@101: I'm cool with that.

@95 vab,

You've used the female condom? How the hell did you get it in? The descriptions I read sound finicky to say the least, and a vagina is usually a looser fit.

Separate aside:
I mentioned a diaphragm because, being a good boyfriend, I helped to install it. That took a while to get proficient, and learning how was a slippery, springy, and yes funny, exercise. Of course, once I got it settled, I couldn't help but want to give her pussy a nice victory kiss.

Peace.

@98 Sorry, but hello false equivalency charge.

I will admit that after reading through the comments I misremembered the original post because I remembered a "refused" that wasn't actually there. But I also said that there's a big difference between a guy absolutely refusing to wear a condom with a new partner and a guy who struggles with them and that it's completely reasonable to worry about your own sexual safety with such a new partner irrespective of the guy's character. JUST AS it would be a very good idea to be wary of a new female partner who refuses condoms because she promises that she's on hormonal birth control and it turns out she was hoping to get pregnant. In other words, individual woman can indeed be just as shitty, selfish and untrustworthy lovers as individual men.

It is patently absurd, however, to say that anyone who rushes to the conclusion that the guy in question is the jerk of the situation has anything whatsoever to do with feminism or women's studies. That is knee-jerk bullshit.

@104: Look, here's the deal. I think you and Kylere both made good points @85 & 86. We can agree that feminism (especially women's studies) is often mischaracterized. But surely we can also agree that bad arguments can be made in the name of feminism, or in a context that could be described as feminist.

Regardless, in the case of this post, we've got two interpretations: 1) it describes a man's problem, or 2) it describes a woman's problem where a man is at fault. After reading all the comments, I'm convinced that the first interpretation is more accurate and more productive to follow. And because of the nature of the issue – men's sexual dysfunction – it seems particularly unsympathetic to shift the focus to women and their anger (however justifiable) at the actions of certain men.

@98 First of all, I have to say I was simply disheartened by your "oh noez, the pile on! I'm done!" bit. I was hoping you might reignite.

Despite their tantrums, men do not need to be coddled, scratch that, SHOULD NOT be coddled re: women's lived experiences re: men re: inequality.

Leave you out of it? First of all, you're commenting on SLOG and you've been around this block; why comment at all? Secondly, I only responded to your comment in the very last few sentences of my post; this ain't about you, honey. (In case you didn't get it, that honey's ironic) I also don't think getting personal is a good way to go about debate nor is telling someone that 'no one's mind is changed' by their expressed opinion--how do you know? When/how did you become feminist? Something must have had an affect on you, maybe *gasp* changed your mind, even.

But, fine, let's make this about you then:
"I said that because it's just so predictable what's going to happen when the pile-on begins"

Tell me, please, what about misogyny ISN'T predictable? We play feminist bingo for a reason; the knee-jerk reactions from men (and women!) with unrecognized privilege are a finite bunch. Why should that stop us? Should we stop being feminists because, damn, do those reactions just get so damn repetitive and boring! "Woops, I'm not apologizing for my opinions, uh-oh, better get ready, the guys don't like it, here it comes! Better yet, why bother? I know what they're going to say. They don't like it when I get all angry and express myself; its not like I make a difference!" Charlie Brown's adults called: sad horn.

@ 105 "But surely we can also agree that bad arguments can be made in the name of feminism" this is a wishy-washy, obvious statement that can be made about ANYTHING. Speaking of straw-things.
And, of course, you are the arbiter of which are good and which are bad, right?

I may not agree with your arguments, but I respect them. If I engage, its with your words/arguments, not YOU. I feel that you are perhaps a bit defensive. I could be wrong, though.

Zero-sum is a bad space to inhabit.

The wah-wahing from the dudes on this thread crying about jumping to conclusions about this guy reveal way more about themselves than they do anything enlightening re:LW's question. Same goes to you, Irena. And, I imagine, myself as well.

@105: "But surely we can also agree that bad arguments can be made in the name of feminism, or in a context that could be described as feminist."

They are not "bad arguments" simply because you disagree with them. Perhaps they could be more targeted, perhaps they should include more optional information in the case that her partner WAS interested in other options, but people are set on men needing to take some amount of control over their contraception for a pretty fucking good reason.

Treating some like manchildren may be necessary if you want to put in the effort, but I'm not going to knock someone who doesn't have the patience to deal with a man who gets "hurt" when the woman's safety is the utmost importance to her.

@106, I agree with you about my "Leave me out of it" comment. I do keep coming back, after all, because I think these arguments matter; we all have a stake in how they play out. If I sounded "a bit defensive", it's because I was, and that's because YOU WERE SCREAMING IN ALL CAPS and being sarcastic and calling everybody names! Please get my tone here -- I'm laughing and I hope you can laugh at yourself a bit, too, because you were going off. What do you expect?

As to your "it's about you" charge, I speak from a subjective perspective (using "I think" and "I believe" a lot) precisely because I don't think I'm the arbiter of what is good and bad. I'm just putting my argument out there, and hoping to persuade people. You're welcome to disagree with me.

What it comes down to is that for me, persuading people is the goal. Meaning, persuading them to listen and hopefully empathize when I try to talk about the things that matter to me, especially the pervasive, insidious damage imposed by gender inequality. Or any subject, really, where the problem is more likely to be solved by connecting and empathizing with people rather than arguing endlessly on. And the best way to get people to empathize, is to show empathy yourself. Which can be hard in these goddamn comment threads, but still worth aiming for. I know exactly why you get so angry, because I've seen, over and over, guys jumping down women's throats for daring to discuss sexism in posts that are explicitly about sexism. Yeah, it's annoying as hell. But this post was not about that. And so I think commenters are justified in saying that people are jumping to conclusions by making this about women's problems with uncooperative men rather than men's problems with uncooperative penises.

So I really don't get all this “wah, stop your crying” business, unless your main goal is to please the choir and antagonize your enemy. If what you come here for is the fight, then you'll have no problem finding one. What's a bigger challenge is to find things to agree on, and to come up with solutions. Not as much fun, maybe, but worth it.

@107: I've heard women say, in the context of a feminist debate, that all of Freud's work should be ignored and forgotten because "he was a misogynist!" That is a bad argument.

In this case, let's use the example of my own argument @41. Is it a bad argument? No, not really. But in the context of the post (ignoring Dan's response), is it fair? I don't think so. I spent one line acknowledging the guy's problem, and the rest of the post chastizing him (and men like him) based on an assumption that he was not taking responsibility for himself.

You know what? If I were a guy who had this problem with condoms, I would be pissed to read a comment like that.

@78(BEG), considering that the LW's second sentence is "No condom is not acceptable to me" (emphasis in the original), I'd guess she is not really a "but-he-looooves-me" insecure girl type. So no, I don't really think it's all that easy to cast her boyfriend in the asshole role here. Maybe she's the one saying "my way or the highway".
I just don't know. Short letters...

@83, I re-read the letterr -- just three sentences. The word "refuses" doesn't occur in it, nor does the expression "struggles with".

What the LW said is "I am with a man who says that putting on a condom will make him lose his erection."

Drusilla, sure, SLOG readers are judgmental. And others call them on that. Is that a problem? And hey, I'm not surprised that questions like this evoke gender-role-related reactions -- which such a short letter, and with SLOGS, as you said, judgmentally jumping to conclusions...?

@107: "I've heard women say, in the context of a feminist debate, that all of Freud's work should be ignored and forgotten because "he was a misogynist!" That is a bad argument."

I've heard several unspeakably stupid things from the unregistered commenters in any of Dan Savage's posts. So fucking what?

@Kylere, who wrote: I do not assume anything, nor do I represent either extreme, I merely find the first-semester-womens-studies level of ignorance on many of these responses to be appalling.

It's because you frame it like this that I say you represent one extreme in this continuum, Kylere. You're confirming this.

It's not because you're necessarily wrong: I've seen my share of starry-eyed feminists who don't know how to relate theory to reality. (Truth be told, those I've met mostly online; the real-life feminists I've met were more pragmatically oriented and quite fair in their assessments.)

It's because you present it offensively ("I find you guy's ignorance appalling") and because you don't offer any middle ground ("you're just simply wrong, no nuances, no mitigating circumstances, no nothing, you're just damn wrong, god damn it!').

That's why I call you 'extreme'. As in 'no compromise' and 'there's nothing good in these ignorant comments!' And your second comment confirms it. Do you see what I mean now?

@86 (maddy), no canonical academic feminist topics were mentioned here. But you'll have to agree that many a SLOGger opinion on this Rorschach test of a letter that GOE sent Dan are clearly informed by current gender stereotypes about 'what guys usually do' or 'how girls usually react'. I'm sure it would be possible to write a (short) academic feminist paper on these reactions. In this sense, feminist (or rather gender) problems did enter the discussion -- though, I again agree, not because the arguments mentioned in the above posts had any canonical academic feminist topics.

@89(undead_ayn_rand), how do you know he's pressuring her? She didn't explicitly say so. You can sort of see it as a bridge between the first and the second sentence in the letter, but except because of stereotypes and/or personal experiences about male-female relationships, the LW's letter is perfectly compatible with the guy not pressuring her, but simply not knowing what to do (she may have merely mentioned the first obvious solution that occurred to her -- sex without condoms -- without meaning implying that this is what he is trying to push her to do).

On second thoughts, this letter is interesting. It makes people here show what their assumptions are for male-female relationships. It's indeed a good Roschach test: get someone to read it, then ask him/her what is going on in the LW's life, and you'll see all kinds of unspoken assumptions coming to the fore. Cool!

Phew, is this a doozy.

@108 I was "going off"? I explicitly stated that I was going to emphasize 67's comment--the all-caps were to differentiate my words from his since I don't know how to do html bs in comments on slog, otherwise, I woulda, you know, italicized or some shit. (see comment 97 for context). However, it doesn't bother me that it comes across as "screaming" ^_^

I was "calling everybody names!" Really? Where? Please, I can't find it in any of my comments (which is apropo since I make a point never to engage people personally in debates; see comment 106) I mentioned that if [the universal] you coerces someone to have unprotected sex when they have expressed otherwise, yes, you would be an asshole. Care to disagree with that? I did use the words "fuckhead douchetard" to describe what commenter 67 IS NOT. Again, I've reread and reread my post and I can't see where that happens. By all means, quote me! Please.

"I know exactly why you get so angry, because I've seen, over and over, guys jumping down women's throats for daring to discuss sexism in posts that are explicitly about sexism. Yeah, it's annoying as hell. But this post was not about that. And so I think commenters are justified in saying that people are jumping to conclusions by making this about women's problems with uncooperative men rather than men's problems with uncooperative penises."
First of all, do not presume you know anything about me, let alone why or what makes me angry.
Second of all, HUMAN PROBLEMS. WOAH, there, nelly.
Thirdly, I don’t care if I persuade anyone—ever thought of that? I LIVE my feminist ideal. You’re watching it in action.
Fourthly, tell me, please, as a feminist, how any discussion about sex does not involve the context of sexism? Wait, are we in a vacuum? No, no we are not. This is some 101 shiz, right here. The personal is political? Sigh. Things don't have to disintegrate into fights about gender inequality, but don't pretend this shit is not related! Contexts matter, yes, just as in this question, the guy could be the best guy ever to exist ever, and yet, the discussion of using a condom or what to do if he won't or can't use 'em is inextricably linked to gender relations. If he is effing great, then yeah, he'll be just as interested in alternative options and the well-being of his partner as she is in his and gender inequality won't be on the radar since, you know, they're being equal. That doesn't mean the potential for otherwise isn't there or that we shouldn't point that out (would that someone had told me not to be so nice to boys, maybe then I would've stood up for myself in just such situations as this LW's).

“Please the choir?” If there’s anyone I wanna please, it’s them, especially if the alternative is patriarchal bs.
“Antagonize your enemy” Bahaha. See what you wrote there? Hmm? Do you read your words before you hit “post?” I can’t engage that one, it’s too easy.
It’s not about FUN, it’s this: sometimes shocking people out of their comfort zone is the only way to light a bulb about ideas that are different from what they’ve always thought, even if they don’t agree, they now have an ‘extreme’ on their spectrum; maybe they’ll make their way eventually, but you know what? That’s not my responsibility. Just like it’s not my responsibility to ‘educate’ people about feminist theory in comment threads; I educate myself about things that interest me, that are relevant to current events, things that I don’t understand or don’t agree with: people need to do their own homework sometimes.
What I don’t get is why you are all (awesome) feminist bravado and then somehow you try to apologize or smooth over the possible rancor the privileged among us might feel from said bravado. O_o? Does not compute. Perhaps you are not yet over the "be liked by everyone" shit we are socialized into as girls? I don't know. I don't presume. I will take you at your word that you prefer to persuade people in your own way, regardless if I agree with it.

“@107: I've heard women say, in the context of a feminist debate, that all of Freud's work should be ignored and forgotten because "he was a misogynist!" That is a bad argument.”
What does this mean? Care to explain, give some context here? Where did this even come from; no one is talking about Freud?

“In this case, let's use the example of my own argument @41. Is it a bad argument? No, not really. But in the context of the post (ignoring Dan's response), is it fair? I don't think so. I spent one line acknowledging the guy's problem, and the rest of the post chastising him (and men like him) based on an assumption that he was not taking responsibility for himself.”
I totally agree with your @41 comment. Why are you backtracking here? I don’t CARE if a man feels bruised from my words about his privilege. I don’t WANT to hurt ‘em, but I’m not going to pretend just so they don’t get thewr widdle fewwings hurdded. Also, “chastising” is an interested choice of words here, FREUD.

“You know what? If I were a guy who had this problem with condoms, I would be pissed to read a comment like that”
Oh, you would, would you? Poor thing. Here’s a cookie, the patriarchy pats you on the head. Wank fuckin’ wank. This is why it has taken us so fucking long to get anywhere: what about TEH MENZ?! I refuse to apologize for being angry about disenfranchisement and I refuse to take shit for being bones to the ovaries feminist. Fuckin’ stand up and don’t give a nut about a cock for a change. They’ll survive! Jesus Christ. That, that there? That’s me going off you...you...I'd call you a cuntless femme, but that wouldn't be playing nice. Plus, I like that, Cuntless Femme; I need to start a band.

What really gets me angry is half-assed feminists who placate rather than subvert.

@femwanderluster, I think you're a good example of the Roschach-like nature of this letter. You said:

Regardless of gender or orientation, the person who refuses to use condoms (or any kind of STI/bc prophylactic) and still insists on sex when their partner requires them is an asshole and should not be fucked.

Sure. Agreed.

Granted, the letter writer doesn't say that her partner *insists* on sex without condoms nor does she say he *refuses*; only that he says he can't keep a boner while wearing one--whether or not he is a douche, at this point, is up to whether or not he still insists on sex without condoms.

Again, sure. Agreed.

However, I've had enough experiences with dudes who should otherwise be hip to the scene (scientists, doctors) that insist it's FINE not to use condoms and that they should know THEY'RE A SCIENTIST/DOCTOR, that it needs to be said: if you require a condom and your partner tries to blow it off, you don't have to acquiesce! That person is a jerkoff! Do not fuck that person!

Again, agreed. But do you see what happened? Suddenly, it's not about the letter anymore! Because the LW doesn't give examples, and there's no reason to suppose the LW's boyfriend is like those guys you mention here -- the fact that you jump to make this point means that it no longer is about LW or her situation, but about gender relations and what's frequent and what's not frequent etc. etc. -- i.e., the letter brings out the gender-political orientation of the person who reacts to it.

So, you assume what your experience (not LW's letter) tells you and go on reminiding her she doesn't have to acquiesce just because he can't keep a boner with a condom. Others (the anti-feminist crowd) jump to the opposite conclusion and think she's being an asshole for not empathizing with his problem. Others yet (the 'moderates') try to see it both ways and suggest things the guy could do so as not to lose his erection with a condom (showing empathy with him) but also telling the girl not to accept condomless sex (showing empathy with her).

With a letter so short, people tend to talk about condoms and sex and what's frequent and what's not frequent and the politics of it -- because the LW's situation is left so imprecise, there isn't really much to say that is specific to it. There are no specifics in the LW's letter. :-)

Cool, isn't it?

@114: In a vacuum of context, I sometimes revert to the obvious, most likely answers

If her quandary is bad enough for her to be forced to ask an advice columnist, I generally assume the worst possible. I assume that she has tried and he has tried, and that there is a base imagination/communication between partners. She is OBVIOUSLY not having a need or consideration met if it gets to Dan, and she doesn't clarify how much she likes the guy, or how much he's tried, the lack of context I take as context.

Is it entirely fair? No. But I don't see anything wrong with putting the fear of god into people who haven't tried all options, either. People shouldn't be afraid of sex, but they should certainly take some responsibility for knowing their body and how to take care of their partner's.

I'm also cranky, and often.

@117: and reverting to the obvious, most likely answers is what I call revealing one's assumptions about what the obvious, most likely answers are. Which is what I find cool with this letter, and why I compare it to a Roschach test.

Since we don't know the specifics of LW's situation, there is no way to know which of the advice given here will help her (and her boyfriend). Maybe yours. Maybe something that the guys who have problems with condoms above said. Maybe your worst-case scenario assumption is right. Maybe someone else's is. Nobody knows. But we do get to see where everybody stands on the topic of condoms, men, and women, and what it is that 'men need to hear' and that 'women need to hear'. Interesting.

@Irena, I get your point. In fact, you wrote this:

In this case, let's use the example of my own argument @41. Is it a bad argument? No, not really. But in the context of the post (ignoring Dan's response), is it fair? I don't think so. I spent one line acknowledging the guy's problem, and the rest of the post chastizing him (and men like him) based on an assumption that he was not taking responsibility for himself.

You know what? If I were a guy who had this problem with condoms, I would be pissed to read a comment like that.

and I agree 100% with it: to men who have real problems with condoms, the assumption that 'all men who say 'I can't get it up with a condom' are assholes' comes out as misandric. (Whether or not they're right may be debatable, but I can see how they would feel bad about not having their problem acknowledged).

Which is why I almost feel like suggesting that we shift attention away from the LW's clearly insufficiently worded letter and on to the general topic. Personally, I think it's interesting to talk about what is really going on with condoms -- the power dynamics that the feminists here are mentioning. But it's true that this is a frequent topic of debate, whereas the condom-related erectile dysfunction topic is both more pragmatic and less frequently discussed.

So: let's all forget the LW.

"Again, agreed. But do you see what happened? Suddenly, it's not about the letter anymore!"
Um. Of course it is. Someone doesn't want to use condoms. We don't have the entire context. Since we don't, I expand on the likely possibility that this might be the LW's context, but it might also be another SLOG reader's context as well. Anecdotal and scientific data suggest this is the other possibility if he is not being a decent guy. As you quoted me yourself, you notice that I did not JUMP to that, but gave fair airing to what you seem yourself to jump to; that this guy couldn't possibly be an asshole! He just has a limp dick. To each their own socialization ^_^

Also, I'm familiar with your postings on SLOG and I'd say you and I have polar opposite "biases" re: gender equality.

"[T]he letter brings out the gender-political orientation of the person who reacts to it."

First of all, wtf is "gender-political orientation"? Is this some new sexual thing I haven't heard of? Are you trying to say that: what people say belies their ideological leanings? If so: duh! Welcome to reading/listening comprehension! What ELSE is supposed to happen? I find your fascination with this "Rorschach test" business naive.

"With a letter so short, people tend to talk about condoms and sex and what's frequent and what's not frequent and the politics of it -- because the LW's situation is left so imprecise, there isn't really much to say that is specific to it. There are no specifics in the LW's letter. :-)"

There are ONLY specifics in LW's letter! What is imprecise about the following?:
1. Man will not/cannot use condoms for sex.
2. Woman requires condoms for sex.

"Cool, isn't it?" Christ on a dildo, this makes me want to puke.

@117: crankify! Let's party.

Final thought: both those who say that some guys do have problems with condoms, that it's a legitimate thing and that solutions to this need to be found, and those who say there are (many) guys who try to manipulate their girlfriends into having sex without condoms, are right.

These two statements are not mutually incompatible.

So there's no reason for conflict or antagonism. Everybody here is right!

Having said that, time to go put my daughter in bed. Have a good time, you all.

@femwanderlust, who wrote:

Someone doesn't want to use condoms. We don't have the entire context. Since we don't, I expand on the likely possibility that this might be the LW's context, but it might also be another SLOG reader's context as well

Yes--and it's this "expanding on the likely possibility" that I call "revealing our assumptions (or if you prefer, our personal life experiences) about the man-woman-condom situation". And since we don't know the LW's situation, then the whole thing ceases to be about the LW -- if she reads the comments, she'll have to figure out by herself what applies to her situation and what doesn't -- and we're left knowing a bit more about ourselves and our SLOG friends.

Which is not bad, is it? I'm actually thankful to the LW for that.

And now, really, I have to go. Cheers!

@103 Yes, I've tried the FC several times. Your assumption is correct, it's tricky to install. I don't see how a man could install one himself, but a woman might be able to. They promote them as something a woman can install before the man is even present.

There is a floating semi-hard ring that goes at the tip of the thing that holds it in place from the inside. I have never seen a vagina, so I don't know whether lube would be required for insertion, but it certainly is for an ass. From the outside, with you fingers inconveniently all lubed up, position the floating ring at the end and with your left hand grab hold of it through the condom. With your right hand, make a small opening between your right thumb and forefinger and slide down the condom from the left fingers, compressing the ring into an elongated loop. Twist the loop with your right hand. Grip it tightly and shove it (lovingly) into the hole.

If I were to continue using one, I might experiment with putting the condom an a dildo and then extracting the dildo after inserting the condom. However, the sensation of the hard ring scraping along the not-yet-loose hole might be unpleasant.

Damn, you tempt me. OK, one last response.

First of all, wtf is "gender-political orientation"? Is this some new sexual thing I haven't heard of?

I've just invented it -- you know, I'm struggling with words -- so I'd be very surprised if you had met it before.

Also, I'm familiar with your postings on SLOG and I'd say you and I have polar opposite "biases" re: gender equality.

Which, I assume, is not a bad thing?

what people say belies their ideological leanings? If so: duh! Welcome to reading/listening comprehension!

Thanks! I love being a tourist in new countries. So many things to see.

Of course any text has contexts, interpretations, etc. (the famous 'dance of signifiers', etc.). But this text is so short, almost everything everybody has said here (you're a stellar example, but everybody else is more or less doing the same) is not about it anymore, just about whatever they think the stereotypical/most frequent/most 'likely' man-woman-condom situation is.

So nobody is talking about the LW, and everybody is talking about their own opinions. It's like that to a large extent in all comments on all letters Dan posts to his blog, but in this case it's sooo deliciously clear it's almost like loking at an art exhibition. (If I were teaching hermeneutics, I'd surely use this as an example.)

There are ONLY specifics in LW's letter! What is imprecise about the following?:
1. Man will not/cannot use condoms for sex.
2. Woman requires condoms for sex.

Well, this is schematic to the point of stereotyping. There are so MANY specifics missing that you have to supply everything else -- as you did in your first posts.

"Cool, isn't it?" Christ on a dildo, this makes me want to puke.

Will it make things worse if I say "awwww!" and add a little smiley :-) ?

By-bye!

anky: The crux of my interpretation/inkblot is the phrase "Are there other options"

Other, as in this is a no-sell and she's been reduced to "thinking outside the box".

@122: "Final thought: both those who say that some guys do have problems with condoms, that it's a legitimate thing and that solutions to this need to be found, and those who say there are (many) guys who try to manipulate their girlfriends into having sex without condoms, are right."

Correct!

@ Ankylosaur

You seem unaware that this is a sex advice column.

Tucked in nice'n'tight? Nighty-night ^_^

@ 127, and you seem unaware that this is a sex advice column.

Kisses,

@128 Smarmysmoochiepoohs!

@124: I've tried the FC, but only the initial revision. I didn't prefer it to the male, but it wasn't that hard to insert and remove. I'm sure the latest revision is a decent, serviceable second option. If he still has reasons to complain, well, he deserves all these complaints :p

There is *always* an option!

femwanderluster @115, your sputtering bit at the end, where you call me a Cuntless Femme for suggesting that empathy might solve more problems than hostility, will go down as one of my most cherished moments here on Slog. I'd be lying if I said I didn't get a kick out of this crap. That's why we're here, right?

undead ayn rand, I generally appreciate the crankiness, especially, er, when it's not directed at me...

ankylosaur, you crack me up. Thanks!

@131, Ahaha, now that's gonna be my go to comeback: "what, did I SPUTTER?"

I love you, too, Irena!

Mr Ank, I know what you mean. This letter is a cross-examiner's dream, but I could sit up all night going into that and accordingly ought not to start.

Ms Rand, I wouldn't call you cranky.

Ms Irena, #41 actually seemed to me about as close to spot on as anything. It seemed a conditional chastisement.

I'd agree with Ms Wander about one or two things, but I've learned the hard way not to engage people of any gender who are so forcefully spoken.

@Irena, who wrote:

femwanderluster @115, your sputtering bit at the end, where you call me a Cuntless Femme for suggesting that empathy might solve more problems than hostility, will go down as one of my most cherished moments here on Slog.

Yes, the irony of that didn't go lost on me. Slog is an interesting place to visit!

@Mr Ven, I also wouldn't call Ms Rayn 'cranky'. And as far as probability goes -- since we know nothing about the LW's situation, which is the way to bet? -- I even agree with your assessment of Irena's post #41. It's just that indeed there are more places were people talk about how men can be pushy about sex without condoms, and few places where guys with sincere condom problems talk about them. (A couple of comments upthread mentioned things I didn't even know could happen.)

I like people who can see both sides of an issue, and who believe empathy can solve problems (so many out there think that nothing is done without heavy artillery). That's your case. You're even capable of self-criticism, as in when you criticized your own first post. There aren't many sloggers (or people in general, for that matter) one can say that about.

@femwanderluster, all in all I think our jousting here was done in good faith. I don't think you've said any crazy or wrong things, you've just defended a viewpoint about one situation -- guys forcing girlfriends to condomless sex -- on whose morality (or lack thereof) I actually agree entirely with you.

So long, and till we meet again (with our happily acknowledged biases and viewpoints) on some other fresh, interesting topic!

group hug everybody!

@124 vab,

And there we have the "Manhole Cover" How-To!

Thanks!

Peace.

GOE: why is no condom NOT an option? There's a third plan to Dan's:
Get both yourselves tested, get some BC (either he gets snipped or you get the pill) and get to business already.
Fawk.
Is that so hard?

The only people a guy who can't wear a condom should fuck is another guy who can't wear a condom. Problem solved.