I've Created a Sexy Monster, and Now … I'm Bored
WHY YOU SHOULD CARE
OZY’s Eugene S. Robinson addresses queries from the love-weary in “Sex With Eugene.”
By Eugene S. Robinson
When the Yawns Win
EUGENE, SIR: We got into some femdom stuff, and I was lucky to have a partner who was into it. Maybe a little too into it. I started having him wear a strap-on that was larger than his penis because, and I was telling the truth here, his penis was much less effective than the strap-on. But weeks later, in the middle of a scene, the thought hit me: Why was he even here? I started thinking about what he was getting out of this and what I was getting out of it, and all of this was during sex so I knew it was over. But I feel responsible somehow. He was devastated, and now I have this lingering guilt over how I handled it. Is this unavoidable for these kinds of relationships? —Oopsy-Daisy
Dear Driving Miss Daisy: It’s all fun and games in the myths of Pygmalion, or Pinocchio, or even with Eliza Doolittle, and we thrill and delight in the early stage of seeing the creator’s creation exceed their expectations. It’s a grand and glorious time. Right up … until … these stories inevitably trundle into Frankenstein territory and someone ends up dead. Or, at the very least, as in your case, bored. To tears.
Which probably also explains why most kids leave home when they’re 18. Or sooner or, best case, not too much later. Because familiarity breeds contempt, and our estimation of what we’ve created might sour as our creations do more of what they want and less of what we want.
In your case, though, I would make the claim that what happened was exactly that, and once the thrill of transitioning a non-sub man into a sub man had worn off, you were left with what you were never attracted to in the first place: a submissive man.
So, unavoidable? Well, that depends. Now realizing that it’s the transformation you dig, maybe you can set out to find someone who is more fluid and fully capable of being a man in the streets and a sub man in the sheets. Failing this, yes, you may be up for future repeats.
The He-Man Who Loves She-Men
EUGENE, SIR: Do you answer follow-up questions? I am the guy who likes she-males and also had a seven-year itch. Turns out that my girlfriend found some she-male videos I had on my external hard drive. She freaked out, called me names (including “faggot”) and so on. Everything is sour and very silent since. I really don’t know what to say to her, and honestly I feel like I don’t need to. I think it’s clear what at least one aspect of my happiness is. —Still Kinky, Just Not So Much in Love
Dear Mr. Freeman: Technically, you’ve not asked me a question or leveled a query, and so your comment is more an observation of that which you hold to be self-evident and with which I largely concur: Your kink doesn’t have to be shared or enjoyed by others, but it’s usually damned near impossible to wish your kink back to the cornfield. Nope. When it’s out, it’s out, and her inability to process this quickly is all the advice you need about future events as yet untold. In other words: Bye, Felicia. And “faggot”? Really? Oh, geez. Yeah. Time to float, float on. Good luck.
Exactly HOW Stupid IS Eugene?
EUGENE, SIR: You wouldn’t be stupid enough to suggest a john tell his wife he has sex with hookers? But you tell him it’s OK to have sex with women who willingly do it for money? Because he is not violating the hookers’ civil rights, basically, is what you said. But why is the wife a nonperson, and I ask this because you don’t mention her civil rights? You tell him to go ahead unapologetically. Like, is that a joke? Are you fucking kidding me? The wife’s civil rights are not even considered. Just by addressing him as a piece of shit — and then you kind of apologize for it by saying you couldn’t resist — that’s the only slight possible acknowledgement that maybe the wife wouldn’t like it. Whether she would or wouldn’t clearly doesn’t matter in your narrative, but the fact that the hooker is doing it freely and willingly means that the hooker’s civil rights are considered (and you say if the hooker is married, she hates those kind of johns, so her feelings are also considered but not the john’s own wife, WTF?). Why do wives’ civil rights not matter? Why do they not have a right to know their husband is having sex with someone else? I mean, don’t you think knowing might affect their major life choices, like possibly whether to stay married to this guy or not? Why do you not even consider the wife’s right to know whether or not she is actually in a monogamous relationship? Because she is not worthy of the truth because married men’s sexual desires are important and married women’s are not? Because why? WTF? —Barbara Holmes
Dear Ms. Holmes: You know what is not funny? The total collapse of politesse in even our most common or ordinary of exchanges. In my mind, frankly, there is little excuse for it and that this has become the lingua franca of all of our online social media communications is no cause for celebration.
That being said, I will apologize for not being able to find the column of which you speak. So I’m at least THAT stupid. And so, based on what you’ve written here, I have no direct answers, but I DO have some questions that might help us clarify positions.
1) Do you think a man whose moral code allows him to comfortably elide the ethical issues of paid sex is in any position to be frank with his wife?
2) Do you think advising people to do that with which they are uncomfortable has a high degree of therapeutic success?
3) In dysfunctional relationships, do you imagine that communication is clear, comfortable, honest, regular, timely or helpful?
4) Has a cursory reading of a column that’s run roughly every week since 2013 suggest that there is an “anti-wife” bias at work here? And, finally …
5) While we’ve had questions from wives who have seen male prostitutes and have not told their husbands, how is this the first time we’re getting an angry screed from you?
Answer at your leisure. And thank you for writing. Our conversations are better shared than not.