Savage Love Podcast Comments


Comments (229) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment
Just listened to the podcast, and I just have to say that although I agreed with lots of things Cindy said, she HIJACKED YOUR FUCKING PODCAST DAN! She was just an explosion of "yup"s and noises every time you talked! I didn't even think of that as Savage Love. Still love you, but damn!
Posted by bassdude on September 18, 2012 at 6:05 AM · Report this
I was so NOT into this podcast. I thought Gallop's ranting to be completely self-involved and meandering. Her constant pushing of her websites and self-aggrandising made for a very difficult interview. I'm a loyal listener, but please reconsider who you have guest host!
Posted by berlingoodman on September 18, 2012 at 6:25 AM · Report this
I agree - she talked over you every time you tried to get a word in. It was painful to listen to.
Posted by jane_anna on September 18, 2012 at 6:50 AM · Report this
Gallop had good things to say, and I liked hearing her opinions. But I really hope she listens to that podcast and comes away with some improved interview skills. The constant "yeah yeah yeah"s and the inability to let anyone else speak was painful to listen to.
Posted by andersonville on September 18, 2012 at 6:50 AM · Report this
I didn't count the number of times she mentioned her websites but it must have been at least pushing fifty. Cindy managed to come across as incredibly pushy and self interested, to the point at which I wondered if she would be allowed to finish the episode. I want to echo the sentiment that this didn't sound like an episode of savage love but more a marketing platform for this woman.
Posted by iNerd on September 18, 2012 at 7:04 AM · Report this
I got 7 minutes into this podcast and had to turn it off. Cindy's constant interruptions and yipping noises while you're trying to speak made this episode absolutely 100% unlistenable.
Posted by ha2207 on September 18, 2012 at 7:34 AM · Report this
I'm kind of wondering if the lack of success of her website might have more to do with her own incompetence than with the intractability of any potential investors. I mean, there are tons of successful and informative sex-related websites out there. What exactly is it that she wants to DO with that she needs all that money? She never made that particularly clear.
Posted by dchari on September 18, 2012 at 7:39 AM · Report this
Went to and Odin save me that was horrible! It looks so bad it hurts and the design is worse than any school project made by a 12yo I've ever seen. I can't even describe how bad it is. I mean... it's impossibly bad.

Also I agree with everyone here, that podcast was dreadful, and if that had been me I wouldn't care that she's doing a good thing, I would have smacked her hard for being so obnoxious.
Posted by Friendstastegood on September 18, 2012 at 7:53 AM · Report this
Bravo for what Cindy is doing, but please, never again. She really doesn't have a radio voice. Put down the crack pipe and the coffee mug, slow down and listen to what your host has to say before stepping all over his words. Ouch.
Posted by Bring back Lucy but no more cindy on September 18, 2012 at 8:13 AM · Report this
I'm sorry to add to the peanut gallery, but I would be unable to listen to the duration of that podcast even if Gallop were revealing the secret to eternal life itself.
I haven't had to listen to that type of staccato monologue since I stopped hanging out with my friends who got into meth when I was twenty.
Posted by Peanut Gallery on September 18, 2012 at 8:50 AM · Report this
I've disliked Cindy Gallop since the first time I saw her TED talk. This podcast has actually been more bearable than a lot of other things I've heard from and read about her. The thing I really can't stand is her assumption that she is some magical protector of young women, that young women, as a group, can't or won't stand up for themselves. "I have to do this for every other woman he will sleep with," she says to Dan. It also completely discredits the natural process of sexual discovery for young men and young women. You should just try things because you and/or your partners wants to. If you don't like it, you should say something. Cindy Gallop has 30 plus years on her sexual partners. I think she needs to understand that they are in the beginning of their sexual journey. As a younger woman listening to Cindy Gallop, I feel like I will have to defend my more "traditional" preferences to partners until I am well out of my twenties, lest I be thought of one of the impressionable young girls Gallop is so worried about.

I will also echo that her website needs a serious redesign and perhaps a new name.
Posted by mzzd on September 18, 2012 at 8:56 AM · Report this
It is clear that there's no need for me to pile on here.
Posted by Pablo Picasso on September 18, 2012 at 8:57 AM · Report this
This was the first podcast that I could not finish. Her message is fine, but her presentation and inability to shut her mouth and listen was too much for me to bear.
Posted by Runamuck4209 on September 18, 2012 at 9:07 AM · Report this
Agree with all of the above - Cindy Gallop comes across as rude and completely unlistenable to. Come back when you've learned to obey basic rules of conversation, e.g:

#1 = don't start speaking until the other person has finished what they were saying.
Posted by lizardferret on September 18, 2012 at 9:27 AM · Report this
Ugh, this was like a 1-hour infomercial for a manic narcissist. Totally obnoxious, overbearing and self-serving.

Cindy Gallop's self-promotion could have been edited down to 10 minutes and then you might have taken time to LISTEN to the questions and respond to what people actually asked. (Like the woman who did in fact say she feels sexually neglected when her partner steps out to the shower or the bathroom.)
Posted by A faithful listener on September 18, 2012 at 9:32 AM · Report this
The only podcast I have ever had to turn off.
Big turn-off? People who are so in love with themselves that it is PHYSICALLY painful for them to let anyone else speak.
I wanted to gouge my eyeballs.
Posted by Cate on September 18, 2012 at 9:37 AM · Report this
I also agree with a lot of the comments. I liked a lot of what she had to to say, and normally, I love Dan's guest speakers... But she just couldn't stop talking and interrupting and couldn't maintain a fun and relaxed rapport. Not to mention that all the non-stop talking meant not enough questions.
Posted by Jamie in Pittsburgh on September 18, 2012 at 9:40 AM · Report this
I just saw Dan's tweet of support to Cindy ("ignore the haters!")... Really? Ugh. How EASY to dismiss UNANIMOUS criticism. Jesus!!!
And saying you loved your conversation?? YOU DID NOT HAVE A CONVERSATION. Conversations entail a back-and forth exchange. I suspect Cindy has never had a conversation in her life.
Posted by kat275 on September 18, 2012 at 9:47 AM · Report this
The only time I've ever shut off the podcast before it was over. This woman is extremely narcissistic and annoying. She needs to learn how to have a conversation with another human being. Did she do a Ted talk? She never mentioned it... *rolls eyes* Dan please never have her on again.
Posted by annoyed on September 18, 2012 at 10:11 AM · Report this
I don't think it's being a hater to attempt to give constructive criticism. Almost everyone agrees that Cindy has some valuable points. Her mission is sound. Everyone also agrees that she is difficult to listen to. Her passion is admirable, but her delivery could use a bit of improvement. She should breathe, not interrupt when another is speaking and slow down. Speaking too fast means you don't let your audience absorb the good points you're making. Cindy should take the feedback in the spirit in which it is given, kindly and without filter.
Posted by ImFromVT on September 18, 2012 at 10:13 AM · Report this
Had to turn the show off half an hour in. "yep! yep! yep!"
Posted by qwpron on September 18, 2012 at 10:14 AM · Report this
Cindy Gallup could not stand the sound of someone else's voice other than her own to the point that she kept yipping like a chihuahua until Dan had to take a breath and she could drive her motormouth over whatever he might have tried to say. This was not entertaining! Cindy is driven, aggressive, tediously self-promoting, utterly without humor and charm, and her message could have been delivered in 3 minutes, tops. Her voice sounds like a record played at the wrong speed or a tape being rewound with the sound on (okay I'm old and remember these things) and I found listening to her so annoying that I turned off the podcast. I don't care about her message, I never want to hear her little barking yips again.
Posted by Tee-hee on September 18, 2012 at 10:26 AM · Report this
@#12, Granted. Yet, I must say that ever time Cindy was doing that rapid-fire interjection thing, I started having an anxiety attack. I tried to listen through it to her message and found her entertaining in other ways - but at the same time...I don't know, I felt like tearing my ears off. It was goddamn, fucking brutal.
Posted by issa on September 18, 2012 at 10:27 AM · Report this
Hey- ya'll only had to listen to it once. I heard the whole thing maybe 5 times! And still I maintain that her ideas made it worthwhile. If she wants her project to be successful, she should hire a vocal coach and really work on her promotion. But hearing Dan go up against such a presence was pretty entertaining for me. I understand everyone's negative reactions though.
Posted by Nancy Hartunian on September 18, 2012 at 10:40 AM · Report this
batty 25
And she should get off Adderall.
Posted by batty on September 18, 2012 at 10:58 AM · Report this
Have to agree with everyone else. The only podcast I had to turn off and delete after listening for only a few minutes. What was "amazing" was how many times the guest mentioned her website in those few minutes.
Posted by WestSeven on September 18, 2012 at 11:04 AM · Report this
Posted by Superjivus on September 18, 2012 at 11:22 AM · Report this
Ha ha, I have never bothered commenting in my life, but came here to say the same thing. Great subject matter, but if Cindy wants to spread her message, she MUST learn how to carry a conversation, to listen to others like a proper adult.
Posted by eternal_moon on September 18, 2012 at 11:56 AM · Report this
@24--hey, a producer drop-by! Agreed that her ideas have merit. It's the hour-long platform that's difficult. But I'm sure there's a drinking game in here somewhere.
Posted by lulubelle on September 18, 2012 at 11:58 AM · Report this
a guest like this would be better for a shorter spot- like 10 minutes or so. i had to turn it off after half an hour
Posted by accordion to me on September 18, 2012 at 12:20 PM · Report this
I've never heard one of Dan's guests make him sound like a slow talker :) I like her message, but she needs to work on her delivery.
Posted by jane doe canada on September 18, 2012 at 12:27 PM · Report this
To echo the same sentiments as everyone else, I thought Cindy had great ideas and is clearly a highly intelligent, successful woman. However, her inability to let Dan talk made this podcast audibly unbearable. It was just so irritating.
Posted by mike18 on September 18, 2012 at 12:31 PM · Report this
Although Cindy might have some good points, her interview was really difficult to listen to. I agree with the other comments that she should listen to her interview and rethink her approach. I've listened to every single Savage Love podcast and this is the only one I had to turn off.
Posted by Skwirl on September 18, 2012 at 12:33 PM · Report this
ya! Dwolla!
Posted by m-rae on September 18, 2012 at 12:34 PM · Report this
The irony is that one of the guest's stated goals is the promotion of a true discussion. Discussion involves listening...

Big turn off!
Posted by slt_savagefan on September 18, 2012 at 12:51 PM · Report this
Same as many here . . . I've never commented, but needed to come here and echo sentiments. I'm not a hater . . . I would love to read a transcript (yips omitted) so that I can really get to the heart of what Cindy had to say. Like #23, it made me feel so anxious, hearing Dan constantly interrupted. I only made it 21 minutes! It's a shame, really. I'm always SO looking forward to Dan Savage Tuesdays.
Posted by bigirlyyc on September 18, 2012 at 12:57 PM · Report this
Never commented before, but have to chime in and let you know that although I was very interested in hearing her ideas, her constant interruptions and her overall speaking style made this podcast tremendously hard to listen to.

Also, I think that she didn't adequately address some of the challenges that you were posing to her about her position.
Posted by ThirteenShades on September 18, 2012 at 1:01 PM · Report this
I've listened to every SL so far, and I did finish this one... But it was a struggle. Count me in the "thought she had some good things to say but couldn't stand to hear her say them" crowd. By the end of the podcast I was cursing at my computer every time she would bulldoze over Dan.
Posted by FoxholeAtheist on September 18, 2012 at 1:19 PM · Report this
This is just a stealth anti-porn argument.
Posted by Vulcan on September 18, 2012 at 1:30 PM · Report this
I think Dan was just as bad about interrupting...I kept wishing you would both let each other finish your thought before the other one began to speak. Overall, though, great information.
Posted by gabsloan on September 18, 2012 at 1:34 PM · Report this
Man, if I *yep* heard *mmm* one more *yep* Web 2.0 social media *yep* buzzword I was *mmm* going to smash *yep* my cell phone *mmm* and its "platform for social currency" against *yep* the wall. *absolutely*

I totally understand that she was treating this as another interview where she is free to bring everything back to what she is plugging, and where she is supposed to dominate conversation since the interviewer is just there to ask questions. But her nonstop talking after the last caller where Dan just wanted to say go get therapy was the last straw. But keeping her on for the advice seemed like a bad plan.

Dan, I also would have liked to have you address how starring in a pornographic movie is sometimes a scarlet letter that forever scars your chances to do some things (i.e. teachers fired after porn of them is found), and how her site hopes to change/counter that high bar to entry. But, maybe you tried and you couldn't get a word in edgewise.
Posted by 44problems on September 18, 2012 at 1:45 PM · Report this
Chiming in to agree... The self promotion should be dropped-even around 50mins when she's turning a question into I I I would never start my own porn company because I I I the great yipper can't fucking mask my arrogance worth a god fucking damn as I tell you my personal merits over and god freaking damnit over again...

I did listen to it all. EVEN AFTER she'd answer a question, BOOM THE minute Dan started to talk she got into Tourette's tic mode with her tic happening to have a bonus stutter. I listened to it all but she's awful to endure and I had to take a freaking Zofran. Give her some weed. Even second hand "gotta take my meds hope you don't mind" pot smoke would really make her more human-paced or at least halfway interesting-in that goofy high silly way-in her shameless endless grandiosity.

Dan Savage's ego has NEVER sounded so bloody meek as this hour.

You need this to be the "for a really intensely site focused extra half hour most hate here's the original cut" link to download with a highly edited-down version that GETS TO THE QUESTIONS in a timely manner. Still love Dan&the TSARY to bits but please are you even able-assuming there are separate vocal feeds(there clearly should be) for each person, mute her yipyiyiyips and shshshsures when we'd LOVE to hear Dan? I did endure and we REALLY didn't need the SAME DAMN STUFF SAID 12x. That's what rewind is for in case we SOMEHOW didn't catch that site or hear her executive background-number of years clearly something she devotes some Anna Wintour level pride to-we don't give a rat's ass about. Seriously, feedback WAS civil and she got butthurt so maybe she'll only listen to people as abrasive, brash, all-knowing, and passive-aggressively condescending as her-and long-winded too since comments being concise wouldn't fit her at all. She needs to MAKE EVERY WORD COUNT and cut out her resume pumping and marketeering shenanigan. SO LITTLE of her time was RELEVANT and useful or even connective and cool-it demeans the listener to talk down like we're all lost souls. We're Savage listeners for crying out loud. We do fall on the right side of the curve (or every sexy curve as it may happen)... Plus she dared interrupt the story of camera angle porn boyfriend which I wanted more detail regarding. THAT is what we feast on :) okay rant over... Great project and all but WE GOT IT THE 1ST TIME (and recordings are repeat-enabled for those who desperately want that posh self indulged voice for more hours than this migraine inducing one).
Posted by Got it Great Yipper-sit, stay, BE SILENT! Good Cindy! on September 18, 2012 at 1:50 PM · Report this
Well, this was the first time I have ever stopped mid-podcast. On the plus side, I now know that if I do, indeed, go to hell for my support of gay rights it will just be a room where I have to listen to yupyupyupyyayayaya Cindy Gallup talking about her website for all eternity.
Posted by 9 on September 18, 2012 at 2:00 PM · Report this
I'm still listening to the podcast right now, and she is majorly winding me up. I wish this wasn't the case - I think that what she is actually DOING sounds great. But all I'm hearing now is 'Yip, Yip Yip, that's precisely what I'm saying, I freely admit that I sleep with LOTS of younger men, yip, yip, absolutely, I love hardcore porn, and I'm the ONLY person in the whole world who stands up and says that and I freely admit that, you know, I'm older and more confident and so liberated yip yip go to my website'.
Posted by spannerpuss on September 18, 2012 at 2:05 PM · Report this
I hate to comment for the first time and be critical but that was painful to listen to. I am very interested in the premise but was totally put off by the lecturing tone of it. I don't think the answer to a culture's imbalance with pornography is someone's dogma.

Personally I am not into regular use of porn, I think my inner dialogue/movie is way more varied, interesting, specific to me and has angles no camera can ever achieve. So why you'd sneak your laptop into the bathroom under a towel is completely beyond me, it kinda sucks to be so reliant on it that you can't even have a stealth wank! That is a problem in my book, and people should be wary of becoming reliant on porn for masturbation.

I hope the initiative survives it's maker, there should be more than a few voices in porn like there should be more voices in mainstream media.
Posted by thathurtandnotinagoodway on September 18, 2012 at 2:06 PM · Report this
This woman is so fucking annoying! I'm British and even I found her accent intolerable. Please Dan, be more careful about the guests you have on your show. This woman clearly used you to push her own agenda.
Posted by emnesia on September 18, 2012 at 2:16 PM · Report this
Wow, we finally found someone more annoying than Navi.

/random geek joke drive-by
Posted by Hey! Listen! on September 18, 2012 at 2:18 PM · Report this
chibby 48
I agree with most here:She's doing a great thing,but has to work on her delivery a bit.BUT,it was kinda nice to hear someone else doing this to Dan for a change,lol.(I love you Dan,please don't hate me for pointing out that you interrupt guests quite often). What a wonderful cause though!
Posted by chibby on September 18, 2012 at 2:28 PM · Report this
chibby 49
Also,waiting for you other commentors to post links to your podcasts so we can dissect your verbal idiosyncrasies,Annnnnnnd waiting.....
Posted by chibby on September 18, 2012 at 2:31 PM · Report this
chibby 50
FREE podcast,I might add.
Posted by chibby on September 18, 2012 at 2:42 PM · Report this
I have to confess I'm a bit floored by the comments thus far. Granted, Cindy's delivery rubbed me the wrong way a bit, particularly at first. Nonetheless, I found enough of what she had to say SO INCREDIBLY REFRESHING that I quickly became acclimated to the way she said it. (I actually listened to the show twice through!) So although it seems I'm in the minority here, for me the vessel was thoroughly outweighed by its contents. Would love it if Cindy came back for a follow-up. (Honestly!)
Posted by Limbo on September 18, 2012 at 3:11 PM · Report this
It is odd that Savage is labeling his audience "haters" simply for offering constructive criticism. It isn't helpful to her to ignore the feedback here, she needs to take it in stride and learn. I like Gallop's ideas and topics very much. It would be beneficial for her to listen to this podcast and read the comments to learn how to do a good interview. I didn't dislike her, but I could not make it further than a few minutes into the podcast because it was so painful to listen to. I would still like very much to hear her thoughts and opinions, so I actually hope she practices her speaking skills and tries again soon.
Posted by little_kitten on September 18, 2012 at 3:28 PM · Report this
ScienceNerd 53
I'm sorry... but Cindy's way of talking is making me dig my eyes out with my pen. She completely interrupts Dan ALL THE TIME, she talks super fast in a squeaky voice, and makes a bunch of filler noises. The accent was cute for about 3 seconds. I'm about to fast forward...
Posted by ScienceNerd on September 18, 2012 at 3:30 PM · Report this
ScienceNerd 54
Ok, I gave up. First Savage Love podcast in years that I didn't listen to.
Posted by ScienceNerd on September 18, 2012 at 3:35 PM · Report this
ScienceNerd 55
I just scanned the comments above and see that nearly every post is about her delivery rather than her message. I agree with @52, Cindy needs to take the critisism to heart and learn to give a better interview. I would like to learn more, since Dan found the topic worthy of an entire hour, but I really couldn't make it past five minutes.

Sorry about the multiple posts.
Posted by ScienceNerd on September 18, 2012 at 3:39 PM · Report this
Initially, I was excited when I saw this episode was over an hour long, but yikes, I wish it had been edited down to 20 minutes -- or less. I listened to it in rush hour traffic this morning, and managed to make it through the whole thing, but it was pretty excruciating.
Posted by trow125 on September 18, 2012 at 3:47 PM · Report this
BOoooorrrriiinnnggg Ugh. Like listening to a lecture from your dirty and patronizing British aunt for an hour (not that I have one but still). oooh poor little girls aren't being fucked with enough sensitivity why doesn't somebody call Bono and put together a benefit concert. I made it through about 15 minutes and then realized that we were never going to get to the part where Dan rants about politics or weighs in acerbically on people's salacious stories.
Posted by maxistmax on September 18, 2012 at 4:20 PM · Report this
I'm trying to give Cindy the benefit of the doubt here, as I do like the idea behind her website. Perhaps she was nervous. But the constant interruptions wore me down much like it did most of these other commenters, and I opted to abandon the podcast. It was that or throw my iPhone onto the subway tracks.

Cindy, if you are reading this, it's not so much a matter of "rapid speech," as you tweeted. It's the apparent inability to let the interviewer finish an observation or question. And the verbal interjections have got to go too. It makes for a very tense listening experience and turns people away from what you have to say. Please, in future interviews, *listen* to the questions fully and THEN answer them. You'll get a whole lot more listener goodwill in exchange.
Posted by apollonia666 on September 18, 2012 at 4:24 PM · Report this
I appreciate what the guest, Cindy Gallup, is trying to do in regards to how our society talks about sex. I truly hope that she is successful in her endeavor. My main critique about this week's podcast is that Ms. Gallop more or less got her point across about her project in the first 20 minutes. The next 50 minutes should have been devoted to Dan and Cindy actually answering questions from listeners. I actually expect Dan and Cindy to answer questions relating porn, sex and relationships. I think this format would have been a better way to show exactly how Cindy's project would address some of the questions and concerns that people regularly confront in their daily life. When bringing on guests to the Savage Love podcast Dan should maintain the Q&A format because that is what has made Savage Love so enjoyable to listen to. I hope Dan keeps this in mind with any future guests.
Posted by Buffy on September 18, 2012 at 4:41 PM · Report this
I don't understand how this podcast happened. Seriously. I do not believe that the TSARY and Dan are that naive. They knew (they had to) that everyone would hate this show; that most people would turn it off within minutes; that it is categorically unlistenable, and that Cindy Gallop is an insufferable egocentric hypersensitive maniac. (Presumably they did not know these things when they had the brilliant idea of having her on (ahem, having her *hijack*) the podcast. But certainly within a minute of recording Dan must have figured it out...) So... why post this? Is it because they felt like it would be rude to not end up posting this podcast because Cindy let Dan into her uber fancy NYC apartment to record it? LAME.
The show sucked. Don't tell us any different, it won't work... we were "there"... shudder
Posted by iwantthathourofmylifeback on September 18, 2012 at 4:45 PM · Report this
I like the idea of reevaluating porn at this day and age because indeed, we've never had access to it so easily and so early, and at such large amounts.

That said, wow. Lady. Slow it down. Drink some tea. Your site is so obvious; what's your next one, don'

It's good to have open communication about sex, and sex education. That's a whole different story from opening up everyone's lives to that extent. We don't share every single aspect of our lives, do we? I mean, there are still some things which are ours, right?

I'm much more curious about Dan's take on scientific things such as what the site proposes (they say our brains aren't ready for the influx of porn we receive and we're all turning into dopamine junkies who can't have sex with humans anymore).
Posted by nandorocker on September 18, 2012 at 4:57 PM · Report this
It's really not just her interruptions and mannerisms; it's her narcissism. It's all about her. Every answer to every question is her, her, her. Until the final third or so she doesn't even hear what she's "yepping."

Please don't do this again, Dan and TSARY.
Posted by Alec on September 18, 2012 at 5:00 PM · Report this
She stirs in me conflicting emotions.

She makes good points on porn. I find her aggression attractive. Her energy is wonderful and she has a lust for life.

And then she is also terrifying.

Her zeal for marketing is both crass and sadly inept. Is it really the sign of an expert marketer to illicit so many "haters" ? Has no one offered her help with her site or has she failed in diplomacy?

You guys all like her so much I thought you might like one of her other talks where advocates giving up her privacy and managing our selves like corporations.

" The private life is dead..."
Posted by a fan on September 18, 2012 at 5:14 PM · Report this
Dan, your analysis of why some straight chicks dislike gay porn was fucking ridiculous. Clearly an interpretation made by a total cock-obsessed homo. Straight chicks are threatened because gay sex shows that women are not needed in the sex act because men already have a hole? Really? Yeah, a shit-lined, dry asshole on a sweaty dude is a real "threat" to us. Boy, we're just soooOOOoooo worried that our straight dudes are going to be lining up for that hairy man asshole instead of our pussies. That's why we're not turned on. Yeah. Can you take your cock goggles off for once? Please?

There are many straight chicks that are simply grossed out by feminized, submissive men. It's a buzz kill. This is your personal turn-on which is why you can't see it.
Posted by Confluence on September 18, 2012 at 6:00 PM · Report this
I'm only thirty minutes in and it's like watching paint dry while having your cranium pounded by a dozen monkeys with ballpeen hammers. Porn is idealized male fantasy with little connection to reality? Wow, that's an original idea! Maybe the reason no one else is talking about it is because it's PAINFULLY OBVIOUS TO EVERYONE ELSE!
Posted by marmer on September 18, 2012 at 6:16 PM · Report this
Dan I love your podcast but this is the first time I've felt the need to come to this site and leave a comment. This episode was excruciating! The yipping and yupping was insufferable and the self-promotion was totally overboard. The only entertainment value for me was when I started saying "HEAD ON! APPLY DIRECTLY TO THE FOREHEAD!" every fucking time I heard her say "makelovenotporndotcom".
Posted by mowog on September 18, 2012 at 6:31 PM · Report this
Posted by rhear on September 18, 2012 at 6:51 PM · Report this
Gallop said 92 too many times. I get it. You have a website. And this message seems quite nice, but can we say overkill?

Gallop should also consider a new social challenge:…. Does this woman ever take a fucking breath? Does she ever let anyone talk?
Posted by Jamisizzle on September 18, 2012 at 7:47 PM · Report this
To everyone who commented here on Cindy Gallop's speaking skills and lack of politeness - you are correct - she is annoying, but you missed the bigger fucking point.

I'm not surprised though - it's easier to point out what's wrong with how someone speaks rather than give actual attention to their message...

Dan himself isn't the perfect broadcaster, but it SHOULD NOT detract from the message(s) shared every week on this podcast of self-awareness, self-respect and mutual respect with those who you are involved with sexually and/or emotionally.

Cindy's message is the same - regardless of how bad she conveys it.
Posted by tREBLEFREE on September 18, 2012 at 8:08 PM · Report this
I disagree #69, Cindy exhibited no self-awareness, nor any respect to Dan or the callers. She needs to grow up and learn some manners. She might be all for the "human empowerment and woohoo-respect" intellectually, but it's difficult to imagine that her narcissism makes room for that in practice, as evidence by how physically painful she seemed to find it to listen to another human being speak. She can't handle the basics. She is 52 but has not grasped social skills that are hammered in during kindergarten. Her behavior was inappropriate and embarrassing.

I don't need to take intricate relationship advice from someone who isn't capable of having a basic conversation. The idea is laughable. Preaching about sexual relationships which are fundamentally ALL ABOUT the "give and take" when you can't manage the most elementary version of that (a simple conversation)...

Her message is not the same as Dan's. It was just self- aggrandizing dribble.
Posted by Worst Lovecast Everrrrr on September 18, 2012 at 8:39 PM · Report this
I agree that mainstream porn tends to create unrealistic expectations. Even though this is a strong premise, it does not give someone power to proclaim this or other set of products or experiences as more authentic than others. The mention of "everyday people" in the context was also unsettling. She needs to polish her marketing strategy.
Posted by meherenow on September 18, 2012 at 10:32 PM · Report this
Like many others, this is the first time I have felt compelled to comment on a podcast. Apart from her inability to keep still when Dan was talking, I found her advice to the girl whose boyfriend keeps sneaking off to masturbate a bit weird. I've been living with my boyfriend for almost four years now. We both watch porn separately, and we both masturbate separately (as well as together). But we would never do either of those things while the other is home. It just seems a bit rude. "Oh, I'm horny but I don't want to get off with YOU." If I want to jerk off I'll wait til he's not home, and he does the same. And the caller doesn't even live with her boyfriend, so he should have plenty of opportunities to love himself when she's not around.

Also it took Ms. Gallop five billion years to get around to actually focusing on any question she was presented with. EVERY time a question was played, she immediately went off on some tangent that linked back to herself or her website. I thought it was ironic that she talked about dialogue and listening to the other person when she seemed incapable of listening to anyone other than herself.
Posted by bintymonkey on September 18, 2012 at 10:34 PM · Report this
Worst. Podcast. Ever.

Seriously, Dan, you are doing Cindy Gallop no favors by telling her to 'ignore the haters.'

She BADLY needs to improve her listening skills, to stop constantly interrupting, and to stop trying so very hard to always make EVERYTHING about herself, her theories, and her goddamned website.

Ms. Gallop: we get it. You're frightfully clever. Now grow the fuck up and calm the fuck down, because your insufferable need to keep proving how frightfully clever you are results in conversational habits that are repeatedly and insanely rude, egotistical, and childish.

She's like a fucking toddler: ME ME ME ME. And MORE ME!

Worst. Podcast. Ever.

Posted by Functional Atheist on September 19, 2012 at 12:17 AM · Report this
I'm sorry, Dan and Cindy, but that was intolerable to listen to.
Posted by brendan on September 19, 2012 at 1:31 AM · Report this
Agreed with the common sentiments, esp. @41's comment, which I thought was a big issue that was not addressed.

Anyways, Dan, I wish you would really stop fucking up trans stuff.

Shemale (and for that matter, tranny) are not neutral words. Ask any trans woman what it feels like to be called that. Look at the hashtags for tranny and shemale on twitter to get some idea of the kind of hate associated with those words.

I'm glad you feel so strongly for the straight cis dudes that have the utter misfortune to be attracted to us. It must be so damn hard for them. Maybe, just maybe, it is really extra shitty for trans women too?

Look, it's not that hard to be a decent trans ally. I'm sure you have a backlog of trans calls. Get some trans guests (e.g. Janet Mock, Ryan Cassata) to field them and have a real dialogue.

Posted by charredlot on September 19, 2012 at 3:24 AM · Report this
Hey Dan, I'm truly and sincerely not a "hater", I have been an avid reader of your column and listener of your podcast for years! However, like most everyone else commenting here, this is the first time I have actually had to turn off the podcast. Also like most everyone commenting I don't think we mean this in a malicious way, it's just that Cindy needs some serious work on her mannerisms and interview skills. It would be doing her a favor to let her know that.
Posted by Onwyn on September 19, 2012 at 4:31 AM · Report this
Dan, you are a sadistic bastard. I still love you.
Posted by Daniel fan on September 19, 2012 at 4:46 AM · Report this
This week's podcast was a bit offbeat, but calling it intolerable may be an exaggeration... I'm guessing that there was a bit too much exuberant enthusiasm on Cindy's part for some, but she was, after all, featured on the podcast of the ever gracious and awesome Dan Savage! Who wouldn't be psyched?
Posted by staringatthesun on September 19, 2012 at 4:53 AM · Report this
loved the message, hated the sound. my goodness, she sounded like a yipping dog. my ears hurt.
Posted by meg1234 on September 19, 2012 at 5:05 AM · Report this
I think Cindy needs some help selecting her partners, my experience with men has been completely the opposite to hers - they're ALWAYS more interested in me coming than I am.
Posted by Fenn on September 19, 2012 at 5:39 AM · Report this
I'm turning it off. This woman is driving me crazy and needs to work on her listening skills. Please, NEVER have her on again!
Posted by ainmontana on September 19, 2012 at 8:24 AM · Report this
Very hard to listen to, as she is constantly interrupting and never relaxed. She is very articulate but needs to learn how to talk and listen. She has great ideas, but I had to stop listening as she was unsufferable. This is the first time I had to do this with your podcast. She should take the advice everyone here is giving her: learn to speak better, to be a better advocate of your ideas. And I am not a hater. I love the show, I thought some of her ideas were excellent, but it is almost impossible to listen to.
Posted by XRodriguez on September 19, 2012 at 8:26 AM · Report this
I'm honestly stunned by all the negative reactions here, and by the unrelenting focus on Cindy's (but not Dan's) speech habits. I've had difficulty with other guests (and with Dan!) in the past because of similar issues, but that wasn't the case for me here - I LOVED this podcast. I got acclimated to both parties' mannerisms quickly because of the sheer brilliance of the discussion. Cindy and Dan were obviously both very enthusiastic about the topic, which was why they could hardly hold back their interruptive comments. I thought it was an energetic, productive interview.

Dan sounded surprised when she said gay porn is more likely to include affectionate and intimate gestures than straight porn, but she's totally right! (Obviously he wasn't lying when he said he's not a frequent porn watcher.) This is one reason gay porn appeals to me (I'm a bi woman). As Dan said, a lot of straight porn is contemptuous or even hostile toward the female actor; if there's "kissing," it tends to be a lot of grimacing and tongue-fencing rather than actual kissing. In a lot of gay porn, the actors actually make out and grope each other with passion, and it's a big turn-on. I wish more straight porn incorporated that element.
Posted by Skipper Jo on September 19, 2012 at 8:47 AM · Report this
I am happy to know she out there trying to improve sex education. As a 47 yo woman, I am inspired by her (much repeated) sleeping with younger men, go her. Please do not have her back to give advice! She missed key points of the questions and viewed it all through her own filters, making her advice unhelpful at best and a non sequitur at worst.
Posted by lizvocal on September 19, 2012 at 9:27 AM · Report this
So here's something that bugged me: is a terrible name for her site. She only touched on this briefly, but apparently Dan's reaction (that it must be part of an anti-porn crusade) is a common one.

It's also a perfectly sensible one, and would have been my reaction in any other context. The admonition to not make porn is right there in the name! If you're pro-porn, you're not liable to visit the site. And if you're anti-porn and you visit the site, you're not going to appreciate the site's actual perspective.

So in the name of our feathery savior Quetzalcoatl, why is she still using that name? Yes, it's very pithy. It's also completely misleading, and works against the site's purpose. Very early on she should have turned into a simple forward to Instead, she's doubled down with the .tv version.

I agree that a conversation about the difference between sex and porn that doesn't disparage either would be valuable. This site is not that conversation. It's a set of pithy factoids, presented in a rigid sequence with cutesy illustrations but lacking both context and depth. There's no insight, no community, no discussion. It's like an oversized Wikipedia stub.

(And I have to side with the haters on her vocal delivery; her constant Chihuahua chirps were annoying and rude, and made the podcast very difficult to listen to.)

Weak, weak guest, Dan, maybe the worst you've had, peddling a well-intentioned but deeply flawed product. Please don't invite her back.

(Conversely, what's Ira Glass doing? You still have his number, yes?)
Posted by Gentleman Horndog on September 19, 2012 at 10:05 AM · Report this
@75. Jesus fucking christ. Dan aside, the issue is not that you're trans, it's that you're WAY too fucking sensitive. Get over yourselves. You ARE "Shemales", goddamnit. That's what you fucking are. You're girls with dicks and tits: That's a shemale if there ever was one.
I hope that none of you encounter any sort of backlash for the way that you are as human beings - not possible, I know - but you quack like a shemale duck. It's an apt term. If I were like you, I may take issue with the label too - maybe even be militant about it, but I'm not - and as an observer, you girls are WAY TOO MOTHERFUCKING SENSITIVE. If somebody refers to you in a certain manner, without any prejudice intended, then don't fucking attack them - because then you become the aggressor - I'm sure you understand aggression. Don't be that.
Posted by issa on September 19, 2012 at 10:13 AM · Report this
AND @75 - while we're at it - "Tranny" is a contraction. It's shorthand for "Transgender", which you are. If "Irish" had three syllables, there would be a contraction for it. That is human laziness. In lieu of that, what can we call you? What is the proper term? Female? Woman? Girl? You may be, but there is a caveat. There must be a distinction in general terms. Those three words are fine in person, but what is the proper descriptive? Transgender? Is that the only word? How about, "People Who Are Frightfully Easy To Offend No Matter How Accurately You Describe Them, or PWAFETONMHAYDT"?
Posted by issa on September 19, 2012 at 10:34 AM · Report this
Do the world a favor, invite her back but this time include a very hungry tiger. Yes, she was aurally annoying, narcissistic, didn't listen, and self important, but she was a porn positive vagina haver (can't say woman -- not PC) so that was good.

You totally missed the question from the girl who wanted her boyfriend to ask for alone time to masturbate. He was supposed to clear his masturbation sessions with her! ASK PERMISSION!? Bitch crazy! You both talked about the masturbation, when the issue she wanted discussed was that he should ask her first. Cindy made you lose focus Dan.

Posted by MKing1961 on September 19, 2012 at 10:51 AM · Report this
I enjoyed Cindy. I enjoyed her enthusiasm. I enjoyed her energy. I enjoyed how frank and open and outrageous she was. I like how she and Dan interacted. This was a fun podcast. I think it would be fun to revisit her in the future when her new site is up and running and fully functional to see how it works out compared to her vision of it.

The hyperbole being flung about through these comments is astonishing. Gouging out eyes and cutting off ears... really? Cindy is an unlistenable, narcissistic yipping dog? How about just this once, we let Dan try to introduce us to something new....Let the creator of that new thing discuss it and how it came to be ... and the hurdles she had to jump through to make it ... and just enjoy the show. It was fascinating to me to hear how hard it was to get funding for the site. How absolutely sex-negative the business world still is.

Maybe, just this once, we let the show be about someone else for a change. And before we gripe about how it's all about her and not about me and OMG she's a narcissistic toddler... well, who is being narcissistic at that point, really?
Posted by A fan of the show on September 19, 2012 at 10:56 AM · Report this
Well, she got a lot of people talking about her here. I'd say that, from a marketing perspective, her mission was a success. No wonder she lives in such a fabulous apartment...
Posted by mynameistaken on September 19, 2012 at 10:58 AM · Report this
Everyone here is right - so over the top, so rude, so spazzy. Good God, how the hell is she so rich???? How is she nailing all these young guys???? Are they all too young to tell her to shut the fuck up. Worst cohost ever! Bring back Lucy, she was fun.
Posted by cdngrrl on September 19, 2012 at 11:30 AM · Report this
I listen to the podcast every week and have never come to leave a comment, but I just had to this time. I guess everyone else beat me to it though! I almost shut it off so many times and I probably would have if it wasn't the only thing I uploaded to my phone before a long drive for my job. I really enjoyed what Cindy had to say. It's clear she's put a lot of thought into what she is doing and is excited to share it, but the constant interrupting and not even letting Dan finish a question before answering was driving me insane. I think she'd be a great guest to have back again sometime if she refrains from doing this. At times it seemed like she was more interested in giving a lecture than having a conversation with Dan.
Posted by LBurt on September 19, 2012 at 1:32 PM · Report this
You know what really sucks? Her website and what she is pushing is EXTREMELY appealing to me. But Gallop's rudeness and self-centered attitude make me never want anything to do with anything she's a part of. I've been a loyal listener (yup!) from day one (yup yup!), and this is the only episode (yup!) in which I (yup!) nearly (yup!) turned it (YUP!) off NOW LET ME INTERRUPT FOR FIVE MINUTES!

Jeesh. Love ya, Dan, but YIKES.
Posted by ChicagoListener on September 19, 2012 at 2:43 PM · Report this
Obviously just adding to the gallery at this point, but I was so disappointed with this podcast that I feel I gotta speak my mind. Cindy's work is amazing, it really is. I think she's doing a great service for the sex positive community, and I think her work will be well-received. I am very excited about her .tv site myself. However, her interviewing skills do need a lot of work. It was hard for me to make it through the entire podcast, I actually had to take a few breaks in order to not ragequit the entire thing. Constant interruptions, "no, no, nope" and "yup, yeah, yup" was the worst. If I were ever to have a real-life conversation with someone like that, I'd find myself walking away.
Posted by E. Briggs on September 19, 2012 at 2:44 PM · Report this
Mattini 95
I agreed with the message, but the messenger was unbearable. Please vet your guests better in the future Dan, or give them a few tips on what works for an audio broadcast.
Posted by Mattini on September 19, 2012 at 2:47 PM · Report this
haha, add me to the list of people who listen every week and have never thought to comment in the past... sounds like what Cindy is doing is fantastic, and I'm sure she's good at her "regular" job, but she is horrendous to listen to. Please do not have her back on the pod again.
Posted by vinnybagodet on September 19, 2012 at 3:00 PM · Report this
I completely agree with Cindy's message. I have listened to every single podcast and I have to say she has irritated me more than anybody you have ever had as a guest. In fact, none of your guests have ever irritated me. She was unbearable. I cannot imagine having a conversation with a person like this. I love you Dan and love what you do so I have to admit I feel guilty because this is the only time I have left a comment but she is so bad!
Posted by ura on September 19, 2012 at 3:11 PM · Report this
Wow, I wonder if Dan had interviewed a man, would there be so many comments about "chihuahua yips" "narcissism" and interrupting. I do agree that Gallup should work on her interview skills, but...

Anyway, as a young person who was turned off from sex entirely for many years due to dissatisfaction with the usual "script" expected by prospective partners, this is a hugely important idea.
Posted by UtterEast on September 19, 2012 at 3:49 PM · Report this
I was so excited when I saw "This one is long, and amazing."
Sorry Dan, I love ya, but you had the latter part completely wrong.

Wakka, wakka, wakka, you've heard it all, just please... never again!
Posted by Embo on September 19, 2012 at 4:45 PM · Report this
For what it's worth, this is literally the only Savage Love podcast I've stopped listening to part of the way through. And that's out of all of 'em.
Posted by agreeing_with_everyone_above on September 19, 2012 at 6:31 PM · Report this
Same deal as everyone else - I've never commented, but came here specifically to see if everyone else found this episode as impossible to listen to as I did.

Her message is good -- but I don't see why Dan had her on for the whole hour? Debby Herbenick gets to chime in for a couple of minutes, but Cindy gets a full hour? She does have good ideas, but they don't seem particularly new or groundbreaking to me. And the website isn't quite as well-developed as this show had led me to believe...

Posted by sabordesoledad on September 19, 2012 at 7:44 PM · Report this
Ahahaha, these comments are great. I think the proper spelling of her agreement noise is "yih" but this is open to debate.

I checked out the two websites she pushed. She needs to hire a design/UI consultant because they are needlessly hideous, tacky, and unnavigable. It's a solid mission, so I really hope she makes the sites a little more easy on the eyes even if the erotic content isn't.

I do wonder how the non-porn she's cultivating will keep from developing the same tropes and trends that currently dominate professional porn. An internal ejaculation simply doesn't *look* like much, and no amount of good will is going to change that.
Posted by Monarc on September 19, 2012 at 7:45 PM · Report this
I stopped listening after ten minutes because she doesn't have a good speaking voice. In a short amount of time, she felt it necessary to repeat how she only dates younger men. Dating men or women younger than you isn't exceptional. The multiple mentions of her website were also off-putting. I decided to check the comments to see whether my thoughts were unwarranted. Okay, it's not just me! I'm a loyal listener but just couldn't finish this podcast. She wasn't the best choice to feature on an hour long show 
Posted by Martino on September 19, 2012 at 7:54 PM · Report this
Another long-time listener, first-time commented (on the podcast anyway). And I also wanted to see if other people found Cindy's interview persona as irritating to listen to as I did. I want to give the benefit of the doubt; maybe she was extremely nervous?

I also agreed that her basic message is worthwhile one, but it isn't exactly earth-shattering. And when I went to the website (.com bot .tv), I was sorely disappointed to see how little content there was. .

She needed funding to create this? I work in web myself, and maybe I didn't explore the site enough, but it looked like it could have been created by one developer over a few weeks or even less.

All that hype to get me to a site that listed fewer than 10 myths about porn and then sell me a t-shirt? Plus, the myths could have been summed up with, "you know what you've seen in porn? Some people like doing that stuff. Some people don't some people like doing stuff you haven't or won't see done in porn. Talk with your partner about what you each like and would like to try." Done

Finally, graphic design and creating attractive layouts is not my strong suit by any means, but even I thought, "damn, that's ugly!"

I'll throw the designer a bone and say that the one thing I liked about the site were the images that went along with each myth; they were kind of cute.
Posted by supertia on September 19, 2012 at 8:58 PM · Report this
Oops, sorry about all the typos. That's the first and last time I comment via iPhone.
Posted by supertia on September 19, 2012 at 9:01 PM · Report this
I wish Dan had given her a chance to chime in. Did anyone catch what her website was?
Posted by B. Serum on September 19, 2012 at 9:35 PM · Report this
I was also struck by how many times she said "no, no, no". Definitely needs to calm the fuck down and LISTEN. I think that is the primary reason she's having difficulty with getting funding, etc. Her cause is worthy but she's not doing herself any favors. And with all her talk about media savvy, she really needs to upgrade those website designs, as it is piss poor. I wish her luck on her mission though....that is spot on!
Posted by fotoeve on September 19, 2012 at 10:51 PM · Report this
What she had to say about porn is exactly why I watch things like Queer porn has been making great things for years. For hetero people, check out stuff directed by Nica Noelle.
Posted by Elisa Day on September 20, 2012 at 12:14 AM · Report this
@86: I doubt you're engaging in good faith, but I'm bored enough so let's try. First of all congrats on winning derailing bingo: accusation of oversensitivity, intent argument, ad hominem, tone argument, and I'll give you the free space eh?

>"If somebody refers to you in a certain manner, without >any prejudice intended"

Intent isn't magic. There is no way to use "shemale" or "tranny" that ignores their history. Using them is ALWAYS prejudiced. Here's an example you might recognize:

>"You ARE "Shemales", goddamnit. That's what you fucking >are."

>"while we're at it - "Tranny" is a contraction"

This is a non sequitur. "Tranny" is a word that has an ongoing history as a slur. Again, google it, check twitter, check facebook, whatever. "Homo" is short for homosexual; convince me that it doesn't have negative connotations.

>"but what is the proper descriptive?"

How about the one I used multiple times in my comment: "trans women"? Transgender is fine too. Please stop pretending like trans people NEVER tell you this.
Posted by charredlot on September 20, 2012 at 1:03 AM · Report this
Styles Bitchley 110
AAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH! Someone please, please, please shut this woman up! If I had a gun, I would have put a bullet through my iPhone!

I hope this coked-up nut job paid to be on the podcast Dan. That way someone would have gotten something out of this.
Posted by Styles Bitchley on September 20, 2012 at 3:17 AM · Report this
Cindy Gallop: conversational dominatrix.
Posted by David in Siam on September 20, 2012 at 5:42 AM · Report this
What everyone else said. I got 11 minutes in and could not go on. Her constant interruptions and yipping voice made me want to choke a squirrel. Which is what she sounded like, a choking squirrel. Sorry Dan, I love your show, but this is the worst interview ever.
Posted by Lillie on September 20, 2012 at 7:14 AM · Report this
@UtterEast: "I wonder if Dan had interviewed a man, would there be so many comments about 'chihuahua yips' 'narcissism' and interrupting."

Posted by mynameistaken on September 20, 2012 at 7:38 AM · Report this
@106 Nope, sorry. You'll have to listen to the podcast again.
Posted by lizardferret on September 20, 2012 at 7:41 AM · Report this
Awful, awful. Despite her voice/manner/interruptions /complete lack of a sense of humour annoying me immensely, decided to check out her website. I don't get it? How is that meant to help anyone?. There is barely any content and it looks like it's been designed by a princess-obsessed teenage girl. Why does she need a load of money for the project? What is it meant to achieve?

Maybe she answered all these questions in the podcast, but as I couldn't make it past 25 minutes, I will never know!
Posted by Mimram on September 20, 2012 at 7:52 AM · Report this
Wow... I assumed there would be some criticism of her speaking style in the comments but I didn't expect the vitriol. I do think that at times she might have wanted to slow down a bit but I really enjoyed this podcast because of Cindy's thoughtful take on porn - this is someone who has put a lot of thought into it beyond the surface approach so many take. Maybe she should team up with the much more sedate Violet Blue to balance things a bit. I am trying to think of a more positive word than "sedate" but i just can't. Smoother?

Would love for you to have her on again to talk about porn; I loved that she had an industry take on it rather than the typical moral one.
Posted by CharlieLondon on September 20, 2012 at 8:59 AM · Report this
Posted by yepyepyepyep on September 20, 2012 at 9:17 AM · Report this
chibby 118
Just took a quick glance at the number of comments this podcast got and the last time there was this many for a single podcast was the "Lucy episodes"Apparently,all you have to do to get people danders up is put a female voice on and the plebs get all"Lord of the Flies" on their asses.Unless it's the sultry sounding jewess,because you know,sexy women are always welcome.Way to go guys.Let's push it back a few decades and spin some tires.
Posted by chibby on September 20, 2012 at 10:34 AM · Report this
@chibby: For the record, Lucy received lots of positive comments as well as negative ones, whereas most of the feedback for Ms. Gallop has been negative or mixed. I really don't think that the large number of comments for either of them has to do with their gender; after all, Dan has had other female guests on the podcast besides Lucy and Cindy G.
Posted by mynameistaken on September 20, 2012 at 10:58 AM · Report this
Actually, after i noticed the knee-jerk use of "actually" i actually had to stop listening to this episode.

I expect these episodes to keep NPR-grade listenability, and this episode sadly did not.
Posted by ashnrw on September 20, 2012 at 11:28 AM · Report this
Actually, after i noticed the knee-jerk use of "actually" i actually had to stop listening to this episode.

I expect these episodes to keep NPR-grade listenability, and this episode sadly did not.
Posted by ashnrw on September 20, 2012 at 11:30 AM · Report this
@109, Look, I spoke plainly and if my comments are riddled with fallacies, then it's my problem, not yours. I have put myself in harms way for transgender people. If my words are uneducated in your opinion, then you're probably right. I will consider what you wrote. I know that "homo" is a slur and can easily understand that 'tranny' - despite my ignorance, is probably the same. "Shemale", however, is descriptive. It may not be complementary to you, but it is functional as a term - unlike homo, or tranny. I am fine in changing my vernacular and will not be righteous about it.
Posted by issa on September 20, 2012 at 11:35 AM · Report this
@98 @118 Ugggg some women are as bad as christians with your fucking persecution complex. Her gender has shit all to do with the constant interruptions. Dan is bad enough when interrupting his callers, this guest was 1000 times worse.
Posted by pantiesinabunch on September 20, 2012 at 11:42 AM · Report this
AHHHHHHH. This is painful to listen to. Nothing no one else hasn't said, but since I came all the way here to say it I feel I must. Ms. Gallop is sorely in need of media training.
Posted by Kelleytastic on September 20, 2012 at 12:38 PM · Report this
My god, that woman was unbearable. I couldn't finish listening to the podcast, and that's a first. I also don't understand her whole thing about how hard it is to have a porn related business. A few years ago, my husband had a porn company/porn website. The word "porn" was in the title of their business, and they had an account with a regular mainstream bank, no problems. (It was either Wells Fargo or Bank of America, I forget.) He also had no trouble with online payments or anything other business issues. And he made female oriented, REAL amateur porn. I know it was real because I was at the shoots. I'm sure his was not the only site like that out there. Ms. Gallop seems to think she's inventing the wheel here; she's not.
Posted by cheekmeat on September 20, 2012 at 1:11 PM · Report this
I believe it might be a form of autism. I am sure she doesn't mean to sound rude. However, she is so focused on what she is going to say next her brain has stopped until she is able to express that thought. She is unable to move on to the next idea until she has verbalized the one she has. I would strongly recommend elocution lessons. I don’t think she means to be rude. It is like a stutter for her. I used to be the same way in some respect. I was a very fast talker. I also jumped to my idea when I had the gist of your last sentence, even if you hadn’t finished it.
Posted by Fritztkat on September 20, 2012 at 1:31 PM · Report this
Loved it and loved Cindy and her project.
She's pushy, but if I didn't like pushy I'd be listening to the wrong podcast.
Posted by Park on September 20, 2012 at 2:41 PM · Report this
It was so bad I wanted to kill myself.
Posted by adri411 on September 20, 2012 at 2:54 PM · Report this
@125: That bugged me as well. When she started complaining about the difficulty of procuring financing or setting up online payments, I immediately wondered why she didn't look into how actual porn sites handled it. In engineering terms, that's what's know as a solved problem.
Posted by Gentleman Horndog on September 20, 2012 at 2:57 PM · Report this
@98: it would have been just as annoying no matter who it was. There is no way for anyone to speak like and be listenable. Just sayin
Posted by little_kitten on September 20, 2012 at 4:20 PM · Report this
She sounded like her accent was fake. That's what distracted me the most. I know it's not her fault, but sometimes that's what happens when a distinctly foreign accent gets Americanized or diluted.
Posted by radradrad on September 20, 2012 at 4:21 PM · Report this
I've listened to every ep and this was the first that really shook my confidence in Dan's overall trajectory and judgment. Infomercial with the worst guest possible. It wasn't a live broadcast, why did you air it, faglet?
Posted by Faglet on September 20, 2012 at 6:36 PM · Report this
Chibby, you're a cunt. Good luck!
Posted by Faglet on September 20, 2012 at 6:42 PM · Report this
@125 That's an interesting comment. Gallop's whole marketing presentation about how unique her site is and how impossible it is to say/do anything with the word "porn" stuck me as either overstated or intentionally misleading to bolster her cause.

I think what she's doing is great. She's preaching to the choir with Savage Love listeners. The social cause of it is wonderful. It's when she tries to make sweeping generalizations based on uncited statistics, her own experience, anecdotal information, and (rightfully identified) nothing, that I get bothered. Her cause is not a scientific endeavor; it's an opinion and that's just fine. If you want to include statistics, you MUST CITE so we can actually evaluate the veracity of your claims. And the thread of "empowering women" seemed flimsy to me. When I think of things that are truly empowering to woman-me (sexually and otherwise), I think of things much more educational, well-reasoned, and thoughtful. Like others, I was excited to visit the sites because they have a good idea behind them. However, as they stand now, there is no content behind the idea. It's just a good idea with no meaningful development behind it.

Content of Gallop's speech aside, I also experienced anxiety while listening to the episode. I needed a couple breaks to make it all the way through.

Posted by cantaloupe on September 20, 2012 at 7:19 PM · Report this
Never commented before, but goddamn, I couldn't finish listening to this one. Gallop is like that dude from the Micro Machines commercials of the 80's, but way more shrill.

And what the hell is her business venture that she needs all that VC money for? She stays completely vague about it. My guess is she wants to make alt-porn. You know, Cindy, that business isn't hard to get into. There's a ton of online porn companies that somehow managed to open bank accounts and set up payment collection systems. Maybe the banks were trying to tell you of another option, but you couldn't shut the fuck up for 5 seconds to hear them out.

Also, if Cindy's business is alt-porn, then guess what? That's already out there! There are companies making porn that doesn't reflect the same thing all of these other companies do. Of course, they don't add some pretentious "I'm going to teach you that different people like different things" didactic message.

You know what would be awesome? Cindy Gallop going on an episode of Shark Tank. I'd get good and baked for that one.
Posted by Mighty K Bot on September 20, 2012 at 7:32 PM · Report this
Dan I was super disappointed with you for not calling Cindy on her bullshit about not being able to get a checking account. I work in finance, and this whole sex negative business thing is bullshit. You know what business is? MONEY POSITIVE. No one fucking cares about anything else, so if she is having problems getting financing she has 1.) a bad business model 2.) can't present it (I"M THINKING ITS THIS ONE) or 3.) is asking for more money than she is credit worthy for. (or 4.) some other reason that isn't coming to me on the fly.
Posted by SexaXexa on September 20, 2012 at 7:35 PM · Report this
Cocaine is a hell of a drug.
Posted by Joe Glibmoron on September 20, 2012 at 11:17 PM · Report this
I didn't want to write this. Honestly. It pains me that for the first time since subscribing to "Savage Love" two years ago that I actually sought out this comments board jut to see what others were writing and chime in myself.
I don't get it. Gallop's style as a guest leaves much to be desired. The rudeness of interruptions aside, she's doing her cause/business a huge disservice by not presenting it in a calm, rational, measured, inviting way.
As far as what that message may be, since I had to stop after listening to half the show, I decided to look up her web site. What, precisely, is the point here? To be a savvy media consumer? To understand that people have different, individual preferences and that we should be respectful when addressing them? Where, exactly, is the groundbreaking message in that? The rather content-light web site certainly doesn't clue me in about what her unique point of view is. Even in the brief period of the last 30 years we have had numerous pro-porn, pro-respect, pro-education feminists on the scene.
Again, Gallop's own presentation of her information was so impenetrable, so off-putting that the message can't help but to be lost.
After so many excellent podcast episodes and so many excellent guests, not all can be winners. Chalk it up now that this low point will be "the one" by which all other Savage Love podcasts are judged.
Posted by jchamp on September 20, 2012 at 11:27 PM · Report this
Again. She didn't strike me as honestly caring about anything but promoting her business. She is repackaging something that IS available. She IS selling porn. There will be a camera. And an angle. People will be performing. I am sure there are other companies out there worth supporting. I'd like to think there are other businesspeople out there who would talk about their mission less defensively.
Posted by readerandlistener on September 21, 2012 at 1:30 AM · Report this
I can't believe I made it through that podcast. As someone else said, "fucking brutal" and pretty much unlistenable. I wanted to reach thru my iPhone pull that womsn's freaking tounge out of her head and strangle her with it by 5 minutes in- and I am truly not a violent person. I know I'm piling on here, but I can't help it- I just had to say something. All the yip yip yip yip every time Dan tried to say something. Horrible !! That woman is out of her mind- she's so busy running her mouth I don't think she listens to a word she actually says. And the only point she really managed to make - somewhere in her monologue was that she fucks a LOT of very nice young men in their 20s. Uh... Yeah. As long as they don't speak I guess. But it makes me really want to see that picture.

Seriously - Dan, I can't believe you made us listen to this. Anyone who made it all the way through should get a special devoted listener award.
Posted by Shanellie on September 21, 2012 at 4:56 AM · Report this
If I played a drinking game where I drank every time she said "make love not porn" as self promotion, my zombie corpse would be drunk after I died from alcohol poisoning.

"Don't interrupt me, no, no, no, no no"

She sounds like a yapping Chihoua, Dan got a couple of good digs in, and she avoided answering questions: she's making amateur porn the same as everyone else.

Thanks for showing us who not to support Dan, she was Savage.
Posted by GibsonOmaley on September 21, 2012 at 5:01 AM · Report this
Count me in as a listener who thought the Lucy episodes were a really fun change of pace, but could NOT listen to this! I started out figuring that she was just overenthusiastic, but really, continually interrupting every single sentence your interviewer says, that's just rude. It's nice of him to support her on twitter anyway I guess, but she needs to polish her listening skills if she plans to promote this project in interviews.
Posted by planned barrenhood on September 21, 2012 at 5:13 AM · Report this
I hated Ms Gallop's mannerisms, manic energy, narcissism, refusal to listen, constant interruptions and yipping, and frankly shallow and not-at-all-original mission.
By contrast, I loved the Lucy episodes, the Mistress Matisse episodes, the Garfunkel & Oates guest advice, and the supreme Mary Martone episodes. Dan has a great track record of inviting female guests and having fun and thoughtful discussions. This one was just a repellent exception to the rule.
Posted by Longtime Listener on September 21, 2012 at 7:01 AM · Report this
I would like to add my voice to the chorus of those who found this episode nearly impossible to get through. Gallop was horrendous to listen to and constantly promoting her business (to whatever extent it can be considered a business) was bad enough. But the ways in which she would twist a question to mention, again, what a DIFFERENCE she is making in people's lives - people who are apparently constantly thanking her for what must be the most banal observations on pornography, was really disgusting. And don't get me started on Her explanation as to how her personal porn venture is different from any of the hundreds of amateur submission sites available, aside from a total lack of content on her site, left me wondering why Dan wasn't pushing her harder. Self-aggrandizing, self-promoting drivel.
Posted by TommyPilates on September 21, 2012 at 9:22 AM · Report this
Add me to the list of long-time listeners who have never posted here, but came to see if others hated this episode as much as I did. Wow! Like many others, this was the first time I had to stop listening to the podcast - it was unbearable.

I have to wonder if this is just a way for Gallop to meet young men. The first sentence in the "About" page on the website is not about the goal of the website, or an explanation of its misleading name, but rather, "MakeLoveNotPorn is a Cindy Gallop production. I date younger men, usually in their 20s..." WTH?!

Posted by longtimelistenter on September 21, 2012 at 9:27 AM · Report this
This woman is the most ANNOYING radio voices I've ever heard! Get her off the Air!
Posted by jamie jamie on September 21, 2012 at 9:49 AM · Report this
Yup, Yup Yup, everything that everyone else said.
Posted by Mr. Ed on September 21, 2012 at 10:38 AM · Report this
I know I'm just one more voice in the chorus of "this was unlistenable", but I want to also add to the chorus of "what's the point?" Her web site is ridiculous. The small amount of information presented there is neither insightful nor revolutionary. Every point is exactly the same - some people like this, some people don't. Seriously? As for her .tv site (I refuse to give the name of her site even one more plug here), I agree, again, with those who are pointing out that it's just another amateur porn site. So what? That's not new. And finally... I cry bullshit to her claim that she can't open a bank account because of the nature or name of her business.

Dan, I love you and look forward to your weekly podcast, good advice, and usually interesting, educational, and enlightening guests. This woman just wanted to hawk her (utterly pointless) business. Please vet future guests a little more carefully from now on.
Posted by makedannotcindy on September 21, 2012 at 10:43 AM · Report this
aureolaborealis 149
@137: +1. heheh. Did she say she used to be in marketing? Apparently that didn't pan out.
Posted by aureolaborealis on September 21, 2012 at 11:34 AM · Report this
aureolaborealis 150
No app store would take her? There are porn apps, for fuck's sake.
Posted by aureolaborealis on September 21, 2012 at 11:35 AM · Report this
Wow, what a maelstrom...
I just wanted to say, Dan... regarding the lady with the deep insecurity and rage problems regarding other women naked, it's good to talk about getting to the bottom if it, it's good to acknowledge that this is way beyond normal, but "bitch be crazy" is cruel and way out of line. She's coming to you to hesitantly talk about something she already knows is wrong with her and ask for advice. She's clear-headed enough to know there's a problem here. She's not crazy and she's not being a bitch. In fact she's being incredibly responsible in trying to tackle what clearly is a deep-seated and troubling issue she knows she has. Show some respect and give some credit, man.
Posted by Serpent on September 21, 2012 at 11:37 AM · Report this
My strength failed me with only 10 minutes left (and it's taken me four days to get that far). Let's review: She has a terribly named site that clearly works against itself (and this woman works in advertising?); the site is far from useful or pleasing to the eye (again, she works in advertising in 2012?); the overall concept is fairly self-evident and not even close to the revelation she clearly believes it to be; she sounds EXACTLY like a chihuahua yipping and yapping nonstop, as if the very thought of remaining silent for a single second is unbearable (and to anyone who thinks that criticism is somehow solely related to the fact that she's a woman--yes you're right, we're all just hateful misogynists); she somehow can't figure out how to get a bank, any bank, to fund all this, even though actual porn sites do it every day. Why would any of this add up to success? When your message is obscured by your expression of it on so many levels, how is any of this a mystery?

And you can bring back Lucy anytime--she was awesome. Cindy Gallop was the AntiLucy.
Posted by wildsheepfield on September 21, 2012 at 11:52 AM · Report this
same thing. what she had to say was interesting, but she was annoying.
Posted by DrewXor on September 21, 2012 at 3:02 PM · Report this
In other words, epic fail, Dan.
Posted by Epic Fail Dan on September 21, 2012 at 3:37 PM · Report this
Why Dan is twitter defending this charlatan is confusing. Best guess: momentum?
Posted by Anon12310 on September 21, 2012 at 3:46 PM · Report this
I could not listen to this podcast. Cindy Gallop is a rude, self-absorbed, narcissist who is only interested in hearing herself talk. Please do not have her on the show ever again. I never want to listen to her ever again. I hope no one on earth ever has to listen to her ever again. I cannot imagine how she finds "nice young men" to date because the minute she opens her mouth, she reveals what a repulsive person she is. Get over yourself, lady. Learn how to actually have a conversation with someone.
Posted by JasonLLLL on September 21, 2012 at 4:49 PM · Report this
What everybody else said.

Particularly that yes, her message is a good one, but it is poorly delivered (both by her and on her poorly named, poorly designed, near-empty dot-com website - it has been *3 years* since that TED talk), and not particularly original (there are other sites, including Scarleteen, doing similar educational work; and other sites doing alt-porn).

Worth adding: I too adored Lucy, and would love to hear her again. If Cindy comes back, I am extremely likely to delete the episode without listening to it. (And I essentially *agree* with her.)

Finally: there are *plenty* of young men out there who are concerned with their partners' pleasure. The ones I know, though, don't tend to get involved with narcissists who don't let them get a word in edgewise.
Posted by Ancient Sumerian on September 21, 2012 at 8:13 PM · Report this
The way she says the word fucking is unbearable. "FFFFFFFFFOCKEEEENNG". The thing is, if she is in her 50's, no amount of comments will help her change. The best we can hope for is she is never mentioned again. It pisses me off to think that Dan will probably start the next podcast by scolding us. I can hear it now: "Shame on you, listeners! Cindy doesnt deserve the hate, this is why we can't have nice things, yada yada." Dan, you will lose this 8 year listener/reader for life if you let that awful woman walk all over you like you did in that podcast. The best thing you can do is move right on and don't mention her. That way you won't be acknowledging the haters and you won't lose a significant portion of your fans. I feel SO STRONGLY about this that I just spent 30 minutes typing this on my crappy phone. /end rant. That said... GALLUP VS COULTER IN THE VERBAL FIGHT OF THE CENTURY - WHO WILL BE THE LAST TO INTERRUPT? SUNDAY SUNDAY SUNDAY!
Posted by DanPleaseRead on September 21, 2012 at 10:45 PM · Report this
This is the first time I comment on a show (though I have tweeted praise to Dan before) and it's just to say that, sorry, but this is the first ever episode that I could not get through. I was genuinely interested in the topic, but it was just too painful to hear this woman's complete lack of respect for and interest in, anyone else than herself. Every other guest in the podcast history, I have been fine with, this one... I gave seven minutes of my life that I will never get back. Thanks for an awesome show every week but this one!
Posted by thomasswwedennww on September 22, 2012 at 3:45 AM · Report this 160
Re resources for teens (and their parents) to learn about porn and sexuality. I would recommend this from Scarleteen… and these posts by me
Posted by on September 22, 2012 at 5:15 AM · Report this
Dan Savage: I felt bad for you during this interview. Whenever you actually were able to finish a sentence, it did not matter, because she was still talking over you. I am surprised that you did not gently put your hand on her knee and say, "Cindy, honey, an interview requires we both get a turn to talk. Advice requires you to listen to the caller.".

All of the criticism that is levied against her is born out of the frustration we all felt as a result of her rudeness, inability to listen an inability to let anyone else talk. All of her other faults would have been overlooked if she had been able to civilly engage in conversation. But she turned us off so much, all we could focus on was her yipping, her narcissism and and the flaws in her business model.
Posted by Mr. Catface on September 22, 2012 at 7:12 AM · Report this
I think it was classy of Dan to defend Cindy on Twitter, because she was his guest, and he has a decent sense of hospitality.

That said, I did manage to make it all the way through this podcast, but only by listening to it in chunks over several days. Cindy's presentation is an impressive turnoff, and I suspect, as others have above, that it might be one of the obstacles she is encountering in her business. VC's are savvy, and when you come across as manic as this its not surprising that they back away slowly.

I have a co-worker who does that same "yep, yep, yep" thing during conversations, but while I have great fondness for her I also avoid speaking to her whenever possible, because it is such an irritating habit. I know she is not trying to be disrespectful, but that is the effect. After experiencing this podcast I think I'll speak to her about it.

Posted by Elisabeth K on September 22, 2012 at 7:56 AM · Report this
There were a lot of great points everyone seams to have missed. :.( My favorite was that in Sooooo much of the porn NO one seams to give a fuck if the women get HER rocks off. I am a Bi man and My biggest kink is orgasms! I CAN"T get off if my parter doesn't. I also don't get anything form women master-bating which seams to be the only time they get off in 99.9999% of todays porn. Does any one else see this as a problem????
Posted by The Giver on September 22, 2012 at 8:16 AM · Report this
I paused the podcast and found this website for the first time to say what most everyone also seems to be saying.

Cindy's speaking style is making me too nervous to finish the podcast.

I understand that she's excited and that her project is important. But as is, she is not the best person to communicate this message. I almost want to disagree with her simply because her tremendous ego oozes out of my earbuds in waves.

Her constant interruptions and roundabout "let's define the universe before I deign to answer your specific question" replies smack of egotism and entitlement.

Cindy -- I want you to succeed. Get a speech coach, as well as a PR rep for the meantime.
Posted by nikleba on September 22, 2012 at 10:06 AM · Report this
ASX 165
Agree with all of the above. Please do all of us a favor and learn how to speak in public, Cindy. A conversation goes both ways; speaking AND LISTENING. Dan couldn't even finish a sentence without being interrupted. No only does Cindy interrupts, but she talks too fast. I missed half of what she was trying to say.
Posted by ASX on September 22, 2012 at 11:04 AM · Report this
It really seems like Cindy wants to be a 21st-century Hugh Hefner, with a cult of personality around her. Thing is, Hef really was revolutionary when he started, and Cindy's site is just another amateur porn site cloaked in a paper-thin and quite pretentious manifesto. Dan asked her how her site was different from the well-established amateur porn category, and all she could come up with was that one established site has instructions for anal porn that would make your submission more mainstream. Sorry, sweetheart, that's not grounds for a revolution no matter how often you repeat yourself.
Posted by Alec on September 22, 2012 at 12:20 PM · Report this
ChristeeK 167
Thank you thank you thank you for having Cindy on. What a wonderful idea! I love listening to her(even though she speaks super quickly and does interrupt) but I am a strong independent female constantly looking for more strong, independent, out-spoken and intelligent female role models. She has paved a huge path for more women like herself. Not only that, she is doing brilliant work. It was so cool to hear her opinions on your podcast(she is so fucking intelligent and honest!). So what if she's a bit bossy, I'm sure she's had to be in order to be as powerful as she is in her line of work. Think about it.
Posted by ChristeeK on September 22, 2012 at 5:23 PM · Report this
Oh, mama. This woman is a nightmare.

Super long-time listener, I adore Dan and most of the other regular guest hosts (Even Lucy!). But...I'm sorry...had to tune out after 20 minutes...not even sure how I lasted that long. Worst voice, argument style, manners, accent EVER. She acted like Dan was there to crucify her, when he was just asking her to clarify/offer gentle opportunities for her defend her ideas. She didn't have to get all defiant. I feel like this could've been a good opp for her to play it cool and get her idea (which isn't THAT unheard of, anyway) out there.

I was a bit surprised Dan just let it happen...Maybe he was doing the thing that parents do when their kids have had too much sugar (or in her case, cocaine?) and just hoped if her let her spin around long enough she would tire herself out and fall asleep.

This podcast has never made me feel this anxious & annoyed.
Posted by three_chord_me on September 22, 2012 at 6:11 PM · Report this
shurenka 169
It was hard to listen to the podcast. Cindy was pretty repetitive in her points not to mention she kept interrupting.

Also have to agree I wasn't particularly clear why money was needed. AND the website is awful. In particular, the lack of content except for apparently unmoderated visitor submissions.
Posted by shurenka on September 22, 2012 at 7:55 PM · Report this
So painful to listen to all of Cindy's interrupting and not letting Dan get a word in edgewise. Also, I went to her site because she suggested showing it to a child (12 year old) to initiate a discussion about porn. I'm pretty open minded, but I don't think I'd feel comfortable showing the website to my 11 and 13 year old girls, and I certainly don't think that level of detail regarding certain people's sexual interests and behaviors is even appropriate at that age.
Posted by jrosner on September 22, 2012 at 10:05 PM · Report this
I don't blame Dan at all for defending his guest, horrible talk-beast that she is. I'm impressed that he kept his cool during this whole thing--he's proven to be more grounded and professional than I ever gave him credit for.
Posted by Faradn on September 23, 2012 at 1:36 AM · Report this
Dingo 172
I liked Cindy. Granted, some of her speaking habits can be irritating, but her message was great, she's funny, and she's one of the only guests who hasn't allowed Dan to constantly interrupt her, rephrase her statements in ways she didn't intend, or change the topic mid-sentence, which are among the highly annoying habits HE has as an interviewer. I'd gladly listen to this episode 10 times over rather than listen to a single episode with Lucy.
Posted by Dingo on September 23, 2012 at 7:18 AM · Report this
I've listened to every single podcast since the first, and I've never yet felt a need to leave a comment...until now.

One of the things that occurred to me while Cindy was speaking (and I made every effort not to interrupt her, which is certainly far more consideration than SHE displayed) was that she spoke of her inability to get VC funding. I couldn't help but wonder if she turns off her potential business partners by unwittingly demeaning them the way she did Dan.

Dan, I'm *not* a hater. I forced myself to listen to the whole thing, and I absorbed every bit of what she said. But it was a struggle, and I really did find myself wanting to reach into the speakers and put my hand over her mouth. Her speech habits reflect a lack of interest in, and respect for, the person she's speaking to; she decides how she's going to respond after hearing just a few words, and dammit, she's GOING to say what she wants to say, essential basic civility be damned.

Yes, Dan is an interrupter as well, and that's often maddening to listen to, but Cindy's interrupting is probably the most extreme case I've ever heard.

That's not "hating," Dan. That's constructive criticism. I'm positive Cindy would have greater success in her business if she simply learned to be a halfway-decent listener.
Posted by Joshocom on September 23, 2012 at 9:45 AM · Report this
I love the idea of Make Love Not Porn, and I'd love for Cindy Gallop to return to the podcast to talk more about that disconnect between sex and our unrealistic expectations of sex.

I say that because I don't want to sound like a hater when I say that Cindy needs to relax next time. She was talking so fast and cutting off Dan so often it was like she felt like she had to fit everything she ever wanted to say into the one podcast.

Maybe she was nervous. When I get nervous, I tend to talk fast, so I don't want to come down too hard on her, but seriously, take it down a notch.
Posted by Daniel_NY on September 23, 2012 at 11:36 AM · Report this
Cindy's interruptions and constant plugs for her site were annoying. She has a good idea but she just kept talking and her answers were evasive most of the time like a politician. She was just very annoying to me.
Posted by goodButAnnoying on September 23, 2012 at 1:44 PM · Report this
It's been said already, but *yikes.*

Cindy Gallop's ideas range from thoroughly reasonable (normalizing the discussion of sex in public culture) to wildly optimistic (changing the world with silicon valley buzz words and social media), but there's nothing she actually says that's objectionable. On the whole, it seems that I agree with her on most topics. And yet, this interview is completely unlistenable.

For a "huge believer in interactive dialog," the constant question dodging and steam of repeated platitudes is astonishing. A background in advertizing? Who would have guessed. It's like listening to a sex-advice column hosted by the PepsiCo PR team.

Love the show, and am looking forward to the next guest host. Writing this one off as an hour long informercial for a doomed startup. Hope she at least paid for that free airtime.
Posted by YourNameThere on September 23, 2012 at 2:05 PM · Report this
I really don't understand why so many people didn't like Lucy. She laughed a lot. How unforgivable...?
Posted by Faradn on September 23, 2012 at 8:02 PM · Report this
Episode 308: I agree with everyone else. Ms. Gallup highjacked, kidnapped, and held your show hostage. You need to think of ways to control guests who won't shut up. She talked all over you ever time you said something. "Yup yup yup!" She needs to back off the caffeine, cocaine, or whatever she is on. As others say - a PR maven she might be - but communicator? Not at all. I am kind of sorry to see TED giving her a platform. She is not original, just hyperactive with an English accent.
Posted by Marc317 on September 23, 2012 at 8:10 PM · Report this
Good god. I have listened to EVERY SINGLE Savage Love podcast all the way through, and I have loved ALL of your guests, until now. If I ever get trapped on an airplane next to that woman, I will be forced to murder either her, or myself. Why would you subject your listeners to an hour of that?!?
Posted by st.melina on September 23, 2012 at 10:55 PM · Report this
I have listened to every pod-cast and this was painful. While I enjoyed what she had to say and I DO think she is on to something...SHUT THE FUCK UP WOMAN!!! Seriously.
Posted by Kaitlyn on September 24, 2012 at 3:26 PM · Report this
I actually enjoyed this podcast. Maybe I've been listening to the BBC too much, but I had no problems with her. She plugged a lot, sure, but wouldn't you. You're not going to forget that site, that's for sure.
Posted by Beelzebozotime on September 24, 2012 at 3:32 PM · Report this
Dan: Just one question after listening to the podcast. Do you know whether she dates younger men?
Posted by Spooky on September 24, 2012 at 6:55 PM · Report this
i've never heard dan speak less...
Posted by usedup on September 24, 2012 at 11:44 PM · Report this
The obvious answer would seem to be to present her in a non-audible format, in which the ideas might show themselves to better advantage.

Grace Liechtenstein once reported someone saying that Billie Jean King liked to talk faster than anybody else, louder than anybody else, and longer than anybody else. She might be able to offer Ms Gallup effective tutelage.

Come to think of it, Billie Jean King would be a brilliant guest. She's even, as Chris Evert has attested on numerous occasions, a natural dispenser of advice.
Posted by vennominon on September 25, 2012 at 5:28 AM · Report this
I enjoyed what she had to say. I even enjoyed the quality if her voice. But I had to stop the podcast halfway through because I couldn't take her constant interruptions and inability to allow anyone else to speak. She would interject two words into your statement and blast off again at a thousand words per second.

It actually almost sounded like she was speeding up her speech in order to not allow a pause long enough to suggest that anyone else could speak. And when you did try to offer something to the conversation she would hem, haw, and "yeah-yeah-yeah" you until you couldn't continue and she would simply go off on another tangent.

She desperately needs to learn when to shut up. She needs to slow down her speech patterns. She needs to STOP the hemming and hawing. It's just painful. Sorry Dan. I don't want to be "a hater" but that was probably the least listenable podcast you've ever done.

And to tell her she needs to ignore the haters? That's not going to help her become a better public speaker at all and she definitely needs to improve.
Posted by AedanCRoberts on September 25, 2012 at 9:44 AM · Report this
Yep. Came hear to say what everyone else said.
Love her ideas, had to sadly stop listening because she was making me feel violently anxious and angry. Ugh.
Posted by Emily_LA on September 25, 2012 at 11:52 AM · Report this
I enjoyed Cindy Gallop. She didn`t sound like a professional speaker in this format. But I do love the casual confidence she has in her convictions. She makes a great point, and I`m glad Dan featured her. :)
Posted by Brie on September 25, 2012 at 5:21 PM · Report this
Ok, I didn't read all of the comments (there are a lot this week, holy bejesus) but the overall consensus seems to be, "Hey Cindy, let Dan finish talking." And while I agree, can I just turn around and say that Dan interrupts his guests a lot too? I know it's different, it's his show, we all love him, blahga blahga, but seriously. Sometimes he interrupts and I want to be like, "Hey Dan, that fancy-schmancy doctor was in the middle of explaining something really interesting and important, could you not interrupt just to make a sub-par joke?"

I love you Dan, I agree with 99% of what you say, I met you once and fangirl-ed out for days, so this is not a reflection on you or your podcast. Just pointing out that everyone needs to calm down and stop blaming a woman for doing something that Dan does all the time!

Yes, she interrupted sometimes. Yes, it was irritating. Take a freakin' chill pill.
Posted by meep on September 25, 2012 at 8:06 PM · Report this
With all the furor over Cindy Gallop, I don't think anyone here has congratulated Dan and Terry on their Governors Award. Congratulations guys, and thanks for all the good work!
Posted by mynameistaken on September 26, 2012 at 5:49 AM · Report this
Lucy yes, Cindy no. Enough said.
Posted by Law of Desire on September 26, 2012 at 9:54 AM · Report this
Hey, Dan--love the podcast and the column. I listened to the Cindy Gallop interview in its entirety. I think Gallop's apparent nerves and odd demeanor have received abundant comment. I checked out the website (, and...meh. The interview beat to death every last word on the site. Unfortunately, Gallop's background in advertizing and consulting is all too obvious. There's a lot of sizzle and not a lot of steak.
Posted by Beef LoMein on September 26, 2012 at 1:18 PM · Report this
I have to agree with @158... I love your podcast, Dan, but if you start the next episode with a "shame-on-you-haters" I'm going to have to take a long, long break from listening. Do you really think your listeners are "haters"? I know that I definitely am not, and I'm pretty sure none of the other listeners here are either. I've read ALL these comments, and it seems to me that all these people reached the conclusion that Cindy was awful independently and without malicious intent.

I actually listened to this whole thing (admittedly with a day-long break halfway through). At first, I was into her message and willing to forgive her awful speech habits. But after she interrupted you over and over and completely disregarded the calls you played, I was most definitely NOT impressed. I honestly feel like the poor callers whose messages you played in this episode should get a re-do and have their questions actually answered, especially the girl with the masturbating boyfriend and the girl calling for her best friend.
Posted by FLRocketBaby on September 26, 2012 at 3:07 PM · Report this
I talk really fast myself, so the speed didn't bother me, and her voice was annoying, but hey, some people have annoying voices. But I do agree that she was very single-minded and didn't listen enough, especially to the calls. I agree with 192 that those calls should get a do-over, because they weren't really listened to or addressed properly. That girl with the masturbating boyfriend? I thought you both missed that one completely. She never said that she objected to his watching porn, but somehow that's the issue that got focused on. I interpreted her issue as being a bit annoyed that when she came over to his house, he'd go masturbate. Can't we all agree that it's a bit rude to go jerk off when you have a guest, even if it is a regular guest?

Anyway, sorry to be another "hater," but this really was not your best podcast.
Posted by kingshearte on September 26, 2012 at 5:06 PM · Report this
Well . . . look at it this way, I suppose, I've never commented on a podcast before and this definitely motivated me. Of course, now that I'm here, I see I am not alone in my experience of this episode. I'll just echo the sentiment: please, dear baby jesus, never again subject us to that. Love you. Love the podcast. Looking forward to more of YOU -- and an absence of a certain, yup, um, yup, someoneorother.
Posted by holdenmtl on September 27, 2012 at 11:03 AM · Report this
I'm sorry Dan but you did Cindy a dis-service by having her on your show. Her message is great and you simply should have talked about it yourself. Having her on your show revealed how obnoxious this woman is. It was the Cindy show. Every chance she got it was HER HER HER. She takes over, she interrupts it's exhausting and difficult to listen to. Even when she was quiet and letting Dan speak you could tell she wasn't listening but instead just waiting for her chance to take over the conversation once again. urgh. She was awful. I'm not in anyway interested in visiting her site and she did this to herself.
Posted by midwesterndays on September 27, 2012 at 2:35 PM · Report this
Add me to the list. Cindy has a nice message, but it was unbearable to listen to her constant interruptions and self promotion.
Posted by CC54535 on September 28, 2012 at 10:32 AM · Report this
Only you, Dan, could have gotten a word in edgewise with this bulldozer. My favorite part was when she repeated "yeahyeahyeahyeahyeah" without pause until you did what you were supposed to and shut the fuck up.
Posted by Optin on September 28, 2012 at 12:34 PM · Report this
Great podcast! I totally agree with Dan Savage that despite Cindy's extremely fast pace and interrupting, the content was excellent. I wished she wouldn't interrupt you quite so much, Dan, because you're my favourite, but I LOVED what she said about porn vs. real world sex!
Posted by Katryna on September 28, 2012 at 5:33 PM · Report this
It was painful to hear Dan interrupted and talked over so much, especially when I was interested in what he was trying to say. And there were a lot of things that really puzzled me. Porn companies and sex education entities have bank accounts. She is absolutely not the first person in that arena to try to open an account. There's no law prohibiting it. She could network with other people in the industry to find out who they use. My guess is that the banks she's approached so far were uncomfortable for other reasons.

Dan, I usually love the freeflowing feel of your show but if this happens again maybe you could stop the tape and say "Hey, this isn't going well. You're talking over me a lot and I want the listeners to get the full benefit of what you have to say. Have a glass of water, slow down, and let's try it again. I'm going to take 1 minute to give advice to this caller, while you bite down on this piece of wood, and then I will ask for your thoughts." I've had people tell me to slow down my speaking without sugar-coating it one bit, and I survived and became a better speaker. You could have helped her come off much better here, I think.

That said, I still love you to bits and I thought Cindy had some all right ideas. (Except the sexual social media. Why? If I absolutely want to tell my best friend I just tried something new, I will. Over drinks. Otherwise, not many people need to know.)
Posted by !1oneleven on September 28, 2012 at 6:44 PM · Report this
She has some good ideas, but may be backfiring here. After listening for 10 minutes all I could imagine is her in a sex scene getting bukaked to shut her up.
Posted by Jazstret on September 30, 2012 at 12:57 AM · Report this
Dan, you have to stop being so defensive about this guest. She was terrible. She lied or exaggerated constantly and pushed her crappy website more often and more obnoxiously than that coked up guy used to push Oxy Clean. Her ideas were neither original or particularly insightful. I work in law enforcement and her speech patterns and style reminded me of a con-artist trying to hard to convince a mark (you were her mark) and you got conned.
And like a lot of people who got conned, you are in denial about your victimization.

I made it through about 45 minutes but I was literally yelling at my car radio.

She sucked, you got conned and your audience suffered.

I have loved all of your shows but this one. The overwhelmingly negative response you see is not "hate" it is accurate criticism of an awful, terrible, rude, immature guest.

Posted by Mortos on September 30, 2012 at 6:25 AM · Report this
Dan, you have to stop being so defensive about this guest. She was terrible. She lied or exaggerated constantly and pushed her crappy website more often and more obnoxiously than that coked up guy used to push Oxy Clean. Her ideas were neither original or particularly insightful. I work in law enforcement and her speech patterns and style reminded me of a con-artist trying to hard to convince a mark (you were her mark) and you got conned.
And like a lot of people who got conned, you are in denial about your victimization.

I made it through about 45 minutes but I was literally yelling at my car radio.

She sucked, you got conned and your audience suffered.

I have loved all of your shows but this one. The overwhelmingly negative response you see is not "hate" it is accurate criticism of an awful, terrible, rude, immature guest.

Posted by sjv1966 on September 30, 2012 at 6:41 AM · Report this
I'm not a hater, but saying "yep" in the middle of Dan's sentences was incredibly annoying. She really needs to work on that.

On top of that, she should actually pay careful attention to the questions and answer them. To the girl whose boyfriend was sneaking off to wank while she was in the house with him, Ms. Gallop just brushed her problem off as "not a problem." But the girl clearly had a problem with it, which may have been one of many things. While Dan suggested that maybe she wasn't having enough sex with him, I think it has something to do with the fact that he's abandoning the horny girlfriend in bed to go off and wank to porn. The message he's sending is "I would rather watch porn and wank when I'm horny than have sex with you." I think if Ms. Gallop had spent some time actually thinking about and conversing with Dan about the problem at hand instead of going back to porn, they might have sussed this out and talked about the exact kind of conversation she should have with her boyfriend.

I guess my conclusion on this podcast was that while Ms. Gallop's message is very important, she's not very good at delivering it via audio and should probably stick to print.
Posted by alguna_rubia on September 30, 2012 at 6:55 PM · Report this
10+ years reader, podcast listener since day 1, Dan Savage's #1 fan (along with 25,000 others). First time commenter by virtue of the fact that this podcast was truly egregious.

I am a Brit and have a rapid, fluid style of speech, but goodness only knows where Ms Gallop developed that dreadful affectation of hers. Her accent is a parody of something upper class, while her diction is so clipped that she frequently drops at least a syllable per word - probably so she can shoehorn 20 more words in per sentence. I checked my iPhone several times to make sure I didn't have the podcast playing back at 1.5x speed - I am not exaggerating for comic effect, sadly.

Her lack of self-awareness is quite breathtaking. Her delivery meant I had to listen to this podcast in chunks, because it was simply too emotionally draining, tense and infuriating to listen to - the aural equivalent to being assailed in the face by thousands of nails from an automatic nailgun.

The poor woman comes across as desperately insecure and quite delusional about her own prowess, both professionally and sexually. I've looked at the website and it resembles a school project thrown together by a slightly immature 14 year old. Her refusal to answer the question that was asked on every occasion positions her as a) somebody who flunked all their exams or b) an unelectable political candidate.

I completely agree that porn sex is not real sex. Soap operas are not real life, either, but we don't want to watch real life - not even in documentaries, hence the rise of the fly-on-the-wall and the docusoap. And I agree that parents should be engaging in more open and frank discussion rather than expecting discernment to naturally prevail. But this yipping harridan does nothing to further her cause - she has had a (not particularly original) idea and then completely failed to execute it. No wonder the banks won't touch her. She is not investible.

Her battery of young lovers must insist on the gag-inducing, face-fucking style of oral sex typified in misogynistic resentment porn, just to suppress the constant yipping.

PLEASE! Indulge this woman if you must in the column but NEVER AGAIN as audible content.

Posted by SexKitty on October 1, 2012 at 4:46 AM · Report this
PS - maaarrrrrsturbating? Even in southern England (where people are supposed to be posh), it's pronounced with a short 'a' as in MASS. It's clear this woman has no emotional intelligence but she also undermines her intellect with this posturing and pretension.
Posted by SexKitty on October 1, 2012 at 4:55 AM · Report this
That website was a sickening pink.

I'd love for Dan to bring someone else and give porn a do-over.
Posted by fahima on October 1, 2012 at 12:52 PM · Report this
Cannot listen to that woman, very annoying voice, and constantly interrupting. Cannot. listen.
Posted by sher-bear on October 1, 2012 at 3:28 PM · Report this
love her site, love her mission, but damn she needs to learn how to do an interview. ugh.
Posted by saucycraftster on October 1, 2012 at 4:55 PM · Report this
It's all been said before, but since I came here especially to add my two cents I'll say it again. Dan, we are not haters, but that woman is frigging INSUFFERABLE. Please never ever again. OMG. Sooo paaainful.
Posted by MyNameIsHere on October 2, 2012 at 2:33 AM · Report this
First time commenter here. OK Dan, after you implored us to give it a chance I tried four more times to get through this podcast. I couldn't. I even tried listening at half speed on my iPhone, but her constant interruptions and never going one sentence without mentioning her web sites got to me.

I know you're sick of our comments, but your defense of this unlistenable podcast seems that you're trying to save face that you actually put this crap out. I did go check out her website and it is one of the most horribly designed sites I've seen in years.
Posted by Scott_D_Oakland on October 2, 2012 at 10:03 AM · Report this
Holy cow. She's a self-obsessed banshee. Yep!
Posted by NoMoreCIndyEver on October 2, 2012 at 12:47 PM · Report this
I didn't even make it 10 minutes into the podcast. She drove me crazy and was really just on there to sell her own stuff rather than have a decent dialogue.
Posted by Falcon on October 2, 2012 at 8:13 PM · Report this
Agree with all those who found Cindy insufferable, and if you had not been clearly worn out / overwhelmed by her, you might have given a decent response to the clearly distressed young woman trying to reconcile her extreme discomfort with pornography with her knowledge that it would be unreasonable to ask her boyfriend not to look at it. If you were not going to address her problem properly, you really should have just edited it out, rather than add insult to her injury by calling her a crazy bitch and let Cindy talk over you and pimp her website some more. I was horrified on that poor girl's behalf.

And as for Cindy's website, not only is it an assault on the eyes, no amount of digging around in it yielded any sort of content, other than a bunch crazy meanderings, preachiness and well, not much else. The reason she can't get any investors is because there is no "there", there.
Posted by Elephi P. on October 3, 2012 at 11:39 AM · Report this
Found this one to be very interesting. Loved that there was finally someone to challenge Dan's role as the more aggressive talker, very nice change of pace (not that I don't love Dan's normal way of talking, but the difference was great to see).

Just a minor suggestion though: In future I'd rather if guests like the various doctors or Lucy (Please have her back! Also Mistress Matisse!) answer questions, since they tend just focus on answering question. The promotional ones are good too, just for shorter periods of time and only at the beginning. Especially if they don't really answer questions.
Posted by vorgunn on October 3, 2012 at 1:26 PM · Report this
Well. Looks like I'm saying the exact same thing that everyone else has already said. I listened to ten minutes before I had to give up. Her repeated spluttering and cutting you off stressed me out!

I really like what she's trying to do, I even went to look at her website, but the site is ugly and has only a few milquetoast points. "Myth: Everyone likes this thing" "Truth: some people like it, but some people don't" Thank you Captain Obvious. Any advice or actionable points? No.

I understood that she was looking for money but I didn't understand why she needed it...other than perhaps to take some courses on how to speak and listen.

Not trying to pan the lady, I like what she's trying to do. But Jesus. I couldn't listen to her and I couldn't look at her website. It's the only podcast I've ever had to delete. I laughed while listening to it, thinking, "The people who were bothered by Lucy are going to HATE Cindy" FWIW, I thought Lucy was AWESOME!
Posted by IsobelWren on October 3, 2012 at 2:42 PM · Report this
JensR 216
Posted by JensR on October 4, 2012 at 9:24 AM · Report this
Dan, I am a BIG fan. I've been reading your column for many years and have been listening to your podcast for about 2 years. I am HUGELY disappointed in this episode. I get what Cindy's point of view is, and agree for the most part, but she was using your show entirely for shameless self-promotion! How many times did she plug her website? Or ask for help from banks, businesses, etc? Not only that, but I just went to and you need to 'rent' the videos on her site for $5 each (funny she didn't mention that on the podcast).

Please don't invite her back.
Posted by shannon9585 on October 6, 2012 at 11:26 AM · Report this
Also, to the commenters who are suggesting that she's getting all this negative feedback for being a woman, you're crazy. Dan has had many female guests who don't say "yep" multiple times in each of his sentences. I like the lady from Planned Parenthood, because she listens carefully to the questions and answers them. Same thing with Mistress Matisse. I wasn't a huge fan of the Lucy podcasts, but it had very little to do with her speaking style- she was problematic to me because she couldn't credibly be claimed as an expert on anything, and unfortunately had some pretty ignorant opinions that she voiced as if they were facts. Expertise-wise, I wouldn't say there was anything wrong with Cindy, but her speaking style and failure to listen to the questions were extremely annoying.

On top of that, I have to echo what other people are saying about her site: it has very little in the way of content. And I can sum up her message a lot faster than she can:

The society we currently live in is as dysfunctional about sex as we would be about relationships if all we knew about relationships were what we saw in romantic comedies. Just as everyone realizes that romantic comedies are meant to entertain and so are mostly not like real life, porn is meant to entertain and is not like real life.
Posted by alguna_rubia on October 6, 2012 at 8:45 PM · Report this
St. Beretta 219
Interview aside, her website is so terrible. I wonder if Dan has seen it or if he just likes the idea of it. It's appallingly bad.
Posted by St. Beretta on October 8, 2012 at 8:34 PM · Report this
I enjoyed this episode, beginning to end, and agree with Dan that Cindy should ignore the haters.

Signed up for the beta of her .tv website... looking forward to seeing real sex. The rare kind of porn that I love, and that is difficult to find, is video of a couple who obviously love each other and are making love with each other.

Even if actors would fake care and tenderness for each other, in regular porn, I think it would be really hot.
Posted by LiveAndLet on October 9, 2012 at 11:09 PM · Report this
I was listening to this podcast, and what Cindy Gallup said about "the good old days" when men felt like failures if they couldn't get their female partners to orgasm made me think about where my pre-conceived notions come from. I had no experience with visual porn growing up, but I was surrounded by trashy historical romances, and in all those books the men were more virile if they could make their women orgasm and they were less than a man if they came first. This set me up for success, because it taught me that's a legitimate expectation. Thanks for the great show!
Posted by happytolisten on October 10, 2012 at 8:12 AM · Report this
Wow, this is fucking intolerable. How did you (Dan) keep a straight face as this woman whimpered and yipped over your every interjection. I feel bad you had to be in a room with this woman. She may be a lovely person, but what the FUCK? I had to turn it off when my ears started to bleed. And GOD, 5 minutes in and I GET IT, GALLOP. YOU DATE YOUNGER MAN. LOTS OF THEM. LOTS OF YOUNGER MEN.
Posted by Holy shit! on October 10, 2012 at 8:32 AM · Report this
To the girl who wants her boyfriend to "ask for his space" so he can masturbate: You are being unreasonable. What you are basically doing is making him ask your permission to masturbate. If he has to kick you out of the house in order to rub one out, that means he doesn't get to do what he wants unless he wants it badly enough to get rid of you first. You are making it into a bigger deal than it needs to be, and making it into an either/or choice: you or Rosy Palm, but not both. It's only five or ten minutes out of the whole evening. Do you really want to sacrifice the rest of the evening over 10 minutes? Do you want to make him sacrifice the rest of the evening? What are you trying to prove here?

Making him ask for his own space implies that YOU OWN HIS SPACE. Are you sure you want to be that girl? God, I hope not.

Also, it's kind of like demanding that he let you know that he is about to go pick his nose. It can be kind of sticky and messy, he may carry some baggage about it from his childhood, it may be in various ways embarrassing to him. Do you want him to tell you every time he discovers he has to go pee? That's a bodily need too. What you need to come to terms with is that masturbation is not about you. Yes, sometimes he has some bodily needs that don't revolve around you. Get over it.

Unless he is masturbating so often that he is not available to meet your needs, what needs to happen is that you need to just give him his space -- and not make him ask you for it. And by giving him his space, that doesn't mean slipping quietly out the door when you realize what he's doing in the next room. That totally comes across as stalking out in a huff. Give him five minutes to himself, for god's sake. Or go jump his bones and show him how much better those five minutes would be with you involved. But what you are doing now is some not-so-subtle shaming. Knock it off.
Posted by avast2006 on October 11, 2012 at 2:32 PM · Report this
Be nice, people. It was a radio interview. Chances are reasonably good that she was nervous being on microphone. People are often scared to death of dead air, and will fill it with non-stop chatter to compensate. Cut her a little slack.
Posted by avast2006 on October 11, 2012 at 2:36 PM · Report this
She was a machine gun of self promotion. All those words and nothing said. It was torturous waiting for content.
Posted by djhdj on October 21, 2012 at 6:13 AM · Report this
I do agree with her that I find gay porn a lot less mean spirited than straight porn tends to be. There's more tenderness in it than in straight porn. I hadn't really thought of it being from anger towards women, but you know what? I think it kind of is. Or at least a lack of respect/delight in.
Posted by gnot on October 25, 2012 at 10:00 PM · Report this
Well, what I have to say is obviously going to be drowned out by all these people who didn't like Cindy's speaking style, but I guess I will try anyway: To the caller who was obviously upset about her negative reaction to porn, you are not alone! The key was when you mentioned a CHRISTIAN background. I grew up in a Christian community as well, and the way sex is demonized and women are made to submit can really mess with you. Dan, she may be insane, but she was driven mad and brainwashed by the culture she was raised in. It's not your fault, caller. I, too, have really struggled with this. Do find a counselor and talk about this with your partner as openly and honestly as you can. I am making steady strides in deprogramming myself and you can, too! Brainwashed Christians, it can get better if you let yourself open up! Counseling is really helpful-but not a Christian counselor. :)
Posted by free2sin on November 8, 2012 at 8:50 AM · Report this
I just listened to the podcast and while I was very interested in the content and think this woman is doing good work, I too was very bothered by Gallop's pushiness and constant talking. It was very irritating to listen to and a huge turn-off. She needs some elocution lessons, stat. I'll pass on her future talks/interviews.
Posted by Etta on January 3, 2013 at 9:48 AM · Report this
@ 217 - Yes!

I was beginning to wonder if I was the only one who actually took a peek at because no one commented on the glaring contradiction between her content and her promotion.

It is a PAY PORN SITE. She gives specific directions as to what sort of content is acceptable. You pay to submit a video. Other people pay to watch it.
Posted by MiscKitty on January 24, 2013 at 11:00 AM · Report this

We're sorry, but commenting won't be available while we switch over to the new MAGNUM version of the Lovecast. Your comments will be back up tomorrow- please come back and let us know what you think!