I am a 26-year-old straight man interested in ball-busting. At a party, I met a lesbian who goes by "Buck." She's 20, dresses like a boy, and made it clear that she hates males and their anatomy. Before agreeing to play Truth or Dare, she specified that she would not "do anything" with a boy. My friend Kelly asked, "Would you punch a boy?"
"Where?" Buck asked.
Kelly knows about my fetish, so you can guess the "where" she had in mind. So a few minutes into the game, this beautiful butch lesbian punches me in the balls! Then she tries to get someone to dare her to do it again! Someone dares her to punch me in the balls again, and again, and she keeps talking to me, making sure I'm OK with this — and also making sure that I'm not enjoying it.
There's nothing I'd like more than to be abused by Buck again. But I don't think I can ask without freaking her out. If she hates boys and wants to hurt them, I'm a willing victim — but I've had years to come to terms with my odd fetish, and she hasn't.
Craves Ball-busting Tomboy
Assuming Buck is a butch dyke and not a retarded one, CBT, she knows damn well that you were getting off on her busting your balls. Would any man submit to being punched in the sack if it didn't turn him on? And the fact that Buck paused between punches to make sure you weren't enjoying it indicates to me that she strongly suspected you were. Otherwise, why seek your reassurance to the contrary again and again?
And she was enjoying it too, otherwise she wouldn't have egged people on to dare her to do it again. But clearly she needed some excuse that allowed her to engage in a technically nonsexual but highly charged, totally public erotic encounter with a man without risking her dyke cred. Which is why she extracted all those public and, no doubt, barely credible denials from you. ("Nope, hating this! Ow! Really! Do it again!")
So should you come clean and offer Buck your balls for more abuse? OF COURSE. Yes, you risk freaking her out — but if Buck is so naive as to believe that this was just an innocent game, then only a good freakout will prevent her from stumbling into nonconsensual sexual encounters with strange men in the future. ("Sure, I'll let you massage my feet/trim my pubes/drink my piss — but only if you're not enjoying it, OK?")
What have you got to lose? Buck hates males, so it's not like there's a friendship on the line. You risk nothing by coming clean and stand to gain regular ball-bustings. Go for it.
I'm writing about the advice you gave last week to PREG, the woman faced with the prospect of raising her baby alone. I agree with you, Dan: PREG's letter is a heartbreaker. You suggested a trip back in time: "Then nine-months-older-and-wiser PREG could order nine-months-younger-and-dumber PREG to have an abortion or, better yet, to not have sex with that unemployed asshole at all."
It's not that I object to either of those two options, it's just that there's a third option that you failed to mention. Why didn't you include "begin planning for an adoption" among PREG's options? Adoption is rarely discussed as a viable option for smart, capable, educated women who may not be in a position to raise children. The only people you ever hear talking about adoption are right-wing "anti-choice" ignoramuses!
Why do so many pro-choice advocates see abortion as the ONLY choice? When a woman today chooses adoption, she will find, as I did when I made that choice, an entire support network available to her every step of the way. It's not an easy choice, of course, but neither is abortion for many women. And women need to know that adoption today isn't the guilt-soaked affair that it once was. It doesn't have to end in heartbreak. It can end in the creation of a new family, with parents who have made a careful, conscious choice to create a home full of love and support.
I don't want to lecture; I know that your family has personal experience with adoption. I was just confused why you would fail to mention adoption. Surely adoption in PREG's case is as good, if not better, an option than traveling back in time and not having sex at all!
Happy, Healthy Birth Mom
Damn. I'm an idiot. After I wrote last week's column, I went home to my boyfriend and our son. Our son's birth mom's phone number is on our fridge; her picture is on our mantel.
Can the bias against adoption be so firmly entrenched that even an adoptive parent neglects to mention it as a viable choice? Sadly, yes. Which is why I'm glad you wrote. You've given me the chance to tell my female readers that, indeed, adoption is no longer the guilt-soaked affair it once was. Every sexually active woman today should be aware that she can place a child up for adoption with a family of her choosing and have lifelong, ongoing contact with her child. These adoptions are called "open adoptions," but here's hoping that one day they're known simply as "adoptions" because it's how all adoptions ought to be done.
You can read more about open adoption at www.openadopt.org, the website of Open Adoption and Family Services, the agency that pioneered open adoption. They also brought my son's two dads and his birth mom together. And we're still together, all four of us.
Thanks again, HHBM, for your letter and your choice.
Subscribe now to get the latest news delivered right to your inbox.