Savage Love Episode 308


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!
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!
I agree - she talked over you every time you tried to get a word in. It was painful to listen to.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
It is clear that there's no need for me to pile on here.
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.
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.
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.)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Had to turn the show off half an hour in. "yep! yep! yep!"
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.
@#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.
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.
And she should get off Adderall.
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.
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.
@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.
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
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.
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.
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.
ya! Dwolla!
The irony is that one of the guest's stated goals is the promotion of a true discussion. Discussion involves listening...

Big turn off!
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.
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.
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.
This is just a stealth anti-porn argument.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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'.
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.
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.
Wow, we finally found someone more annoying than Navi.

/random geek joke drive-by
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!
Also,waiting for you other commentors to post links to your podcasts so we can dissect your verbal idiosyncrasies,Annnnnnnd waiting.....
FREE podcast,I might add.
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!)
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.
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...
Ok, I gave up. First Savage Love podcast in years that I didn't listen to.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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).
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.
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..."
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.
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!
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".
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
I'm sorry, Dan and Cindy, but that was intolerable to listen to.
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.

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.
Dan, you are a sadistic bastard. I still love you.
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?
loved the message, hated the sound. my goodness, she sounded like a yipping dog. my ears hurt.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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?)
@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.
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"?
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.

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?
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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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!
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.
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...