Q: I'm a 25-year-old girl dating a 26-year-old guy. My boyfriend identifies as sexually submissive. He likes to be tied up, put in women's underwear and locked in a chastity device, and he has a strong urge to please. I hate the term, but I suppose you could call me a "feeder." I am turned on by the idea of someone eating a lot of food, usually junk food, and putting on weight.
It's probably related, but I'm also a bit of a fitness nut — I'm the type of person who gets her cat health food. Consequently, I feel somewhat guilty about indulging my fetish, but I figure every now and then shouldn't hurt. Thing is, since I've been honest with my boyfriend and he knows how much this stuff turns me on, often when we go out he'll eat too much to please me. The short of it is, he's put on some weight, and while the libido part of me finds it hot, the logical part of me wants him to be healthy and wants to stop this pattern before he gets, like, actually fat.
Thing is, it's hard enough to convince your partner to work out when it will lead to your being more attracted to him. It's nearly impossible to convince your partner to work out when it may lead to your being less attracted to him. So what do I do? I could say he knows the risks, and since I'm not forcing him to do anything, I could just run with it. But I would still feel bad knowing that he was essentially worse off — less healthy — for having dated me. I just don't want to give him a complex. —Fat Admirer Troubled
A: Your boyfriend is a submissive cross-dresser who's into bondage and chastity, FAT, so he came to you with a complex — two or three at least. Not that there's anything wrong with that: His complexes, and the fetishes and kinks they've sprouted, give him a great deal of pleasure, FAT, and it sounds like you're enjoying 'em too. We should all be so lucky to have such complexes.
So get off the rack — that's where the boyfriend belongs — and negotiate a "power exchange agreement" where his diet and weight are concerned. Explain to him that having a dominant feeder girlfriend doesn't give him license to eat whatever he wants, whenever he wants and put on however much weight he wants. You're the dominant, FAT, you're in charge, so you get to determine what he eats, when he eats, how much he eats and ultimately how much weight he gains.
But luckily, FAT, you're a conscientious, ethical dominant feeder. You're not one of those evil feeders who wants to do serious and lasting harm to some poor gainer; you don't want to feed your boyfriend into weight-related disability or an early grave. You're into feeder play, not murder-by-cream-cheese-frosting.
So order the boyfriend to eat junk food, sit on his ass and gain weight for a few months, FAT, and then order him to eat healthier food, get off his ass, and lose the weight. Don't let his weight go more than 30 pounds over his ideal weight and you won't be doing him any real or lasting harm.
Even if indulging your fetish shaves a year or two off his life, well, people throw away decades for lesser pleasures. People smoke, ride motorcycles without helmets, and stick their rear ends in the air in sex clubs. Our bodies are our own to use, abuse and use up. Sane adults balance taking care of our bodies — eating right, drinking in moderation, getting exercise — with pleasures that require us to eat poorly, drink in excess and lie motionless for days at a time while we recover. The better care you take of yourself — eating right, drinking in moderation and exercising — the longer you'll live, of course, and the more pleasures you'll get to enjoy before you inevitably croak.
It's ultimately up to your boyfriend to determine whether the pleasures of submitting to you — including the pleasure of indulging your fetish — are worth the risks. Are those 20 or 30 extra pounds something he's willing to carry for you half the year? Is having a kick-ass sex life with you in his 20s — and possibly in his 30s, 40s, and 50s — worth shaving a year or two off his life in his 70s or 80s? If he decides that the answer is yes, FAT, be a gracious bondage-chastity-feeding top, take his yes for an answer, and stick a doughnut in his mouth.
Q: A question in the spirit of the season: Can zombie sex ever be consensual? Because I think if confronted with a zombified Zac Efron, I might go for it if he were properly restrained. Can you teach a zombie a safe word? Does it count if it's "braaaains"? It's not necrophilia with the walking dead, is it? What would you say is the sexual morality of this situation? —Hope In Zombie Zac If Ethical
A: If you'd seen Zombieland, HIZZIE, you'd know that a hot person, once transformed into a zombie, isn't hot anymore. A pretty girl is bitten by a zombie, falls asleep in the arms of Zombieland's nebbishy hero, and awakes as a thoroughly hideous flesh-eating monster. Even a zombified Zac Efron — I'm going to resist making the obvious joke here — would be too repulsive to fuck. Think of the gore, the viscera; think of the Axe body spray.
As for the morality of the situation, fucking zombies — the walking dead — is necrophilia, technically speaking, but practically speaking, it comes closer to bestiality. A human being who has been zombified is nothing but an animal, hungry for brains, incapable of thought much less consent. We can kill animals for their flesh, but we mustn't fuck them, HIZZIE; and we can kill zombies for wanting our flesh, but likewise we mustn't fuck them.
Q: Met a super-hot boy — straight! — at a bar. Nice, familiar with my work (I'm an artist), thinks I'm all great. Talked, kissed. Exchanged numbers. Made plans. For a date. Dinner. He tells me he's married but in an "open relationship." What do I do? Do open relationships really exist? —She Lusts Until Truth
A: Yes, SLUT, open relationships exist. But the only person who can confirm that this boy — straight! — is actually in one, SLUT, is his wife. Ask her. Before you kiss that boy some more. Or go. On. That. Date.
Q: I came up with an amazing word years ago, and I have been trying like hell to get it into the dictionary: procrasturbation. It means "to waste time by pleasuring yourself." I wrote Merriam-Webster back in 2004 — here is the response I got: "Your coinage is clever, but I'm afraid that cleverness is not the criterion on which a word is entered into our dictionaries. For 'procrasturbate' to be entered, it will need to appear in a number of well-read print sources for a good number of years. When we've collected enough citations for the word, we will enter it into our dictionary."
I was wondering if you could help me out with this one, Dan, by using "procrasturbate" in your column. —Organically Enters Dictionary
A: "Procrasturbate" is genius, OED, but appearing in my column isn't going to get it into the dictionary. "Santorum" has appeared in this space and other well-read print sources for years now, and it hasn't seeped into Merriam-Webster's yet. I call shenanigans.