“No sex before the game!” Is this bit of conventional wisdom wise?
A gay man wonders if his date being specifically NOT invited to a family wedding is in any way bigoted.
A man and woman are married only in the legal sense. But they still live together and enjoy each other’s company. How do they roll out the nature of their odd relationship to potential lovers?
And more, more, more.
206-201-2720
Today’s episode is brought to you by AdamandEve.com. Get 50 percent off almost any item when you enter “Savage” at checkout.
Comment on this episode at www.thestranger.com/lovecast
I hate to say this, but maybe now that HPV is clearly affecting men, even in small numbers, ie throat cancer, the vaccine will become more widely used. Now, seen as a woman’s problem, it isn’t that high on the list of priorities.
I had HPV and as a result, severe displasia, which led to the need for a LEEP procedure. Having several layers of your cervix burned off isn’t my idea of a good time. A simple vaccine, and awareness that this existed in the first place, would have saved me much pain and trouble and expense.
Hey there! Regarding the guy living platonically with his wife, Dan said they were having “a long engagement to be divorced.” Wouldn’t that be a DISengagement?
Savage, what the fuck? Suggesting that the christian clueless cuckold will go all “paternalistic” violent on the atheist CPOS?
Um, make shit up in a bigoted, contemptible way much?
Also, #2: “I hate to say this, but maybe now that HPV is clearly affecting men, even in small numbers, ie throat cancer, the vaccine will become more widely used. Now, seen as a woman’s problem, it isn’t that high on the list of priorities.”
Yeah, because women’s health is so ignored compared to men. Like the horribly unfunded breast cancer matter, the womens’ shorter life spans, all those women’s hospitals, etc., etc. Myth, right there binky, a myth.
Actually Dan, Rick Perry (No, I am not a supporter, but since you actually mentioned him) actually attempted to make the HPV vaccine mandatory under his governance.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/091…
Now, sure, the argument could be made that he had something to gain from it, but that’s the fact. Just keeping you honest, Dan! I’m still not done listening, so I might return for more. 😛
Ok, to the woman who himmed and hawwed about touching herself in early encounters with men…
FFS pussy the fuck up already!
You cannot expect men to read your mind and yet you should expect men to value your pleasure in sex. The net of that? Touch yourself during sex, encourage him to help out, or grab a vibrator, whatever. If the guy gets upset about it, you should dump him immediately and never look back because he’s either a lousy lay, a selfish prick, or someone who needs to grow up and learn about women’s bodies.
On a hopeful note, I think most men are not these things, and thus most wouldn’t bat an eye if you contributed to your own orgasm. But, dammit, I hate it when women are this self-effacing about their basic anatomy. FFS!
“Yeah, because women’s health is so ignored compared to men. Like the horribly unfunded breast cancer matter, the womens’ shorter life spans, all those women’s hospitals, etc., etc. Myth, right there binky, a myth.”
Wow, that’s the most misogynistic thing I’ve read in a while. Bravo.
You actually imply that women’s life spans are longer because there’s more attention paid to women’s health than men’s???? That level of nonsense takes some serious creativity. A pause for actual history: Until about 30 to 40 years ago, women were more likely to die of heart disease. Ya know why that changed? Because doctors actually began studying heart disease in women and learned, shocker, that it manifests differently in men.
Ya know why more money goes to breast cancer studies for women than men? Because the rates of it are higher! Or are you seriously arguing that every time we fund research for breast cancer that money is somehow taken away from research into prostate cancer? Hello zero-sum game bullshit!
Ya know why we have all this focus on prenatal care? Because women have the babies. That’s biological reality, not a conspiracy against you.
All of these points you raise are not evidence of things granted to women but kept from men. To argue such makes you a hateful fool. A pathetic, hateful fool.
Yes, I experienced the “Douching Hour” on a Metro North train during Pride weekend in NYC. It was a train that left shortly after 1 or 2 am, and featured Jersey Shore-esque girls fighting in the aisle, people passed out on the floor, and groups on college kids running from car to car screaming with glee and hitting each other. Every bathroom on the train was occupied with 3-4 drunk people, with 1-2 more blocking entry. A girl next to me was casually vomiting into her purse. I gave her a plastic bag and after finding out where her stop was, told her I would wake her up when it was time. Upon arriving at her stop she thanked me profusely for helping her, got off the train, and immediately LAID DOWN ON THE PLATFORM. Nooo! Poor thing! It was the train ride from hell…!
To the “gay-identified” guy: Cut the bullshit and be honest — you’re bi. Yeah, you can be “gay-identified” all you want. I can be “vegetarian- identified” and eat a big juicy steak every three months if I want. But I would know I’m just lying to myself. You’re sexually attracted to both sexes (no matter if your attraction to women is only occasionally). By definition you’re bi. Accept it. If my boyfriend told me he was gay and out of the blue he tells me about his once-in-a-blue-moon sexual urges to be with a woman, I would be upset and would fee deceived. And I disagree with Dan. Gay does not come in all sorts of different permutations. Gay is Gay. Straight is Straight. Bi is the grey.
I’m a straight guy writing to the caller who was unsure about how to bring up her need to masturbate during sex to get off – I agree with Dan that you should definitely not hold off from getting off. You mentioned the possibility of giving the guy a chance to get you off (without your manual intervention) but I would actually recommend AGAINST this. If he doesn’t get you off (which you say is the most likely outcome) and you step in with some masturbation anyway, it’ll simply put silly feelings of failure into the guy’s head once he is not able to accomplish what was probably an impossible task in the first place. Why set him up for that? I think being up front and unabashed about your needs and desires is hot, and having my partner get off is hot, so I’d recommend blurting out a “I like to use my hands to get off” and he’ll hopefully understand what’s going on… WITHOUT him feeling like he’s botched anything.
I wanted to mention – reluctantly, because I hate to do anything to defend the shitbag, but in fairness – Rick Perry’s Gardasil plan, but I see that’s already come up.
Regarding the woman who lost her faith and then cheated: Dan, I feel like you could’ve done her a better service by taking a little harder line with her about her path from here. She does need to come clean, but she needs to do it directly and get a divorce. There’s no plausible outcome from this situation in which the parents stay together and the kids are better for it, and if this comes out any way but from her, there’s a not-insignificant risk that, depending on where she lives, she could lose some or all custody of her kids in the ensuing hostile proceedings. Not only would that be terrible for her, it would also leave her kids to be raised in the same backwards environment that left her in her current predicament.
I think she deserves a little slack for her behavior so far, though. It’s not hard to understand that as her brainwashing started to unravel, she went a little bit off the rails, and I don’t feel like she had any reasonable expectation of a friendly, easy resolution no matter what she did. That culture is not one that allows divorce. I think the threesome was maybe kinda wrong, but not THAT wrong, and not at all hard to understand.
For the guy who isn’t sure about how to go forward with the girl he met through a mutual friend:
I think you’ve got to take some steps, and quickly. I think that your actions, especially after the most recent evening with her, have put you dangerously close to the “friends only” category. Maybe the thing that you’re missing is the confidence she generally desires out of a partner. She’s theoretically opened all the doors, but you didn’t or have not walked through them, and to her that is a turn off. So start applying the pressure (it’ll take a little more to get yourself away from the “friends only” category now) before it’s too late.
My advice: Tell her you want to take her on a date, don’t necessarily ask. Make sure that making out occurs on the date (this line has already been crossed, anyway), and push things further, especially sexually, because that’s what it’ll probably take if it’s going to work.
I give this advice from being the person who has missed many opportunities almost exactly like yours by slipping into the “friends only” category. Once I started showing more confidence and taking risk, things changed quickly. Remember, you can still be a great, respectful guy while making your intentions clear and showing the confidence she may crave.
@bma83 Wow, way to ignore decades of progress on human sexuality.
I guess that that whole black-white-grey argument you outlined is why the gay pride flag is composed of only three shades. Oh no wait, it’s a colorful SPECTRUM, much like the SPECTRUM of human sexuality.
But no, I guess that guy was a little too ‘other,’ a little too threatening, and a little too weird, huh?
He must be bi.
the douching hour manifests itself quite well inside many a story in this “this american life” episode
http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-ar…
Oh man, Dan.
Your response to the Christian wife “gone wild” was BRUTAL. Having listened to it a few times, now, I am reasonably sure that it was a fake (albeit an interesting fake) call. How likely is it that an enlightenment regarding the secular world would result in such an acute moral debasement? Sounds like a church lady’s simplistic concept of what happens when one loses her faith.
I believe you may be a target, now, for attempts at a media punking a la Andrew Breitbart or that little shit James O’Keefe. In fact, she may have been one of O’Keefe’s Xian Actress “Hose” he uses to straw-man people on the left (like they did to Planned Parenthood, etc) Like a Mirror Universe version of Media Matters for America but with hams for hands, they have had their successes & seem eager to play-act the ho to make their point. How cool would it be to engage them somehow in this respect & see where THEIR lines are drawn. If you could get them to cross this line or that, get these slutty christian actresses to defile themselves in front of their own cameras. (…daydreaming now about ACORN’s revenge…)
Anyway, very well played. We’ll never know if I’m right, because you absolutely did not bite & they’ll never use it for anything.
@14 Well, even if there are writers and callers attempting a Breitbart-style smearing, Dan is, I should think, more insulated against it than most.
Why? Because his positions on marriage and fidelity are consistent across time and not at all without decency and compassion and he repeatedly defends those positions with clarity on those very grounds. It would be too obvious that he was being taken out of context and/or caricatured because of the sheer volume of material he has produced (comparison: how many people knew of ACORN or Francis Fox Piven before the right set their sites on them?).
I also think that should such an attempt occur, Dan’s brutal honesty would win the day, in contrast to the many cowards we know of who attempt to deny or rationalize or genuinely bullshit their way out of it (e.g. Weiner, The Church Closet Case Brigade).
In short, Dan being Dan makes him safer, at least to my mind.
I think his adversaries know this. Just as they don’t ever take on Amy Goodman or Noam Chomsky, they would know not to try to publicly attack someone so beyond skilled in defending themselves against them.
Regarding the wedding guest thing–this could definitely be nasty unpleasant family bigotry. On the other hand, weddings are such minefields of etiquette disasters and misunderstandings that it could be a bunch of other things. The idea that every wedding guest should be invited with a “plus one” is a pretty new social convention. Traditional etiquette dictates that established couples be invited as a pair, but not that brides and grooms are obligated to entertain a bunch of people they’ve never met. So if the straight brother has a committed girlfriend but the other two brothers are single and would have to rustle up a date from somewhere–rather than bringing a boyfriend/partner/husband–that’s another possible reason for the no-guest thing. But if they do have boyfriends, then I take that back.
justanotherbiguy, what are you talking about? I’m having a hard time trying to understand your criticism of what I wrote. My point is simple: He identifies as gay yet he admittedly finds women sexually attractive. Thus, he’s not gay. He’s bi. Case closed. Now, he can call himself gay all he wants. It’s a free country (supposedly at least). But I have a hard time taking his gay label seriously when he’s in the bed with some woman in the middle of coitus, even if it’s only occasionally. Your issue with that is what? How is that ignoring “decades of progress on human sexuality?”
For me at least, Uma Thurman was lost as a sex symbol when she helped destroy Batman’s good name in “Batman & Robin“.
Might I neologize for the gay man who occasionally fantasizes about women and feels a genuine desire to sleep with them. I propose the term “homoflexible.” It may be a bit off, as I usually hear the term heteroflexible in the context of closet cases and attention whores, things that this guy certainly isn’t. It’s more gay with a touch of the bi, if you will.
@17: I think the problem is that he’s mostly gay, and has a relatively small attraction to women. While almost no bi people have exactly equally split attraction between the sexes, I think that most people who consider themselves bi at least have something like a 20-80% distribution in desire, if that makes sense. Just think if a girl called herself bi because once in a very great while she wanted sex with a girl when she never had any desire for a girlfriend. People might call her adventurous, but they’d also probably call her straight.
@16: I thought that might be it, too. I personally think it’s weird when single people want to bring anyone less serious than a girlfriend/boyfriend to a wedding, but the caller didn’t say that he or his gay brother had boyfriends, only that they weren’t allowed to bring dates, and he definitely referred to his straight brother’s partner as a “girlfriend.”
Hey alguna_rubia, I understand your point. 🙂 I guess, for me as a gay guy who has no sexual attraction to women (that’s what I thought gay was), I can’t stand it when guys who claim to be gay admit their sexual attraction to women. To me, them calling themselves gay is, for lack of a better word, a lie. But even more than that, I think it provides “evidence” to those who feel like gay is a choice and that we can change if we really wanted to. Yeah, his attraction to women is small. But it’s still there. It’s a part of him. He can’t ignore it. I on the other hand have no attraction to women. None. How can we be classified with the same sexuality? That’s why I said in my previous comment that gay is gay, straight is straight, and bi is the grey. This guys sexuality is definitely not black or white.
WTF with the hammer analogy? What? Why? Why did he go there to the violent thing? Let’s all give our analogies a little more thought, eh?
I thoroughly disagree with @DerBassSpieler’s pick-up artistry suggestion for the guy who made out with the girl who is obviously not that interested.
If someone says that she’d “like to like you”, the spark is not there for her, end of story. Pushy behaviour like what @DerBassSpieler is suggesting might get her to sleep with you out of pity, but it’s not going to make her feel a desire that isn’t there. If you want her to sleep with you out of pity, then go ahead and be pushy.
1.) Anti-vaccine people are not primarily Right Wing Christians, they’re the Left Wing anti-science hippies. You know, the kind that fear genetically modified crops and espouse things like homeopathy and other naturopathy alternative “medicine” modalities.
2.) Anyone who “wants to like you” isn’t that into you. I’ve been on both ends of that one. This girl just wants a friend and the further the boy goes down the path of wishful thinking the more it’s going to hurt when reality dawns upon him.
3.) The girl who requires manual stimulation needs to trot that out the first time they’re together. All boys need to realize that if they want a healthy sex life their partners should have an orgasm every time they’re togather, BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY.
Regarding the woman who needs to touch herself to get off during sex, I agree with Dan but she should play and fuck for a while first without doing that. She can let this guys help get her excited and have fun and get wet before she plays with her clit. Then he will feel like he helped to get her 90% of the way there and she just finishes off with some of her perfected clit rubbing. If she were to start this right away it could be a bit off putting for the guy. Also, if this turns into a few night stand or a regular fuck buddy, she should talk with him and be open to new ways to get her to cum. Maybe she is comfortable with this way to make herself O and it works but there are otherways that she could explore with a partner who she trusts, etc. She should not necessaryly thing that this is the only way she can O for the rest of her life. who knows?
Regarding “douchebag”.
After trying to come up with a way to describe my roomate’s girlfriend in a manner that “douchebag” couldn’t quite capture. I finally stumbled upon the female equivalent and can now say without hesitation, “that chick’s a dick pump!” ~voris
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.ph…
@25, the thing is, she never told the guy that she’d “like to like” him. That’s second-hand information. It could be that his love interest didn’t want to admit her feelings to her female friend, for whatever reason, or it’s even possible that the friend likes to lie and cause trouble. Wouldn’t it be a bit juvenile to abandon hope based on something a third party said?
There’s no way he’s being “pushy” before the girl has even voiced any actual rejection!