Oldies But Goodies?

Dear Mistress Maeve,

Thirty-one-year-old male here with a bit of a problem. My girlfriend recently told me that she would like to be tied up — nothing extreme, just some innocent fun. This, of course, made me unbelievably turned on, and I admitted to her that I had some under-the-mattress restraints that I had purchased with a former girlfriend. My girlfriend got instantly steamed and told me that it was insulting to think she would use the same "sex toys" as another woman. I told her that I didn't think of restraints as "sex toys" and that we had only used them a few times (mostly on me). She was still offended. I just don't see the point in spending another $50 on new restraints when these are not "contaminated." What do you think, MM?

Bound and Determined

----------------------------------------

Dear B and D,

I'd like to tie you up and smack some sense into you. Do you have any idea how lucky you are to have a sexually adventurous girlfriend who is willing to leave vanilla behind and try some new flavors? Stop tying this stubborn knot and start tying up your girlfriend!

While I agree with you that restraints are less intimate than, say, dildos and butt plugs, your girlfriend still sees them as "contaminated" with emotional residue from your past relationship. Respect her feelings and get rid of the old shackles. And who says you need to spend $50? Sure, under-the-bed restraints are great, but neckties and scarves do just fine.

Believe me, if you continue to be as stubborn as a mule about this issue, you're only going to come off looking like an ass.

Kisses,
MM

Comments

[Big Al]

Well MM, I have to take issue with you on this one. This gal is open minded enough to want to be adventurous in her sex life but she's still willing to hang on to an age-old system of denial that one's partner has never been with anyone else before. So what? If it was the guy that had the problem would you still hold the same view?

[Dave Lawrence]

Mistress Maeve is right on track. Your view is completely rational but functionally pretty useless in your current relationship.

It's really just like any other non-sexual situation in a relationship where feelings about an issue predominate its rationality. Some people are completely okay with artifacts from past intimate relationships being present, but I suspect (unscientifically) that more people just aren't. That this is an object that more directly symbolizes the intimate time you've spent with someone else, it really isn't surprising that your girlfriend is put off by it even if some other women would not be bothered.

That does start to open up another line of questioning that goes far beyond the scope of the original question, but I'll leave you to ponder two of them. Would you be okay with it if the situation were reversed? If so, does this reflect a fundamental philosophical difference about how much you can share with each other, that might signal other likely conflicts for the future?

[B-Gad]

I definitely have to disagree here. Yes, the restraints were used with a previous partner. But so was the bed, the sheets, the pillows, etc etc. What's different about these objects as opposed to the objects that were also used in the act of sex with previous partners? You want him to get a new mattress too? I think the girl needs to get a grip and be happy that she's got a guy who is willing to be just as sexually adventurous as she is, and who already has the paraphernalia with which to do it. He shouldn't have to re-stock something that's perfectly fine as-is that he already has. Contaminated? Only if you believe in old-girlfriend-cooties. If the new gal pal has issues already over this kind of thing, I can only anticipate more along the same lines. "Is this the same thing you had/did/experienced with Girlie McPrevious? Well, we can't have that now, can we?"

He's obviously gotten over his baggage; why does she have to pick it up?

[dingbat]

Sounds like you have an awesome girlfriend who has some understandable jealousies. Here's the way a boyfriend handled the exact same issue with me:

Thoroughly wipe down the restraints with rubbing alcohol to erase previous girlfriend "cooties," soften with leather cleaner (if applicable), then offer to buy her a sex toy (or lingerie, etc.) of her choosing for $50. And really, a girlfriend this awesome deserves a $50 treat. ...Flowers never hurt either.

As a practical Yankee girl, I was agreeable to this solution -- and we had a great couple of years making sure he wasn't remembering the ex when we used those restraints (and my compromise treat).

[bored]

Big Al, you are so far off here. Desire and intimacy are about moods. That's not something you can just turn on and off. So what if her feelings about "tainted" equipment is irrational? Just what about sex IS rational?

You would make the things that get her into the mood and the things that put her out of the mood subject to your approval, and your sense of what are acceptable turn ons and turn offs. Talk about "age old system"s! That particular one is called "male dominance!"

To the writer: sex and desire are, to some degree anyway, a negotiation. You may not appreciate or understand her terms, but people cant change what turns them on or off. You should taker her terms or leave them - as she shouls do with yours. If there's enough interaction for fun - voila! You're compatible! Good news! Of not - well, that's the way it is sometimes.

[Big Al]

Your first point about sex and rationality are well taken. I fail to see how you got male dominance out of anything I wrote in this instance.

Hey MM, was I being a male chauvanist pig back up in there? C'mon, I can take it.

Some interesting issues in this discussion.

[Molly]

I don't see anything chauvinistic in your original post, Al. I think you came off as being indifferent to the emotional aspects of this dilemma - emotion not always being ruled by rationality. Bored read into the gender identities and positions of the involved parties. A perceived lack of empathy was interpreted as being symptomatic of greater societal disregard for the feelings of women.

I think you are guilty only of expecting everyone to operate according to logic. If only it were that simple! :)

[Big Al]

Good point and point taken. I guess I got steamed because he acted with seemingly good intentions and got scolded. Talk about coitus avoidus. But everyone is right about one thing, if you want some nookie, don't piss off your squeeze.

[bored]

It was more of the assumption that you and the original writer should get to set the terms of whats reasonable and what isn't in the relationship. That smacks of male privilege to me. Maybe not intentionally, but that's how these things work. They get into your head and your way of doing things and the next thing you know, patterns emerge.