Podcasts Sep 18, 2012 at 1:00 am


Ahahaha, these comments are great. I think the proper spelling of her agreement noise is "yih" but this is open to debate.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

>"but what is the proper descriptive?"

How about the one I used multiple times in my comment: "trans women"? Transgender is fine too. Please stop pretending like trans people NEVER tell you this.
AAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH! Someone please, please, please shut this woman up! If I had a gun, I would have put a bullet through my iPhone!

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

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

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

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

I expect these episodes to keep NPR-grade listenability, and this episode sadly did not.
Actually, after i noticed the knee-jerk use of "actually" i actually had to stop listening to this episode.

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

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

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

Never commented before, but goddamn, I couldn't finish listening to this one. Gallop is like that dude from the Micro Machines commercials of the 80's, but way more shrill.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This podcast has never made me feel this anxious & annoyed.
It was hard to listen to the podcast. Cindy was pretty repetitive in her points not to mention she kept interrupting.

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

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

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

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

That's not "hating," Dan. That's constructive criticism. I'm positive Cindy would have greater success in her business if she simply learned to be a halfway-decent listener.
I love the idea of Make Love Not Porn, and I'd love for Cindy Gallop to return to the podcast to talk more about that disconnect between sex and our unrealistic expectations of sex.

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

Maybe she was nervous. When I get nervous, I tend to talk fast, so I don't want to come down too hard on her, but seriously, take it down a notch.
Cindy's interruptions and constant plugs for her site were annoying. She has a good idea but she just kept talking and her answers were evasive most of the time like a politician. She was just very annoying to me.
It's been said already, but *yikes.*

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

She sucked, you got conned and your audience suffered.

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

    Please wait...

    Comments are closed.

    Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.

    Add a comment

    By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.