Savage Love Episode 309


I'm confused. This isn't on iTunes yet, but it's posted on the website... Do they usually go up at different times and I just never noticed?
Methinks that the Tech-Savvy-at-Risk-Youth need to fix something to make it show up in people's feeds.
The RSS usually appears some hours later. And if you're *really* eager, there's a workaround to download the podcast days before it even appears here. I hope I am not killing the golden-egg goose by mentioning this... have mercy, TSARY!
To the caller whose wife wants to lapse into monogamy once the kids come along: She's not worried that nonmonogamy will destabilize the relationship, Dan. She recognizes, as any reasonable person does, that every demand on a parent's time affects the kid, and that the fewer strange people wandering through the kid's living room, the better. That doesn't mean that nonmonogamous parents are inherently bad for a kid, but some kinds of nonmonogamy (maybe including the kind this couple practices) are just not gonna be that feasible with kids around, time-wise and kid-psyche-wise. If this woman recognizes that, Dan, she probably knows more about her own life than you do.
@Monarc: Shhh... ;)
I love the sassy irish lady. That was awesome.
Regarding kink vs. vanilla: Being a member of the kink community necessarily requires that one thinks one is better (or more evolved) than the vanilla community. Kink and vanilla aren't different flavors of the same thing. Kink is like the really spicy curry and vanilla is the mild curry. People who like spicy curry will always look at the mild curry people as sort of pussies. Likewise, mild curry people will look at spicy curry people as masochists.
On the non-monogamy and kids. It depends on what kind of non-monogamy. If you mean swinging, or having partners that are separate from the family; yes, that may be hard to have time for when the kids are little. But if you mean committed poly relationships, then those extra hands can be a huge help! Also, if these are committed relationships, is anyone helped by having to tell a loved one, "sorry, I won't be seeing you for the next 3-5 years?" That certainly won't help the other relationship to be stable, plus it sucks for the person who is put aside.

Your initial point, Dan, is really important. This needs to be worked out before they have kids. Not just between the two of them, but with anyone who might become a partner. I think even FWB should be told at the start that it will end when the couple has kids.

In any poly, you have to talk about all this stuff up front, because otherwise, we can all fall into assumptions about how it's going to work.
I think the woman who wants monogamy when they have kids is thinking her husband will be out having fun while she's stuck with the kids if they keep the open relationship.

As for the advice to listeners to try to make it through last weeks podcast to head Cindy's message, I thought it could be summarized as follows:

1. She has sex with much younger men.
2. She has a website.
3. Website can't get VC funding.
Excellent episode. The issue of sexual snobbery is a funny one, and worth exploring further.
I have a feeling we're going to get a lot more comments on these next few episodes because everyone made an account to complain about Cindy.
I LOVE that creepy pronunciation guy - please keep him around! Although I really wonder if Dan will ever come out of his denial that the "vague'n" way of saying "vegan" is even remotely acceptable...

@5: Hahaha - I hope it's not too late!
Hey Dan, I love you and Smitten Kitten a lot, but the giant penis in their ad makes listening to your podcast on headphones at work super risky/awkward. Just an FYI!
Dan introducing the new guest: "...and she'll speak very slowly, and she won't interrupt me." Nice way to acknowledge last week's comment fest, and thanks for reacting to the feedback!
To the woman who wants her ex to edit her sex tape. WHat kind of weird co-dependant shit is this!? "Oh he's the ONLY one who can edit my video and make it hot. I don't know what to do!" WTF? Go learn iMovie you dumb, lazy shit! Hire someone else. If a million people in a theater can watch you fuck, one editor can. Leave you poor ex alone and get a grip.
It's spelt vegan, why would you ever pronounce it 'vaygen'!??!
@Monarc- a workaround to download it days ahead of time? I'm intrigued. Pretty please, tell us how, I promise to stay quiet. ;-)
I'm a big fan of Dan, but I have to say that I think he is guilty of the (possibly unknowingly) sneering-at-vanilla syndrome. Even the advert for sex toys mentions they have everything from vanilla to kinky, however this vanilla gay guy (and partner) do not even own a sex toy. *gasp*. It's because we are vanilla and like it that way.
@Hoof: Hover your cursor over the "Download" button. Look at your browser's status bar (assuming you have the status bar set to be visible, which I think most people do). Note the URL. Note that the podcast is issued once a week...

I think that's probably enough of a clue for the curious. I'm hesitant to give more information here in this forum; Monarc and I have probably said too much already!
I heard last week's Podcast with Cindy Gallop, saw the comments on this site, and decided my opinion had been well represented. So I didn't bother registering and commenting. Now that I've heard Mr. Savage's request to give her a chance at the end of this episode, I must say this:

I listened (suffered through?) the entire podcast (#308) in my support of Cindy's mission. As a matter of fact, the Google search I did after listening yielded the same message delivered ad nauseum in at least 4 different media pieces, repeated the same way word-for-word each time.

I stand by my opinion that Cindy Gallop is a phony, self-absorbed, obnoxious person who should take it down a couple of notches if she's interested in convincing massive amounts of people to get behind her cause.

Yours in Peace and Agreeing to Disagree...Love ya, Dan!
I listened to last week's cast, Dan. I didn't have a problem with Cindy's voice, but upon checking out (NOT .com, .tv), I have to admit I was totally turned off by the terms she's going going here. Profit on videos coming in, profit on "rentals" which implies that you won't even be able to see the whole videos without paying. So, pay to share, and also pay to watch. For a limited period of time, even! I know she's said she's trying to make it a business to cover costs, but that is not social networking. That's profit mongering. If I wanted to submit a video (and I did, kind of, after hearing her talk about it) I don't want to pay $5 to have someone judge it and make sure it's "hot enough" to be put up. If you want to be able to accept 99% of submissions, why not just accept 100% of them and if there is any serious problem with some of the things, remove them - as with every working social media site. No social media site has attracted people by requiring their every contribution to be approved before being hosted. They require moderation, and fix things when someone inevitably breaks the rules.

I'll be waiting for someone to make a better version of Cindy's concept website, where submitting is free, and you can "buy" rather than just "rent" videos. If submitting is free and open, and the rules are enforced with sensible moderation, but not restrictive as they strongly appear to be there, you will have enough videos and enough people "renting" or "buying" them to cover your costs.

In short: I don't like your model, lady. But I do like the idea.
I call BS on Ms Gallop's excuse for her speech pattern. I too am half Chinese. I grew up in a predominately Chinese immigrant neighborhood. No one in my family nor anyone I knew in my community had her querks while trying to hold a conversation. Don't put it on the fact that you grew up with a Chinese mom as an excuse for your rude behavior. Perhaps it was an issue with YOUR mom Ms Gallop, not an issue with the way all Chinese people talk.
For the Christian man who wants to be a gay ally, try talking to the people at A lot of them are also coming from a conservative Christian perspective.

Also, I want to say again that I enjoyed Cindy Gallop's podcast and I am very thankful to Dan for letting me know about her. She's smart and intelligent and stands by her beliefs. And she's actually DOING something about what she believes in. So many people are content to sit back and say "folks should do something about that."
Oh, and for the boy who wants a cock sleeve... I agree you shouldn't cater to double standard insecurity. However, if you want to throw her a bone, so to speak, there are cock sleeves out there which don't look like body parts at all. May I suggest the Tenga Air Lite, which is designed to be very easy to clean, or the Cobra Libre, which vibrates. Both are body safe. And they look nothing like any body part she has, so she's less likely to be threatened.

I have on good authority that they feel great.
@mynameistaken, thank you for that wonderful insight. (fingers crossed that it will work)
@22--I felt the same way about this comment! (though I'm not Chinese). If it was meant to make me more sympathetic to Ms. Gallop, it had the opposite effect--"I feel embarrassed, but it was all my mom's fault"?? WTF kind of nonsense is that?
Can we please have fewer guests, please? Pretty please? Dan is fine by himself. Maybe a doctor or a professional dom once in a great while when enough specific questions build up, and the Sex at Dawn guy was OK. Most of them are boring and can't sustain as much time as they are given. Including Ira Glass. But seriously, Natter Lady is doing important, great work? No. She's a woman who speaks openly about porn in a way that agrees with Dan. That's all. And kink vs. vanilla is an issue? People with any kind of advanced interest in anything are snobs toward the Muggles. Knitting, cycling, cooking, table tennis, you name it! This is not guest-worthy, although at least this woman wasn't obviously insane. And Dan went far too easy on the gay marriage hater, but he kind of made up for it with the snooping friend call and the Fleshlight call.
I was happy to hear Tracy Clark-Flory point out what has been a minor irritation of mine for a while. Why must "kinksters" be so absurdly proud of themselves? If kinksters think of themselves as having divergent sexuality from the norm, why are they all into the same things? And why are there so damn many of them? And why are their kinks all basically the same old retread power-exchange trips? Dan, I love your show but do occasionally feel personally dismissed, either told my husband and I "don't exist" or are "unicorns" because we're happily monogamous for decades and neither of us particularly likes porn much. We like sex, a lot, with each other, in a dyadic romantic context rather than a power-exchange context. We try new things somewhat often, use toys, etc., but really, it's Tab A into Slot B that does it for us. Not that there's anything WRONG with THAT. Seriously.
Dan: thanks, I guess, for the reluctant half-assed non-apology regarding Cindy on the previous podcast, but you still don't (and apparently Cindy still doesn't) understand what the problem was:

It was NOT so much her rapid speaking style. No. It was the constant interruptions. It was the constant yipping and yepping when she deigned to let you get a few words in. It was her completely ADD personality, her rudeness, her inability to listen, her inability to be quiet, her egotism, and her disinterest in other people, that were the REAL problems.

You and Cindy characterizing the whole sum of the problem as being "awww, she talks too fast for those dumb-ass listeners" is fucking insulting and fucking inaccurate. Fuck you, Dan, and fuck Cindy fucking cunting Gallop.
@29: You mad, bro?
Interesting: I'm in favor of gay rights, but opposed to gay marriage for religious reasons. I'm not religious, and I think marriage is a fucked-up religious institution: I'm also opposed to straight marriage being written into law. (For the record, as long as we have to put up with marriage being written into law at all, I think any people who want to get married should be able to do so, and that includes more than two people.) I haven't listened yet, but that was my immediate thought reading the episode description.
TSARY, I get the following error when I try to use the Savage Love Android App:

Error 502 - Bad Request
The server could not resolve your request for uri:…

I have tried restarting my android, to no effect. Could someone please look into this? I really enjoy Dan's podcast.

Thanks very much,

David McKoskey
St. Paul, MN
Brosti, there is nothing wrong with vanilla. I respect people who are not into BDSM. But your assumptions that we are "all" into the same things is grossly ignorant. Not every D/s relationship involves sex. Not everyone who is in the scene is into S&M, I could go on but you get the point. As a collared (and "gasp") very happy Slave, I would never expect those who are not into this to understand the beauty and fulfillment of Power Exchange. I don't care what kind of sex people are having, as long as people are HAPPY, what I think doesn't matter. Frankly, I read Tracy's piece and she does make some good points, but thanks to SHIT like "50 Shades of Grey" the SAME BS stereotypes and myths about BDSM are being propagated.
re the open / poly relationships, and kids.... we definitely were less 'open' when there were small kids around. we were more careful about who came into the house, and while pregnant and breast-feeding i stopped sleeping with 'outsiders'.
on the other hand, they had 5 parent-type people, usually 3 living in... and i'm pretty sure (after a brief 2 parent period) that poly families are sooo much LESS stress and LESS tiring than the standard model. there is always someone to stop and listen to a toddler's problem, there is more opportunity for 1 on 1 time with another adult, and - as the bio mother - there was always someone to take the baby away and insist i got down-time, very important when you have post-natal ptsd, or are simply tired.....
i honestly think that raising kids in a poly family is more functional, more stable, and less exhausting. it's also good to know that the kids have a wider pool of family to draw on, for love, resources, and advice.
I was pretty upset when my husband bought a Flesh Light. I got over it, but I can explain what upset me: The website is pretty much porn (or it was then), and the products "molded" on porn star's vaginas and anuses was downright weird. My experience shopping for sex toys at adamandeve, babeland, etc had not prepared me for the experience. I actually wrote to the website to explain the way the website really has the potential to turn off wives/girlfriends. It sounds silly, and it kind of is, but messaging matters.

To clarify, I'm not anti-porn or anti-male-sex-toys (I think I'm one of's favorite customers, and its not all for me). But the Flesh Light website really turned me off and made me feel like an outsider. The whole thing should be redone to appeal to both men and women.
Alienated. That's the word I was looking for. The fleshlight website made me feel alienated -- from my own sexuality, and from my husband's sexuality. I don't feel that way often and it is distinctively uncomfortable.
I'm no advice columnist, Dan, but I'd like to offer you one unsolicited tip, if I may:

It's a bad idea to dismiss as the words of "haters" the thoughtful, well-founded, and widespread criticisms of a poorly chosen guest by the dedicated listeners who keep you in business, and then reducing those critiques to their most superficial element when acknowledging them.

The real shame of it for me—and I suspect many of the people who have gone out of their way to respond—is that porn may be the single most common issue facing couples under the age of 40 right now. I was really looking forward to getting some insight into it, and instead I got a guest whose force of personality, self-obsessiveness, and (given the appearance of her website) questionable competence overshadowed what may well have been a valuable and needed perspective.

I hope you'll make up for it by doing another episode dedicated to porn, and actually honoring the subject this time.

(And yes, I listened to all of the last one.)

Does Dan check the unregistered messages? I'm quoting it here because that's exactly how I felt about last episode:

"I'm no advice columnist, Dan, but I'd like to offer you one unsolicited tip, if I may:

It's a bad idea to dismiss as the words of "haters" the thoughtful, well-founded, and widespread criticisms of a poorly chosen guest by the dedicated listeners who keep you in business, and then reducing those critiques to their most superficial element when acknowledging them.

The real shame of it for me—and I suspect many of the people who have gone out of their way to respond—is that porn may be the single most common issue facing couples under the age of 40 right now. I was really looking forward to getting some insight into it, and instead I got a guest whose force of personality, self-obsessiveness, and (given the appearance of her website) questionable competence overshadowed what may well have been a valuable and needed perspective.

I hope you'll make up for it by doing another episode dedicated to porn, and actually honoring the subject this time.

(And yes, I listened to all of the last one.) "

In re sex toys, 35/36 has a real point and @24 seem to have a couple of nice suggestions.
@37, 38++. Dan, you evidently didn't read the comments on the last episode very closely. People _heard_ her message, they _visited_ her website. And they generally agreed with her message - I mean, for fuck's sake, they are *your listeners* - of _course_ they (generally) agreed with this message.

The problems are that (a) neither you nor Cindy seems to recognize that her ideas are not hugely original; and that (b) neither of you seem to recognize that she's doing a poor job communicating them, both on your show and online (where, again, there are a total of 10 very short pages of content on the dot-com website). As SexKitty said in the last thread, "she has had a (not particularly original) idea and then completely failed to execute it."
@Monarc: It worked!! woohoo
Welcome to the secret society, Hooff! We all need our own secret handshake now...
The response on the open marriage and kids thing was totally lame Dan. We haven't the slightest problem with that - the idea it would "upset" kids has no more legitimacy than the idea that having a gay couple as parents would. It's a prejudice, and an unfounded one.
Open letter to Fleshlight-phobic girlfriend -- Did you notice the two things hanging off the end of your boyfriend's arms? Yeah, those things called "hands?" He's been using those to pleasure himself instead of you doing it with him for as long as he has been getting erections. He's probably gotten really, really good at it, too. Are you threatened by his hands?
OMFG, DAN! Dan, Dan, Dan...

I'm so bursting to get this out that I paused the podcast and didn't even bother reading the messages above because you so hit a nerve.

If those on the sexual left--bisexuals, gays, poly-ies and kinksters--drive you crazy with their smug self-righteousness and judgment, OMFG, you should hang out sometime with the homebirthers/attachment theories/Breastfeeding Brigade types.

My baby is now 5 months old and I can tell you as a queer progressive breastfeeding mom that I wanted to fucking strangle these people with their fucking baby slings.

Still do, actually.

But apparently that wouldn't make me the best role model for my daughter.

"that the fewer strange people wandering through the kid's living room, the better."

No, sorry. Parents having friends (or even "friends-as-far-as-the-kids-are-concerned") is a *good* thing for kids. The kids see the parents having social relationships, and this teaches them how to behave socially too. Our children see nothing unusual about "strange people" wandering through our living room. Usually they see them more than once anyway. Which is more than I can say for some of the babysitters we hire.

Which brings me to question why people keep thinking that parents having boyfriends and girlfriends is a bad thing? Rarely do kids know that there's hanky panky going on behind closed doors until around the age of 9 or 10 anyway. And after that, what does it teach the kids? That different households have different rules, at worst.
I really appreciated Dan's measured answer the otherwise gay-friendly but opposed to marriage equality Christian guy. I needed an argument in language like that (paralleling the "sinfulness" of proposed gay marriage with the "sinfulness" of legal divorce) to use in the more conservative parts of my otherwise liberal social circles. Now I have a ready response at my disposal. Thanks!
I hightly doubt anyone is still reading the comments from this episode, but I just wanted to add..."boo hoo!!! Poor Vanilla sex people!!" Omg I have exactly this much sympathy for non-kinksters (I am holding my thumb and index finger like reeeally reeeally close together). Maybe this is a sensitive subject for me right now, because lately, as a woman who just turned 30, my already kinky, promiscuous behavior has peaked and gone a little off the charts, and while I'm not ashamed of any of the fun or the adventures I've been having, I often feel I have to dodge disgusted or perturbed looks from my friends. I feel I have to be closeted about the people I have sex with and the things we do. Sometimes I tell my friends what I think is a totally normal story and they treat me like I just told them the sluttiest, most shameful thing ever. So, while I understand that eye rolls from kinky, nonmonogamous people are obnoxious, the shoe is VERY much on the OTHER foot MOST of the time.
Enjoy your missionary, non-swallowing, sex adventures, Vanillas! We don't judge you, please stop shaming us.
I wholeheartedly agree with your response to the guy who wants to be a Gay ally, but doesn't support same-sex marriage, I have to say I think you left something out though. The same-sex marriage movement isn't asking to get married in this guys church, or any other church for that matter. That is an issue that's clearly up to each individual church. This country was founded on religious freedom (not on Christianity, as some assert) and churches have the right to marry or not marry at their will (i.e. Catholic churches only perform ceremonies for members of that faith, etc). I don't need to stand in some high-ceilinged cathedral to be wed to my partner of 16 years. I just need it on paper so I can enjoy the same rights (and responsibilities!) as others with a marriage license.
Thanks for everything you do, fine faggot!