Savage Love

University of Alaska Anchorage


RE: Hole New World.

I once saw a huge, thick book at the late, great Borders about anal sex. I wish would have looked at it further b/c it seems like it could have all been boiled down to what Dan said above.

Or possibly even an info-packed haiku.

Your first anal sex?
Here's what you should know: use some
Lube and go real slow.
So many letters today! wow.

For HNW, find a position where the giver can just hold still and let the receiver control the rate of entry (of finger, toy, or, eventually, dick). Also, more lube. (If it's hard for the receiver to relax, try massaging, scratching or spanking the ass cheeks first... Also, try doing all this at the height of the receiver's arousal. As long as you're working with fingers & toys, don't worry about the giver's erection.)

For Can'tGoThere -- are you willing to spank him, but finding it hard to start? If so, try breaking it down. Can you watch TV with him lying on your lap? Can you lie next to him when he's on his stomach, and tap his clothed buttocks with a hair brush? Have him make a list of baby steps in the right direction... Then think about something you'd like him to do for you, and ask him to do that every time you take one baby step towards spanking.
Wow, I just heard the latest podcast from Dr. Barak and Dan about how WONDERFUL and PERFECTLY SAFE the HPV vaccines are and how EVERYONE should get vaccinated.

What really got me steamed was Dr. Barak (what a whore for Big Pharma he is)saying that anyone who has concerns about the vaccine is "irrational."

Good Lord. Look: I'm not a right winger. I believe in gay rights, etc. I hope my daughter is having a good sex life. I'm not anti-drugs -- many are lifesaving including the one my wife takes.

But there are concerns about Gardisal that are not coming from Michelle Bachman.

Here's a story from CBS:…

I read a fascinating report from a person who attended a Merck presentation and he said the Merck person admitted the drug has serious complications and a much higher rate than is discussed. And it doesn't even work.…

Here's more "irrational" questions from a former GARDISAL RESEARCHER!…

CBS) Amid questions about the safety of the HPV vaccine Gardasil one of the lead researchers for the Merck drug is speaking out about its risks, benefits and aggressive marketing.

Dr. Diane Harper says young girls and their parents should receive more complete warnings before receiving the vaccine to prevent cervical cancer. Dr. Harper helped design and carry out the Phase II and Phase III safety and effectiveness studies to get Gardasil approved, and authored many of the published, scholarly papers about it. She has been a paid speaker and consultant to Merck. It's highly unusual for a researcher to publicly criticize a medicine or vaccine she helped get approved.

Dr. Harper joins a number of consumer watchdogs, vaccine safety advocates, and parents who question the vaccine's risk-versus-benefit profile. She says data available for Gardasil shows that it lasts five years; there is no data showing that it remains effective beyond five years.

I hope someone will show this post to Dan or Dr. Barak, altho they both seem to be such whores for the drug industry I doubt it will matter to them.
Dr. Barak said "irrational" if you have concerns about the HPV vaccine? That's nuts. Read this:

In 2006 the HPV vaccine was recommended by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices. A few years later the U.S. Centers for Disease Control stated, “As of June 22, 2011… VAERS [the federal Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System] received a total of 18,727 reports of adverse events following Gardasil® vaccination.” A total of 2,799 adverse events were classified as “Serious,” including encephalopathy (brain damage). 98 deaths have been reported.

In 2009 CBS News quoted Dr. Scott Ratner, whose wife is also a physician, saying one of their daughters became severely ill after a shot of Gardasil: “My daughter went from a varsity lacrosse player at Choate to a chronically ill, steroid-dependent patient with autoimmune myofasciitis.”

As for me, I'm a liberal, pro-choice, agnostic, pro-good science, anti-big Pharma mother of a teenage daughter, I too chose not to have her vaccinated with the HPV vaccine. There are many sites which are posting serious concerns about the HPV vaccine, hardly "irrational."Sites such as Citizens For Health have recently published articles (see below, and read the comments too--these aren't from religious zealots, just people owning their own health):

I think it's really important to also note that part of the heated debate on this particular vaccine, and vaccines in general, is that good science is no longer running the research, rather it is big pharmaceutical companies. This vaccine was granted a rushed status and didn't go through the usual years of tests and clinical trials required, thus leaving our children as the proverbial guinea pigs to the vaccine's safety and effectiveness. We all have to recognize that the FDA is clearly lobbied heavily by big-Pharma and big-agriculture and so on. People need to be informed and do their own research. For what it's worth, I did vaccinate my daughter against all the childhood diseases up to now, but on a delayed schedule created with our doctor, and we broke up vaccines.

Here is a trailer for an upcoming documentary about this topic:…

P.S. While I consider Michele Bachmann to be a complete loon, and who clearly had her facts wrong when speaking on this topic recently, I think it is even more telling how much big-Pharma is really involved with our government when Governor Rick Perry calls for mandatory vaccinations for all teenage girls in Texas while receiving half a million dollars from Merck the vaccine manufacturer.
One always has to be very careful when making use of VAERS data as the data within is very unreliable and possibly biased. No one checks the validity of the data, it is self reported, anyone can submit reports to the system. It is not a good tool for determining whether or not a vaccine is responsible for adverse effects. At best it can act as a possible warning to get people to look into issues and conduct proper research.

This post (…) discusses it in the context of vaccines/autism but the same information applies to Gardasil. A quick search at the same blog will provide a lot of other criticism and links to studies and links to a number of studies surrounding this issue.
I want to possibly defend the circumcision-bent ex--my bf had HORRIBLE phimosis that really made our sex life difficult, until he got circumcised. Foreskin can be a medical problem! But it is unreasonable to "demand" a surgery of anyone. (Also, thank you, Dan, for having once run a story involving phimosis--otherwise my BF would never have gotten a diagnosis!)
Dammit, I always end up adding errors to my posts when I decide to change a sentence. Must remember to reread them.
I love this week's column. Best one in a while! Best Valentine's Day gift ever!
sallybobally, I had phimosis as well. I tried other treatments but they did not work so I eventually got a circumcision. Sex has been much better and much more comfortable (I have a few issues with being oversensitive now but I still wholeheartedly think that people with phimosis should go see a doctor and get help rather than do what I did for years, feel embarrassed and do nothing). However, unless there is a real medical need I would caution against it. It was not fun for quite a long time afterward.
Sorry, Dan, but I think UAA is much closer to being right this time than you are. UAA did not mention the presence of phimosis or any other foreskin-related problem. What his ex asked for is (while arguably not as disabling as female circumcision) unquestionably genital mutilation.
To be fair, there is a female direct equivalent to a male circumcision--removing the clitoral hood--called a clitoridotomy, or, colloquially, a hoodectomy. Some women do it voluntarily for cosmetic reasons or for reasons of sexual/orgasmic functionality (i.e. if you have an unusually large or thick hood, and you can't feel anything when you diddle).
Can the woman who's looking for something to practice spanking on reach her own ass?
OK, So VAERS may be inaccurate. Still, 20,000 reports is hardly "irrational."

As of June 22, 2011… VAERS [the federal Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System] received a total of 18,727 reports of adverse events following Gardasil® vaccination.” A total of 2,799 adverse events were classified as “Serious,” including encephalopathy (brain damage). 98 deaths have been reported

I wonder if Dr. Barak Gaster is one of these docs who gets paid by Merck or Glaxo? $20 million from Merck. His comments were just so over the top.…
For all the HPV vaccine scaremongers let's put the (very small) risk of the HPV vaccine in context. After years of extensive research, the HPV vaccine has never been linked to any deaths.


@4, 5, 6, et. al There is a whole separate comment section for the podcast. Please go there.…
Thank You!
@11 -- I wholeheartedly agree. I am a woman. I am anti-circumcision (as a rule, not as a medical treatment). I believe that it *is* genital mutilation, though of course not to the same extreme as FGM.
woops wrong blog post
Not all FGM is the same - the outer labia, inner labia, clitoral hood, clitoris or any/all of the above may be removed during a female circumcision, as well as the vaginal opening sewn shut.

Removing parts of genitalia is mutilation (or a necessary medical procedure), regardless of gender.
HNW: do you have some Astroglide? There are other, fancier brands I probably don't know about, but I couldn't do without Astroglide. In general, I think it helps to gradually involve that whole area of the body in the sexual experience first, so that you get used to experiencing sexual pleasure in that region. You can work on touching the perineum (for men or women) while doing something else you like, or rubbing the whole area of muscles in the butt. Then you can try putting in a finger with lube, and if that works, keep going. You want to be really relaxed. If you're nervous about it, much better to start after successfully having some other kind of sex, and then, now that you're in the mood, progress to including the anal.
I am totally anti-the-idea of circumcision. I love a man who's uncut, really. Please believe me, OK. But circumcision usually reduces disease rates and genital cancer rates, depending on the population (het vs homo, Africa vs Europe, which disease, etc) among other things.…

Also, I've known two men who got circumcised as adults, and they said it was not such a big deal. They got used to it after a little while and sensitivity didn't change that much.

I wish it weren't true since I used to think that circumcision was horribly barbaric, but widespread circumcision is probably a pretty good idea for many populations, without causing too much trouble for individual men.
Unsafe At Work reminded me that gay allies can be discriminated against too when gay bigotry is allowed free reign in a community. Your landlord sees your gay friends at the house that one time, and then sees you in a gay pride parade on the news, and maybe 6 weeks later kicks you out of your apartment for presumably being gay: NOTHING you can do about it (this happened to a straight friend of mine in New Orleans). I also marched in that same pride parade, but my landlord was a gay guy married to a straight woman (pretty sure) and I worked for LSU which, much to my surprise, had anti-discrimination laws pretty early-on. Also, I was marching with my boyfriend and my lesbian bff, so we probably would have just confused people had WE been shown on the evening news. Which brings me back to Unsafe At Work's problem, which is everybody's problem, and here's why. Because of one act, (which we're a little curious about, amiright?). Because of one basically arbitrary act, lets say a kiss, her welfare and livelihood are in jeopardy?! That's messed up. It demands that the laws be fixed...Immediately. Everybody's protected, or nobody's safe. That's the cynical reason why straight people, or "bi people in a het relationship," should care about civil rights for the 'mos and Bis and trans in our lives.

Thanks for all the funny and warm letters this week UAA and Dan!
@22 sry but that sounds wierd. I mean if I would walk around with my foreskin rolled down all day I would probably come from the friction alone...
I've slept with both cut and uncut guys (there are mostly uncut guys here in Sweden, unless youre jewish or muslim) and in my experience (warning!warning! anecdotal evidence ahead!) cut guys tend to be trickier to get off.

I think it should be up to the individual adult how he want to do.
Does he want to be more careful with cleanliness (something cut guys could think about too I might add) and wash up before sex or not? How does he feel about the increased chance of HIV infection? (I tend to use a condom instead, works wonders)

Basicly I think its wierd that redundant (which it basicly is, beneficial or not its not something that you HAVE to do) surgery is forced on toddlers
the anal sex used to be a challenge but then I discovered through time three prerequisites. you have to be empty and clean so you can push out during and not worry about taking a crap during or stinking up the room. so buy a small enema bottle and douche away. second, the anal ring will slowly dilate when penetrated so first one finger, then two, then three (or whatever you use to dilate slowly) go slow, this is where the first 'lots of lube part' comes in. lastly, if anything gets pushed in too soon, and you get the stab of pain, pull it out, the pain will subside, but you'll still remain dilated from the invasion and it will be much less uncomfortable when it goes back in. by the time you are fully opened, and he's slamming away while rubbing up against your prostrate, all the hassle was worth it.
the anal sex used to be a challenge but then I discovered through time three prerequisites. you have to be empty and clean so you can push out during and not worry about taking a crap or stinking up the room. so buy a small enema bottle and douche away. second, the anal ring will slowly dilate when penetrated so first one finger, then two, then three (or whatever you use to dilate slowly) go slow, this is where the first 'lots of lube part' comes in. lastly, if anything gets pushed in too soon, and you get the stab of pain, pull it out, the pain will subside, but you'll still remain dilated from the invasion and it will be much less uncomfortable when it goes back in. by the time you are fully opened, and he's slamming away while rubbing up against your prostrate, all the hassle will be worth it. then its his turn.....
I actually like this format containing many more questions than the usual three or four. Something to consider in for the future.
And I suspect at least one of the questions, probably few of them, came from the previous governor and/or her husband.
Hold up, guys! What's the "price of admission" theory?
UAA, your ex is a twit. Good fucking riddance.

Your offer to mutilate yourself for her if she would agree to mutilate herself for you was obviously a rhetorical way of saying "Not going to happen." And what does she go and do? Take you seriously -- as if you would actually want her to go without some of the best nerve endings on her entire body?

Find a girlfriend with a higher IQ.
UAA, your ex is a twit. Good fucking riddance.

Your offer to mutilate yourself for her if she would agree to mutilate herself for you was obviously a rhetorical way of saying "Not going to happen." And what does she go and do? Take you seriously -- as if you had affirmatively suggested FGM, as if you would actually want her to go without some of the best nerve endings on her entire body?

Yes, your request was more unreasonable than hers, but first, that fact doesn't make her request reasonable ("Sure, I'll eat rat poison for you, if you eat plutonium for me.") and second, you didn't actually mean it. The only one who wanted anyone to get mutilated was her.

Find a girlfriend with a higher IQ.
22, circumcision reduces the risk of genital cancer for exactly the same reason that a mastectomy reduces the risk of breast cancer - there's less flesh there to get it.
@27 Well according to statistic you (if your an american man) have a larger chance of contracting male breast cancer than genital cancer and that too can be easily prevented by cutting out parts of chest at a young age.
The chance for getting genital cancer is based more or less on the HPV virus so... basicly a shot of vaccine and your good to go, with all the sensitivity intact :)

The risks of contracting any sickness because of having a foreskin isn't that huge. They don't jump up like smoking and lung cancer or living/growing up in a large city and heart disease and there are bigger problems that can be solved through early surgery that we decline because its just, in comparison, pointless and redundant surgery (especially when your so young).

I'm not saying you shouldnt get a circumsition and I realize this is a cultural thing (where I come from one where its seen as either rather barbaric or something solely religiously motivated and you from one who see it as normal) - but to be honest I think it would be beneficial for all if it could wait until the child is able to say "yes" or "no" himself.

As for the aesthetics of it: cock is cock.
It's interesting to read this having actually been at UAA to watch yu live. Very, very entertaining. I love your honesty. This is mostly an abbreviated version that appears to be slightly less harsh than live, and apparently tipsy Savage. Thanks for coming up here though, we need people like you to cunteract the bigotry of assholes like Jerry Prevo.
I dig that there's so many letters this week! Gives us all that much more stuff to work with to talk about! Awesome :-) . Thanks Dan, and Dan's crew!

I would never ask an adult man to get circumsized. That's insane. I'd just probably avoid him before it got to that point.
@29 "the "price of admission" is what you have to "pay" in order to be in a relationship with a specific person. Don't expect them to change, just decide if you're willing to put up with (smoking / desire to be spanked/ bisexuality / disinterest in cuddling / inability to cook / obsession with Star Trek / whatever)

Whatever it is that you have to put up with, to stay with the person, that's the "price of admission" to dating them, and it's not going to change.
I'm a bit surprised Dan didn't ask Unsafe At Work just what the hell her co-worker was doing at a pride parade in the first place.

Also, I continue to be completely baffled at str8 'phobes who think gay marriage will jeopardize and destroy str8 marriages. I wish someone would explain that to me but I guess that's way too demanding on my part!
I'm a bit surprised Dan didn't ask Unsafe at Work just what the hell her co-worker was doing at a pride event in the first place.

Also, I continue to be baffled at the str8 'phobes who are convinced gay marriage will jeopardize and ultimately destroy str8 marriages. I wish someone would explain that to me but I guess that ain't too likely.

You'll find many poorly reasoned arguments on the internet if you look for a minute.
38/9/40: Actually, I think the argument is not that particular marriages will be at risk, rather the societal conditions necessary and good for supporting and promoting marriages between men and women will dissipate, making the institution less common, stable, whatever. The rationale supporting that conclusion is typically some variant of Chesterton's Fence:

"In the matter of reforming things, as distinct from deforming them, there is one plain and simple principle; a principle which will probably be called a paradox. There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, 'I don't see the use of this; let us clear it away.' To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: 'If you don't see the use of it, I certainly won't let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it.' This paradox rests on the most elementary common sense. The gate or fence did not grow there. It was not set up by somnambulists who built it in their sleep. It is highly improbable that it was put there by escaped lunatics who were for some reason loose in the street. Some person had some reason for thinking it would be a good thing for somebody. And until we know what the reason was, we really cannot judge whether the reason was reasonable. It is extremely probable that we have overlooked some whole aspect of the question, if something set up by human beings like ourselves seems to be entirely meaningless and mysterious. There are reformers who get over this difficulty by assuming that all their fathers were fools; but if that be so, we can only say that folly appears to be a hereditary disease. But the truth is that nobody has any business to destroy a social institution until he has really seen it as an historical institution. If he knows how it arose, and what purposes it was supposed to serve, he may really be able to say that they were bad purposes, or that they have since become bad purposes, or that they are purposes which are no longer served. But if he simply stares at the thing as a senseless monstrosity that has somehow sprung up in his path, it is he and not the traditionalist who is suffering from an illusion." -G. K. Chesteron

Some are not convinced by this sort of analysis of traditions. Some are.
@10, I'm glad you're better now! I do agree that adult circumcision should only be a medical necessity (and i like mentioning phimosis online, because no one talks about it, and if it hadn't been mentioned here, my bf would probably STILL be in pain). And I agree with other people too--no one else should insist you to get surgery, even if it IS for medical reasons. Your body is the only thing you truly own, your partner should support your decisions about permanently, surgically altering it.

My understanding is that gay marriage tears down the illusion of fixed gender roles. If you can have marriage without a "wife", then how will I get my wife to stay home with the kids, pick up my dry-cleaning, and put up with my lazy efforts at sex? (Or the flip side: how will I get my husband to accept that it's his job to support the whole family?)

I used to see gay marriage as no threat to het marriage. Now I see that it IS a threat to a certain kind of traditional view of marriage based on rigid gender roles. All the more reason to push hard for gay marriage, of course.
Not all of the questions were submitted by UAA students and staffers. I'm not affliated with the University. I'm an environmental scientist in Anchorage. Does this mean you're going to remove my question from the column?

You were wonderful, Dan. I don't think I laughed so hard in my life. You also gave some great advice. I hope you come back soon.
For the spanker, it all depends on why you "Can't Go There". If you were abused or otherwise traumatized by spanking or hitting or something else, you may never be able to go there.

On the other hand, if you really probably could go there eventually, but you are just really apprehensive now, a good technique for starting, nervous tops is to blindfold the bottom. That way, you don't have to worry about him seeing you look awkward or funny or nervous or anything. Give it a try next time.
P.S. Apparently medical marijuana can cure just about anything!
@37 & @43 - very nicely put both times.

@27 - this is generally very good advice and as a guy I concur - you will get it when it is rockin' your prostate. However, for the situation where the prostate-less are on the receiving end, I'd add: you should be sure to add some clitoral stimulation to go along with the penetration. This is really not too different from good old PIV sex - most women don't get off on vaginal stimulation alone, but need some of the other as well. JMHO.
Oh...and @41: thanks for reminding me what a long-winded pompous bore GK Chesterton was. I know now who George Will is channeling when he tarts up simplistic (and easily rebutted) ideas with a lot of ten-cent words and complex sentence structure.

As anyone who's ever dealt with the effects of lost institutional memory knows, yes, there are sometimes not obvious and often forgotten good reasons for the way various things are done.

That notwithstanding (take that Will & Chesterton!), there are more often obsolete conventions which serve no purpose beyond convenience and the self-interest of those who benefit from the prejudices of the status quo. One rather gathers that the gatekeeper would be out of a job if the gate were removed - is that sufficient purpose by itself for keeping the gate? One man's "intelligent type of reformer" is another's reactionary ass.
I've been predominantly a top for many years and one little bit of advice based on my experience is that the nipples on both males and females seem to be sexually connected to ones desire to be penetrated anally. The few times I've been topped and have had a difficult time with it, once the other guy starts working my nipples while fingering me, I've been known to beg for it.
@37/47(EricaP), and I always thought this shouldn't in principle be an unsurmontable problem. I can imagine solutions that would preserve traditional gender roles and still allow gay marriage (say, that traditional gender roles are kept valid in straight marriage but not in gay marriage; or that gay marriage becomes legal with the proviso that one of the partners has to take the traditional 'wife' role and the other the traditional 'husband' role for the marriage to be legal). But traditional people wouldn't be OK with such solutions.

So I think that it ultimately comes down to tradition: it has to be like that because it has always been like that, and it would damage our sense of stability to see it change. In other words: if not ALL marriages work like MY marriage, then the holy, noumenous importance of my marriage is corroded, it becomes more like a temporary arrangement and less like a direct reflection on earth of the Holy Ideal of Matrimony in Heaven.
@48, indeed that also happens -- but Chesterton is right in one thing: there are reformers so eager to change something that they don't like that they actually don't take the time to do their homework and come up with a sensible, reality-based risk-benefit analysis, thereby condemning their reform ideals to failure. The French Revolution with its ideas of reforming everything, including the calendar (18 Brumaire of the year XVII, anyone?), is an example.

Yes, there may be institutions for which really no good reason exists or is remembered. But there are also institutions for which some good reasons (not just the gatekeeper's job) exist, and should be taken into account. A hasty reformer who doesn't take the time to think about such things is very likely to be a bad reformer.
#13 FTW!!!!! Awesome.
@ 36, anklyosaur: I agree. How TF does someone ask an adult male to get circumcised when he isn't? Why should it matter, as long as the man keeps his hygiene up down there. True, uncircumcised cocks aren't for everyone, but once you pull the foreskin back, it looks like a regular cock.

Isn't it strange that circumcision doesn't seem to hurt newborn male babies, but when an adult man goes to do it, it's painful and rather self-mutilating to a certain degree?
I don't mind uncircumcised or circumcised cocks. As long as it's clean enough down there, then why should it be an issue? Would someone chop their tits off to please a man who wanted a girl as flat as an ironing board?

If it is a medical matter, such as with that condition of phimosis, then it's another can or worms.

It is kinda weird that some people have parents who allow their kids to make up their minds later on about being circumcised, whereas others (such as myself) were circumcised at birth because my parents decided that's what was going to go down. I've never known any different.

Is it true (anyone in here who is an uncircumcised male) that the foreskin provides extra stimulation and sensitivity? I wouldn't know: I've been cut for a dog's age. Thanks :-) .
@53 "circumcision doesn't seem to hurt newborn male babies" - I was there for my son's, and it certainly hurt him at the time. But he was back to normal in 15 minutes -- newborns don't remember much.

I've heard that anaesthesia similarly relies on amnesia. Wiki: General anaesthesia has many purposes including:

Analgesia — loss of response to pain,
Amnesia — loss of memory,
Immobility — loss of motor reflexes,
Hypnosis — loss of consciousness,
Skeletal muscle relaxation.

Why do they need to provide amnesia, except that there may be severe pain, and they don't want us to remember it? So, if you're against circumcision for the pain, I think logically you should also be against general anaesthesia.

I felt more guilty about diapering my son than circumcising him. The diapering kept his hands away from his penis for years -- he would have been much happier naked but I didn't want the mess. Thank goodness we're over that stage now.
@50 "and I always thought this shouldn't in principle be an unsurmontable problem."

Is this tongue in cheek? Or are you fine with conservatives pressuring straight people to conform to traditional gender roles? I'm not fine with that.
@ 54, Hi Erica: That's cool that you can recall what happened when your son got circumcised. It is pretty wild that newborns can get through the initial pain within fifteen-minutes time.

As far as the amnesia with the anaesthetic, who wouldn't wanna forget that their member got snipped here and there? Just thinking about what it could possibly feel like to have that happen gives me the willies (no pun intended).

I just looked up that condition of phimosis on wikipedia. It looks intense and incredibly uncomfortable.

That's a cute story about your son and when he was in diapers! Have a good one, one and all :) .
Let anyone marry whoever they wanna: regardless of gender. It will always sicken me that some make a platform out of trying to deny someone else the same rights given to someone else.

It's difficult enough in life to find someone to love who loves you back. Why should it matter to anyone what combination of genders any particular couple happens to be? I couldn't ever condemn anyone for finding happiness, no matter who it is. It's 2012: you'd think people would just get over the fact that gay marriage is now a reality in certain states. People are assholes, sometimes. If you don't like what someone else does, then keep it to yourself if it doesn't involve you directly. Some people are just fucking buzzkills and killjoys.

Some get it, some never will. I choose to be one who gets it. Happiness is happiness, and everyone basically aspires to have that for themselves and who they love.

Marry whoever or whatever you wanna. Wanna be weird and marry your $1,000 handbag? Go ahead! Whatever floats your boat! As long as your happy and healthy with your decision, than I say go for it.

I can't wait for the day to arrive when gay marriage is legal practically everywhere. It's a hipper world on account of the internet.

Go with the times or wither and die.
I choose to roll with them changes.

48: "Oh...and @41: thanks for reminding me what a long-winded pompous bore GK Chesterton was."

Two thoughts: (1) I have noted that people in the past were given to more florid prose. My assumption is that without other entertainment forms, they would spend more time draping their writing, and readers did not mind. Now writers have more competition for attention, and they must be more concise.

(2) Reading over Chesterton, he is actually packing a fair number of interesting ideas in a fairly tight space. As a bit of rhetoric, it works pretty well.
Ms Erica - I *think* Mr Ank was just trying to view how a person who wanted to preserve traditional gender roles might try to accommodate non-traditional looking couples, but I'll agree with you that the post came out very badly.

Mr Ank, some places it's just better not to go, however theoretically interesting they might be. Just the idea of anyone proposing such a monstrous Big Brother sort of control over people's lives as a "reasonable solution" (however much it might be self-viewed as a concession on the proposer's part) sort of poisons the line of discussion. I can't engage.
Is is a misprint? Or is the name of the first question disguised? Isn't it really Todd from Wasilla?
I was curious about the first question...Tony from it a misprint? A disguise? Shouldn't it be Todd from Wasilla?
Dear CSA,

The B in LGBT could also stand for Beards...

What are they going into? Could it be something where playing straight is a positive? Just a thought...
Here's the night at UAA from an audience member's POV.…
I would argue that it was UAA's girlfriend who was being the sexist one in that unsavory exchange. I can't believe anyone in their right mind would demand their lover undergo elective surgery; how entitled must be her worldview! It sort of sounds like some asshole who wants his girlfriend to get a boob job. Glad you flushed that turd, UAA.

For those curious about female circumcision, the WHO breaks it down well:…
As mentioned upthread, I'd say that the closest female equivalent of male circumcision would be a clitoridectomy that involves only the removal of the clitoral hood (as opposed to the more common procedure of removing the entire clitoris - shudder). It is nowhere near as disfiguring and painful as infibulation, which I would guess was what Dan was referring to.

What's interesting is that both male and female circumcision are visited upon innocent children by their parents for cultural reasons. We are all savages inside.
You said:
"You're not getting peed on. (Science says: female ejaculate ≠ urine.) But don't take my word for it, TW: Ask your girlfriend to piss on you sometime, and see if you can't tell the difference."

Can you point me to some actual science that PROVES your statement? From my own research, the only arguments that I've been able to find say that it can't possibly be urine because creatinine & urea levels are very low, and in some cases there are traces of PSA.

Extremely dilute urine will also have low levels of creatinine and urea. There was an interesting article, "Magnetic resonance imaging of male and female genitals during coitus and female sexual arousal" (BMJ British Medical Journal (1999)
Volume: 319, Issue: 7225, Publisher: British Medical Journal, Pages: 1596-1600), that shows just how rapidly the female bladder fills during and directly after intercourse and orgasm. Very cool MRI pics if you're into the science of it!
Link to article here:…

In short, rapidly filling bladder=dilute urine.

As for the +PSA, women also have prostate tissue (and yes, there have even been cases of female prostate cancers). This prostate tissue has ducts that lead into the urethra, same as in males.

Now the question becomes how we are defining female ejaculate? Are we referring to the smaller amounts of whitish fluid that women produce, some in more copious anounts than others (which originates in the female prostate), or as this particular writer is suggesting, the type of "squirting" that is so popular in porn now?

IMHO, dilute urine still=urine, even if it also contains another substance.
If you have a glass of coke and add some rum, and ice cubes that you wait for to melt, does that negate the fact that there's coke in that glass?
So "female ejaculation" probably equals dilute urine plus some prostate fluid.

MY hypothesis is that this is an evolutionary defense mechanism against UTIs. Having a way to create the urge to "rinse out" the urethra after intercourse (or even via stimulation DURING) should do a world of good in preventing disease. Add in what at least one scientist at Mt Sinai proposed to study, "Does female ejaculation serve an antimicrobial purpose" (…), and I think we're onto something here.

This is from a woman who had never seen nor heard of it (yes, I lived a cloistered life ) before age 49 and taught herself how to do it, in part for the science of it. I'm still trying to get my hands on some methylene blue. I want to "come" in color.
Don't I sound like a fun lay??

The point of it is, I have no problem with folks liking this if that's their cup of tea, but please lets just call it for what it is!
(But if we actually did that, the porn industry might just lose some folks that are into this genre but not water sports, and we can't have that now can we?)

I'll let you know when/if I ever finish my full article on it ;)

Thank you for coming to Anchorage, Dan! An even bigger thanks to outing our vocal "christian" minority that is fighting so hard to prevent some of our population's access to equal rights. One Anchorage!
Andreas375, @57, I totally agree with you, and thank you for saying it so well.

I'm a huge believer in the freedom to seek happiness. Thus the user name! People do seem to pop out of their mothers as judgemental little meddling busybodies, though, don't they?
The cut vs uncut debate will NEVER come to a peaceful end. There will always be men who feel they were mutilated by being circumcised while infants and other men who don't see the problem. You can't even get doctors to agree. There have now been a few studies done on the subject. The result: regardless of the results there are two sides that will never meet in the middle.

So either agree to disagree or live with anger and frustration. Sorry, I've been hit with this question for over 30 years(circumcision; good or bad, mutilation or healthier, better for sex or the source of its destruction).

For what it's worth the most recent findings are that circumcised men are no healthier than men who are not (and are hygienic). Studies of STD's and foreskins are in debate at the moment.

That STILL doesn't end this contentious debate. If you're cut and have a problem with ED or lack of sensitivity see your doctor. Most of these problems can be fixed.
@5, it is an unwritten but universally respected rule of commenting and message board etiquette that if you drop a giant cut-and-pasted wall of polemical text into a thread apropos of nothing, you are crazy and everything you say subsequently is tainted by your clear, unasked-for agenda.

If you must introduce your personal crusade into a thread, try easing into it. By dumping it all out at once, you're only reinforcing the image of anti-vaccination individuals as paranoid, proselytizing conspiracy nuts.

Which of course only some of them are.
Great column this week! Slightly tipsy is better, if this is what it is.
Dan, your advice to "Annoyed With Him" on how to have a successive long relationship was really spot on. As someone totally happily monogamously married for 30 years(but with a bit of philandering on my part a couple of times many years ago)I can't agree more.
" You have to learn to shrug off minor and sometimes not-so-minor annoyances—maybe even a betrayal or two over the decades—because an ability to forgive and truly forget is necessary for the survival of any long-term relationship. If you're having a hard time getting there, AWH, speak to your doctor about medical marijuana."

Thanks for spreading such good advice Dan :)

@55, not exactly tongue-in-cheek -- it's more an attempt at analyzing their viewpoint from within. No, I most definitely DON'T want to uphold traditional gender roles -- but since I don't see a necessary logical connection between upholding them and being against gay marriage (in that it would be possible to keep said roles and still allow gay marriage, with a little creativity), I think there's more than preserving gender roles in the opposition to gay marriage.
Mr Ven, re-reading my post, I think I agree with you and EricaP -- it did come out badly. Yes, my intention (as I wrote above) was just to see what exactly hides behind opposition to gay marriage besides gender roles. Sorry if I suggested anything else.
On the circumcision debate... I have nothing against it in principle, but since (like all Brazilians) I'm not circumcised -- in fact the first time I saw a circumcised penis was in American porn -- and I'm fine with the result, I don't see a compelling reason to change that, or to extend the practice to countries where it's not practiced.

There's a tribe in the Brazilian Amazon who likes to cut off part of their earlobes. This makes them look a little weird, but as far as I know there are no bad medical consequences (unlike the Botocudo, who wear those deformingly long round things in their lower lips, which affects their capacity for speaking). So I say let them do it, as long as they don't think I have to do it, too. Live and let live. :-)
Regarding circumcision, simple rule, folks: don't cut kids' junk, male or female, for cosmetic or fairly dubious medical justifications.

Let them grow up and make their own decision.

Goddam barbarity, it is. The same people who would tremble with rage at the idea of some Leviticus quote having something to say about sexual relations between adults will blithely tell you that it is "tradition" to slice their child's genitals, never realizing the absurd contradiction.
@76 ankylosaur
"as long as they don't think I have to do it"
That's a big part of the decision whether to circumcise in the US. We were pressured to have it done when our son was born and at every subsequent doctor appointment or ER visit. No medical reason was ever given for this. The medical profession here is obsessed with foreskin eradication for no other reason than their tradition-bound mentality. In fact, there are a lot of things that they rigidly stick to out of tradition. Hence the need for a breakaway group called "Evidence Based Medicine."
@58 - I'm a lover of fine prose and essay writing and I appreciate the richly textured and finely calibrated meanings that carefully chosen and expansive vocabulary allow: above all, you can pack an awful lot of nuanced ideas into a very small space. I am a member of the Loyal Order of the Golden Shovel, and I fully salute Chesterton and Will as masters of the art. Heck, I used to teach history and used a few of Will's columns as samples of perfect exposition and thesis writing.

Still, as they say, "it takes one to know one" and never "BS a BS artist". Maybe it was simply for show, but Chesterton's argument, and many of Will's, are not more valid on the merits for the color with which they are expressed. Ankylosaur is right that there are plenty of examples of nihilistic (Teahadis and Paulists leap to mind!) 'reformers' who are more preoccupied with destroying the status quo than with providing a solution.

In the specific case of same-sex marriage, I'd challenge anyone opposed to the 'reform' to explain how the legal and financial prejudices of the status quo (only opposite sex marriage) serve some not-obvious purpose? That's what this fight is about. It is not about removing the gate across the church aisle. Nobody is talking about forcing any religious group to alter their theology or their definition of marriage.

Any religion may refuse to recognize or sanction same-sex marriage and refuse to confer the non-existant secular benefits of their religious blessing and sanction. The priest does not get to decide who gets to file "married" on their tax return. If the priest refuses to marry a couple, the couple can go to the clerk of the court. Indeed, my late (former) inlaws had this problem in their mixed-theology opposite-sex marriage.

Your Chesterton analogy is quite good in fact, as this fight is entirely about religious institutions trying to preserve their limited secular power as arbiters of who gets to experience the secular benefits of civil marriage. They like having the power of the state to coercively buttress their theological preferences: you want to marry, it can only be using the definition of marriage *we* sanction.
Speaking as a bit of an expert on butt sex, distraction always works wonders. If you are doing it to a guy jerk him off while you enter him, I assume with a girl you could do whatever you heteros do with girls when youre not having sex with her butt to distract both her mind and her body from the object you are inserting. No matter how manly and big you think you are your dainty little gf has certainly had a poo much bigger than your cock.
@ 69, Live And Let: Thanks :-) . That means a lot. Nice to be among like-minded souls in here!
Thanks again. Cheers On :-) .
@77 "Let them grow up and make their own decision."

So, I tend to agree with this about most things, but it kind of presumes all things (neonatal vs. adult outcomes and complications, and health benefits) are equal, and I have the impression that there is a big difference in how serious/big a surgery this is on adults versus infants. I can't find an obvious cite on this one, and I suspect it's very difficult to measure, in terms of pain.

However, the larger issue here is that this subject gets treated a bit like ear piercings: a matter of aesthetic preference and nothing more. However, there's pretty good evidence that this particular Institutional Fence, as Mr. Chesterton would say, exists for a good reason, which hasn't, unlike many other laws given in Leviticus, been obsolesced by modern hygiene. Rates of STIs still appear to be lower i…

Just as with the Autism Hoax with vaccines, I don't have to be shown that circumcision is 100% safe or without side-effects to believe that there are benefits which make it desirable than not in a risk/benefit analysis. Since forgoing circumcision doesn't carry the same kind of epidemiological risks to others that foregoing vaccines does, I'm happy to leave it up to parental discretion rather than being a bit coercive.
@74/75, I don't find it useful to try to separate out the misogyny from homophobia and transphobia. They're not the same thing, but they're are so culturally imbricated with each other that it's pointless to try to uncover what non-misogynistic homophobes would care about in some alternate reality.

@79 "I'd challenge anyone opposed to the 'reform' to explain how the legal and financial prejudices of the status quo (only opposite sex marriage) serve some not-obvious purpose?"

For conservatives, marriage today largely serves to reinforce gender/paternal roles. In reference to Chesterton's "gate", the idea is that liberals have no idea what a society without firm gender roles will look like, and they are blindly pushing ahead regardless.
@83 - yes, I agree: they fear the breakdown of 'traditional gender roles' - which, like Old Timey Religion are a largely modern reactionary invention. However, again, even if they claim those gender roles are long standing, two income households and single parents are far in a way the norm, same-sex marriage or not! I'm sure they don't like Liberals pointing out that the world they seek to preserve is already illusory and passed.
As I recall, the lower risk of STIs in cut cock are fairly negligible. My position is purely practical--go with whatever gets the guy more sex and blowjobs. In other words, while I'm usually non-conformist, I say you do your best to blend in. :)

@71: Well said and well done. I'm sooooo glad to see the anti-vaxers didn't stick around. Never the less, Science Based Medicine picked apart the anti-vax "documentary" mentioned in an earlier post.…
@53 - "True, uncircumcised cocks aren't for everyone, but once you pull the foreskin back, it looks like a regular cock. "

Just for the record, uncircumcised cocks ARE regular cocks. They are cocks how nature made them. That's what regular cocks look like. Circumcised cocks are surgically altered cocks, not "regular".
"an ability to forgive and truly forget is necessary for the survival of any long-term relationship. If you're having a hard time getting there, AWH, speak to your doctor about medical marijuana."

best advice ever.

Dan's a sex columnist. Calling him a "whore for Big Pharma" makes no sense, as he has no ties to the medical field at all.
Re: Unsafe at Work - sorry if a prior poster has already brought this up, but what was the co-worker doing at this gay event? He/she may also fear being outed! If it comes down to a situation where you're in trouble for having been "seen",I would certainly use that as leverage!
@49 - An anal epiphany! Every woman I have been with who had high erotic responses to nipple stim loved anal. Those who could take-or-leave nipple play were largely indifferent or not into anal penetration.

Is there a Savage Grant program that I could tap into for funding on a larger study?
@60 for the WIN!!!! LOL!!
@UAA. If your clean & healthy keep it. I was circ'd @ birth. It seems to me that they cut too much of the skin off. Now, when I get an erection, if you grab, too high, the skin by head is pulled tight and it hurts. Much better for me to grab lower and push some of the skin up so that a good stroke won't hurt. You never hear about this, but I'll bet, there are others like me who have this issue.
I know that the major reason that my brothers were circumscribed is that my mother didn't want to have to clean under the foreskin every time she changed a diaper. The mere idea made her blush. Another of my relatives [a male] made the same observation. So that may be one reason why some parents circumscribe and others don't.
@93: I know that the major reason that my brothers were circumscribed is that my mother didn't want to have to clean under the foreskin every time she changed a diaper.

Ignorance. The foreskin of a baby boy is fused to his glans. Forcibly retracting it would cause injury.
@93 well she wouldn't have to... like @94 said, that is a myth. Nothing else.
UAA is an ignorant dumbfuck. I don't really care what anyone's views on circumcision are, but equating male circumcision and female circumcision makes you *an ignorant dumbfuck.*
@83(EricaP), what I have noticed in various discussions about various topics is that understanding how the opposite side's arguments actually work and are interconnected helps arguing against them. The more you know and understand about the viewpoints of your opponents, the more you can do to highlight their inconsistencies or non-sequiturs.

I speculate that anti-gay-marriage activists are no so much (consciously) insisting on traditional roles (sexism or misogyny; ah, that's another discussion) -- some are, of course, but most are probably more concerned with either religious retribution, or with the idea of stability (hence all those bogus "threats" that will somehow materialize if gay marriage is approved).
@78(Mr J), really? But not to uncircumcised adults, I hope? (I stayed several years in the US, saw several doctors, even a urologist once, and they all looked OK with me being uncircumcised; nobody even once suggested I should.)

But maybe you mean the doctors want to do it to newborn children, rather than adults?

By the way, does any of you know how this became such a common thing in the US? I associated it with Jews; was that the result of some widespread Jewish influence?
@97, "most are probably more concerned with either religious retribution, or with the idea of stability"

I believe you're wrong (unless by stability you mean husbands & wives having different roles). Listen to their words. They are concerned about having kindergarteners learn about gay marriage. Why is that? Do elementary schools teach about PIV intercourse? no, and they won't mention sodomy either. But they will mention that men together can make a perfectly normal household -- so why is that intolerable to the haters? Because there is no "wife" to do all those "wife" things. I think if gay men agreed to have one act as "the husband" and one act as "the wife", a lot of the haters would be more okay with the idea.

@98, in case you do not know, let me inform you that your question --"was that the result of some widespread Jewish influence" -- has been historically linked with vicious antisemitic rhetoric in the US. It's like saying "Hollywood is run by Jews." Granted, outsiders might find that there was some evidence for both statements. But it is not reasonable to ignore the history of antisemitism in the United States when initiating such a topic.
@ 86, Fortunate: If I may quote you:

"@53 - "True, uncircumcised cocks aren't for everyone, but once you pull the foreskin back, it looks like a regular cock. "

Just for the record, uncircumcised cocks ARE regular cocks. They are cocks how nature made them. That's what regular cocks look like. Circumcised cocks are surgically altered cocks, not "regular"."

Fair enough. Cut or uncut cocks aren't something I'd split hairs being about definitive about, but I guess I stand corrected.

I take it you have an uncircumcized penis then.
I'm circumcized.
What's all of this about 'the breaking down of gender roles'? I admire the mental acumen that goes into being that analytical about something, but I also don't think about stuff like that. I have enough going in my life to try to figure out rather than stuff like that.

Be who you wanna be. F*** labels and gender roles. I love to talk and entertain intellectual-based discussion too, but that's not really a topic that would consume me either way.

Let the rest of the world worry about categorization, gender roles and all of that. I choose not to. It's a bit like talking in a circle and getting nowhere sometimes.

But, have fun discussing all of that anyway.
@93: Also, given everything rearing a child entails, having to roll the foreskin back during a bath seems like a pretty minor inconvenience when the alternative is cutting off part of someone's body without his consent. "I'm going to cut on my son's penis" doesn't seem like a proportionate response to "I might have to do something the idea of which I find embarrassing."

@96: There are, like, at least 4 distinct practices described as "female circumcision", one of which, as #12 points out, is the exact analogue of male circumcision - cutting or removal of the clitoral prepuce (hood). The most extreme involves removing the external clitoral glans, the labia minora, and sewing the labia majora shut. That would be an unreasonable comparison, but the minor version is not, and I would expect a caring sex partner to give someone the benefit of the doubt and start with the assumption that the removal of the prepuce is what he was suggesting. UAA's girlfriend is the asshole and you are the ignorant one here - sad considering you're at a computer and could easily have Googled "female circumcision" to double-check before insulting him...
@70: "I don't mind, so it's no big deal" isn't an argument FOR the practice.
Consider: "Not all people who experience childhood sexual abuse are traumatized by it, so just because some are doesn't mean we should ban child sexual abuse."

If some men don't care or like their circumcisions, that's cool - they lose nothing by not being circumcised as infants incapable of assent or asserting bodily agency because they can always be circumcised as teens or adults once they CAN assert their opinions. Men who feel mutilated have no such recourse, on the other hand, so the PRO camp is just fucking wrong unless they can come up with an argument for why we SHOULD be taking knives to children's genitals.