhen I think GGG, I don't think of it as "Pesky limits" but more of "Are these really your limits?"
ReplyDeleteYour vanilla boy might actually enjoy a finger up his ass if he can get over his initial reaction.
The moment you realize that you can't stand anal penetration and nothing can be done about it, it's totally within GGG to say, "Absolutely not," but if you're more of a "Eh, I don't know; I don't think I'd enjoy it," and your partner is kinda, "Please! It's been my kink forever! It will turn me on and get me off like nothing else!" then maybe it pays to try it and see if you enjoy how much your partner enjoys it.
"I've had that conversation entirely too many times...mention assplay or hair pulling or slapping or biting and they get all nervous.
ReplyDeleteGood thing nervous boys turn me on..."
I'm not vanilla, and I *like* those things, and I definitely get nervous when the conversation turns there.
Good thing there are women who get turned on by nervous boys!
On-Topic, though, I'm with Ixr on this. There's a big difference between the reflexive "No" reaction, which may be from ignorance, taboo, or simply from never having considered it, and a *considered* "No".
I had the reflexive "No" reaction when I hooked up with a masochistic girl for the first time, but I'm very glad that I decided to try being a sadist before I made up my mind whether or not I'd be willing to do it for her.
Also, Holly, you do realize that now that you've said that last part in your blog, people are going to invoke your now-codified trope on you just for the fun of it? ;)
I've never understood Dan Savage's GGG philosophy to mean what you described here. He regularly says that some sex acts can't be expected of everyone; the third G in GGG simply means being willing to try something, not agreeing to it every time. I'm pretty sure you satisfy that standard.
ReplyDeleteIxr/Aaron/Bruno - While it can certainly be good to question the validity of your own limits from time to time (bearing in mind that the answer may be "yep, that's still a limit"), responding to a partner or third party's "no" with anything other than "fine, we won't do that" (which may include not doing anything with them, if the limit is a true dealbreaker) is a total dick move. "GGG," when applied to anyone other than the self, is answering a "no" with a "but I wanna, but you oughta, but I think your no means maybe" and that's really not okay.
ReplyDeleteAnd that includes trying it just once.
I agree, Holly, but there's a difference between "No" and "You want me to WHAT?". There's also something to be said with discussing *reasons*; not pressuring someone to do something they don't want to do, but seeking to understand why they don't want to do it.
ReplyDeleteMy personal response to a "No" would probably be "Okay, but if you would be willing to tell me why, I would appreciate it; if not, we'll just leave it be."
Which isn't exactly "Fine, we won't do that", even though it includes it. :)
Perhaps I'm arguing with you from ignorance, though; I've never read Dan Savage and I had never heard of GGG!
Aaron - Here's the problem with "but why not?" (besides that it can be obnoxious): I'm not super strong and resolute sometimes, especially when I'm afraid of angering or losing a partner. I'm not a total wuss, but I'm not made of emotional iron and dead certainty. I question myself, I want to please, I want harmony. So if I feel like you're pushing the issue, I may go "oh okay fine" even though I actually don't like the thing. Backing someone into a corner of guilt and "just try it once" and "at least justify yourself", so that they'd have to really stand up to you to convince you that no means FUCKING NO, is pushing, and when pushed some people will give, and then comes really miseable gritted-teeth limit-violating sex.
ReplyDeleteTo me, there's a difference between things that are my limits and things that I'm "eh" about. And while I pretty much don't want to do the things that I'm "eh" about, because there are so many things I'm NOT "eh" about and it's more fun to just do those things forever, I (personally) feel that sometimes I've just gotta suck it up (no pun intended).
ReplyDeleteTo use a food analogy myself, I don't like Vietnamese food. Dunno why. I just don't like it. I mean, I don't hate it. We're not talking about eating chocolate-covered-spiders here. It just bores me. I will never choose of my own free will to eat Vietnamese. But, my friend loves it. Now, most of the time, we can compromise and go out for something we both like. Sometimes, though, she realllly craves Vietnamese. So sometimes I suck it up and go with her. And in return, sometimes she goes to dinner at places I love and she doesn't.
Do I have a great meal? Nope. Is it anywhere near the equivalent of being food-raped, even though I've been badgered into it and asked, "Whyyyyy don't you want to go for Vietnameeeese?" Nope!
Now, granted, sex has a lot more baggage attached to it than restaurant choices, but I don't see any inherent reason why compromise (which is what GGG implies, to me) should be tossed right out when it comes to sex.
(For the record, also, GGG to me isn't a recipe for being a good person. I don't think there's any reason to be GGG to random people I meet on the street. For me, it's more a recipe for maintaining harmony in long term relationships where there's going to be some give and take. If I'm going to pick up a random girl at a club, there's no reason to take home someone whose tastes are 180 degrees different from mine and then be GGG about it. If I've been with a girl for 5 years and she wants to do something that bores me, it's worth it!)
--Andy
Backing someone into a corner of guilt and "just try it once" and "at least justify yourself", so that they'd have to really stand up to you to convince you that no means FUCKING NO, is pushing, and when pushed some people will give, and then comes really miseable gritted-teeth limit-violating sex.
ReplyDeleteThis this this. People shouldn't have to justify a 'no'. Ever. If you bring something up to your partner and they have an initial WTF reaction, you should respect that and back off. Then they can, in their own time and without any pressure, decide whether or not it's something they'd like to try after all. But it has to be something they decide.
Pushing someone to do something sexually that they're not comfortable with (and yeah, the whole 'just try it once, you might like it!' thing is pushing) is a seriously dick move.
Yeah, I've always sort of understood "GGG" to mean "You should try things you think you don't like if you haven't actually done them because hey, expanding your horizons and hey, you might like it" as opposed to "you should do things you know you actively dislike just to make your partner happy". Sort of a "Green Eggs and Ham" thing, as opposed to "drinking dishsoap" thing.
ReplyDeleteBut there are a lot of abusive pushy jerks out in the world, so now that you mention it in your context, I can see how they might try to use GGG as a means of subverting a no. :(
"In a box near a fox with your cox." :P
Holly - The mildly absurd thing about it all is that one of my biggest issues is comprehension/understanding. I'm far, far too intellectual/analytical about the whole thing. And that means that if a partner doesn't want to do something, it's going to *bug* me if I don't know why.
ReplyDeleteI've never pressured any of my partners to do anything she didn't want to do. But I have asked, *afterwards*, why she didn't want to, and I'll readily admit that making myself wait till afterwards can take some effort, because my curiosity is burning a hole in my brain!
People have the weirdest kinks sometimes, and I think intellectual understanding is one of the weirdest kink of them all. :)
I also find it [slightly] problematic that for certain people (my partner included) "No." means maybe. "NO!" means no, and it's really easy to tell the difference, but still...
ReplyDeleteWere these the kinds of guys who think "kinky" means having their hands tied while you blow them?
ReplyDeleteNo. These guys are doers, not doees. Like they can do anything at all, but have very strict boundaries about what can be done to them.
And please, don't bother comparing kinks like some of them are better than the others.
THIS^
DeleteThat comment really bugged me. Yes, it's not a daring or obscure kink, but wanting to get tied up and blown actually IS a kink. Judging someone for not being kinky "enough" is as bad as judging them for being "too" kinky.
Sometimes the pleasure is in the giving; for example, I think there are vanishingly few people who would enjoy performing oral sex if their partner did not enjoy receiving it. I'm a huge fan of cunnilingus, and I'll make little moans when I'm doing it and tell her how good she tastes, and I mean that totally 100% honestly in that context.
ReplyDeleteBut if pussy were an ice cream flavor, I sure wouldn't buy it.
So in some cases I'd respond to a question with a question; how I feel about some things depends on how she feels. Sometimes the fact she asked is enough to tell me she likes it, like cunnilingus, for other things I'd want more assurance.
Still other things are cut and dried. Some things I won't do, like any form of genuine bondage, I'll say no, and I echo all those who say it's assholish to push after that.
Your interpretation of GGG isn't the same as mine. I don't see GGG as applying until there is a long term relationship. It isn't requiring you to exceed limits--rather it is at least occasionally doing things that are not particularly exciting to you if your partner really likes them.
ReplyDeleteBut YOU are the judge if you are being GGG. If someone accuses you of a lack of GGG to get their way, they are at minimum being an ass.
Besides all the discussion of GGG, I think that Holly's original point of sharing limits and dislikes is a really good one. It seems that in Holly's example her attempt at communication is foundering on the rock of the guy's insularity; he's not so much being uncommunicative, as being narrow. It didn't occur to him that a finger up his ass is part of "everything". Also, it's impossible to actually list everything, especially negative everything. Someday you're going to meet the person who's into grinding up the contents of your wallet into ID, credit card, and cash confetti and tossing it in the air at the moment of climax.
ReplyDeleteProbably better results will be obtained by questions oriented toward finding positive limits; e.g. "what are some of the kinkiest things you like?"
Probably better results will be obtained by questions oriented toward finding positive limits; e.g. "what are some of the kinkiest things you like?"
ReplyDeleteI'd be scared that even though the partner asked this question, the reaction to a truthful answer would be "eww, you are such a pervert, I whish I'd never met you".
Especially when you're "negotiating" with persons outside of the kinkster scene where "your kink is not my kink, but your kink is ok" might not be a given.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous: I'm not "comparing" kinks as though anything is better than anything else. I'm stating that there's a lot more to kink than just "I'm gonna pleasure you while your hands are tied." Kink also spans things like pain, humiliation, fetishes, etc. And it's disappointing to repeatedly meet guys who act like seasoned veterans with an "anything goes" attitude when they turn out not to know anything about it at all.
ReplyDeleteHolly: I, too, am one of those people who wants to know "why not?" when it comes to limits. Not to make the person justify it, but because the answers can be surprising. Sometimes a person may even have a whole different idea of an act than I do, like a boy who doesn't realize how good prostate stimulation can feel and assumes I see assplay as a humiliation thing. It can be incredibly valuable to understand where the other person is coming from.
If a guy said he didn't want to do something and when I asked why he said "actually, okay, let's go ahead" I wouldn't go ahead; I'd be like "I didn't say aw come on no fair, I asked why. I want to discuss this." But of course there are a lot of douchier people out there who'd just forge on ahead. :P
Anonymous said, I'd be scared that even though the partner asked this question, the reaction to a truthful answer would be "eww, you are such a pervert, I whish I'd never met you".
ReplyDeleteI really sympathise with your point, I would (will) be scared too, but someone's going to have to speak up or no one does anything but vanilla missionary. I guess first one to admit something they find potentially embarrassing wins the socially brave prize along with the risk of embarrassment.
someone's going to have to speak up or no one does anything but vanilla missionary.
ReplyDeleteExactly. It's better to be "out" about who you are and sometimes drive someone away than to hide stuff and never, ever have the kind of sex or relationship that you truly want.
When I had my personal ad up requesting twinky crossdressing submissive boys, I got all kinds of replies - mostly from guys who didn't mention kink or crossdressing anywhere on their profiles. I asked why they made themselves sound so vanilla and they said "because if I mentioned what I like, it might scare women off." "Yeah," I said, "it'll scare off women who aren't into your kinks. But it'll attract women who are."
I've always been very respectful of my partners' limits, but sometimes there is an objection which can be overcome with care. Now, I like a girl who will bend over and take it like a man. Some girls are just anal sluts like that. However, I've had a couple that needed some work.
ReplyDeleteOne had been raped that way at one point, and seriously injured in the process. I overran her limit a couple of times along the way, and she said so, so I immediately backed off. I appreciated that she could be so honest, and reciprocated by respecting her wishes. That builds trust. With some care, I managed to train her sphincter to take it, and when the time came, she found she enjoyed it with a partner that cared for her.
Another, the first time I touched her there, she said "not now", so I stopped. When the time came, she was ready and said so. We both enjoyed it, and did it again.
Whatever you're looking for, you need to respect your partner's limits, and decide whether that limit is a dealbreaker to you. Remember, though, that although sex is a crucial part of a relationship, it's only a small part, and will diminish somewhat as time goes past.
Is what you want important enough to throw out what else you might have? If so, then end the relationship now, and find someone that will satisfy you. It's not fair to continue when either or both of you will wind up frustrated.
I don't think GGG is about "pesky limits." I think it's about being willing to try new things, even if they don't necessarily do it for you.
ReplyDeleteExample: Your boyfriend wants to be dominated and crossdressed. It does nothing for you. It doesn't violate any of your limits, but it doesn't turn you on either. If you're in a relationship (particularly a monogamous one) and it's something he really, really wants, maybe you can do it occasionally? And of course he should return the favor when you want something he's not into.
Too lazy to go looking for the specific columns, but I know he's had people write in and apologize for not being GGG enough to try various kinks with their partners -- I remember anal and swinging specifically. He's always quite clear that limits are limits and they shouldn't feel bad about theirs. And of course, it's okay if your partner's limits are a dealbreaker.
But yeah, agree with you on everything else.
GGG isn't supposed to mean you can't have any limits! It means you're supposed to be willing to try anything within reason (as long as the idea doesn't truly freak you out) and give it a chance before declaring that you don't like it. Dan has said many times that people should be free to give up doing a sex act they hate. And to do an act/kink only rarely if your partner loves it but it leaves you cold.
ReplyDeleteEven if someone sets limits that don't make sense and are based on weird prudishness ("Cosmo told me licking a guy's ass is gross!"), Dan's GGG "rule" doesn't give their partner the right to be pushy or manipulative in trying to get their way. It's a formula for how to be a great sex partner yourself, not for what you're entitled to demand from other people.