Savage Love May 4, 2016 at 4:00 am

Virgin Territory


@113: Your hostility to WWWM is misplaced, oh Spectre. She doesn't claim to have been monogamous with anyone; she wants a monogamous relationship. I think the "first dick that sticks itself into me" is quite telling. I don't read it as a reduction of men to their dicks, so much as a fear of dicks and sex.
"I want to be in a monogamous committed relationship with a guy before having sex"
This is a problem of definition. It's the smoking gun. There are tons of people who confuse "celibate" and "monogamous." Pick one. You can't be both. She-who-must-not-be-named suffered from this confusion as well. People like this should have a large, red warning label tattooed on their foreheads: "Warning: Not concerned about you, concerned only that there is no one else."
Also, I'm not hostile to her. She can want anything under any terms that work for her. Just be straight about it with the people you get involved with.
#109 - Yeah, was picturing him in the 'Placebo' episode, when he was doing an impromptu game show between the IRA and the janitors, and stopped to tell little Mikey what the real situation was.
@116: I read "I've basically decided I want to be in a monogamous committed relationship with a guy before having sex as that WWWM wants to be in a committed relationship that she and the man agree will be monogamous before she begins having sex. I don't see what your point is. She's currently celibate; she doesn't expect to be celibate once she's in the kind of relationship with a man she cares about; she's not demanding celibacy of her future boyfriend. She sounds as if she would like to be having sex with a man within the context of a committed, monogamous relationship. You seem to be conflating WWWM with someone who's in a committed, monogamous relationship who says, "I don't want to have sex with you and I don't want you to have sex with anyone else." There's no evidence that she'll be that person.
Cat Bro and DarkHorse: This is my favorite Archer compilation:…
LW3 I must chime in with the majority: there's no way four times is an accident. He's getting off on this and it's sick. Unless you secretly enjoy the whole oops-I-did-it-again! cycle (which I wouldn't judge you for, other than that you'd be wasting everyone's time with this letter) don't condone it. People who behave like this are malicious and need, at minimum, to lose access to the entire bathing-suit area.

LW1 I disagree with Dan -- 30 guys and no relationship isn't coincidence. Also, don't fuck that depressed guy. You already have misgivings about him, and that's a lousy place to start a relationship, which you would be doing. But how about asking him why you don't get anywhere with other guys? He might know, and if he's a true friend he might tell you. Or if you date a guy who seems friendly but it's not quite working out (I'm sure you know the signs by now) maybe try for an exit interview? It's not usually a good idea to ask someone why they're dumping you -- I don't think one should ever do this in a relationship which has actually happened -- but in your case you wouldn't have much to lose, and it might be something obvious.
Ghost. It's an old concept, waiting till marriage before having sex, the LW, being modern and all, wants just the committed relationship and is waiting on the marriage. Though one can assume she'd be pretty pissed if this guy didn't marry her.
She wants to be able to trust the person. Trust him in what way?
One can watch someone to tell if they are trustworthy. To oneself to others.
Or does she mean trust him to never fall out of love with her and stop being the committed, monogamous one?
Here is the problem, one of them. no promises that anyone will keep loving anyone else. And there is the business of 30 men she has dated. Thirty is a sizeable number of people to say, sorry.
does she read them the rule book, during month two, is there any room in these relationships for two people to get to know each other. Agree with someone up thread, go talk to a therapist. After thirty goodbyes after just a few months, I'm guessing there are intimacy behaviour issues for this Girl.
BDF- Congrats on your new mayor, seems like a decent person, though I hear Labour did miserably elsewhere.
I've started reading Gloria Steinem's book; My Life on The Road.
At the same time I see my youngest son has borrowed my copy of Jack K's
road trips. I'm not expecting Gloria will take me on the same bumpy ride as Jack did.
She is an admirable early Feminist, Gloria. Our own Germaine has seriously lost it. No longer an Icon.
@122: There's no way to know how long she dated all of these guys. "Dating" covers everything from a first meeting over coffee or a glass of wine, which is pretty common in these days of internet dating (often, it's a first and last date all in one), to a long-term, committed relationship. WWWM has been dating for at least 10 years. Dates with 30 people, some of them sticking around for 2 months over a period of 10 years, doesn't seem all that unusual. It actually sounds like it could be a very low number.

I mean, there may be intimacy behavior issues, but it's also possible that a lot of these dates are just first meetings.
There it is again! You can't be monogamous before you start having sex. Monogamy is an exclusive sexual relationship. You have to be having sex to be monogamous. Look it up. And you can't just have sex once or twice a year. There is a recognized threshold above which you escape the "sexless" label.
@126: The first definition that comes up from Google is "the practice or state of being married to one person at a time", so while not the extent of the word, the meaning given isn't rare of use or inappropriate either.
@125, nocute. The first meet and greet is termed a date?
This girl in her 20s by averages should have attracted a couple of those boys to last longer than a couple of months. And thirty rejections from the male side, not mutual.. I'm not reading it was mutual.. seems to indicate problems on her side in how she believes relationships with boys go.
Withholding sex, I have no issue with. Looking to share it just with this prized male, you know the one who promises undying love to his princess..
Means she misses out on sharing the learning time of finding her mate. Be selective re sexual favours to those wretched males, shit where did that come from?.. Oh how they break your heart in one's twenties... just trust her enjoyment of his company, sense of humour, honesty etc.. and not worry if he's the one. And when she starts, I welcome her to the contraception and std world.
ghost @126, as far as a threshold, I'm seeing this: "some psychologists estimate that 15 to 20 percent of couples have sex no more than 10 times a year, which is how the experts define sexless marriage."…

I think that's fascinating. As a woman who used to do casual sex, if a man told me he was in a sexless marriage, I used to assume that meant they hadn't had sex in at least a year (unless he was lying). I think the "experts" should call those marriages low-sex (or very low sex), rather than authorizing cheaters to claim to potential new partners that they are in a "sexless marriage."
WWWM and VIRGN need to get together, talk about the burden of being older virgins, then proceed with love, care and trust to have sex.
Mr. J's Ectoplasmic Presence: All definitions of "monogamy" in the OED refer to marriage, or being married or partnered, and are tied to the condition of being paired with only one other person.

Paired with or married to; not having sex with.

LavaGirl: There may well be something "wrong" with What's Wrong With Me. Some people define a "date" as a meeting between two people who are open to the possibility of a romantic relationship. In the world of internet dating, two people may have exchanged a number of messages and emails, perhaps texts and phone calls, before meeting in person. Thus, to some, that first meeting can be considered and called a first date. I've been on first meeting dates that lasted 5 hours and led to real relationships; just because we hadn't seen each other in person before, should I not have called that a "date?" I made the date--cleared it on my calendar. We planned to meet at a particular restaurant for the purpose of having dinner together. Is that not a date? Yet I've had other such first meeting dates at which there was no mutual interest, and we didn't see each other again. What should I have called those meetings? When my mother called that day and asked what I was doing that evening, should I not have told her I had a date? If not, what should I have said?
No need for a breakdown nocute. Notions of dates sure, are open to individuals viewpoints. I slowly back out the door. Peace.
Even after all the internet chatter, I'd still refer to that first meeting as a meet and greet, nocute. If nothing else, it makes the number of not followed thru dates look good.
CMD @123: Thank you! Yes, I'm well chuffed at the result, as we Brits say. "Did miserably" is a right-wing press exaggeration; both Labour and the Conservatives lost seats to minor parties, sadly including UKIP. Scotland's SNP lost seats to the Tories, inexplicably, though left-leaning parties (Labour + SNP) put together are still a huge majority up there. Elsewhere, not much changed hands.

While the rest of England ponders exiting the EU, I'm envisioning London leaving England and forming a liberal cosmopolitan utopia. One can dream.
I agree with Ghost. (@32: "WWWM: How can you be monogamous before having sex? It's an oxymoron.") Can I claim that I'm monogamous with Brad Pitt, if I'm not having sex with anyone until such time as I get to have sex with Brad Pitt? I got WWWM's point -- she wants a commitment to future monogamy before she ends her celibacy. But that's not going to fly with many other people who are in a try-before-you-commit stage of their lives. What she and her dates have been is nonogamous.

Is a first date a date? A good friend once referred to first dates as "fact-finding missions." I suppose many of us would define a first date retrospectively. Liked them, want to see them again? It was a date. Didn't like them? It was a waste of makeup.

I agree with EricaP that ten fucks a year shouldn't be rounded down to zero. Ten fucks a year is enough for some low-libido couples. Ten fucks a year is more than sufficient to expose other people to STIs, too. If someone told me their relationship was sexless, if the reality was any more than zero fucks per year I'd call that a lie. "We hardly ever have sex" would be more honest. (Though, as one LW noted, Woody Allen makes "hardly ever" open to a great deal of interpretation too.)
Nocute @131: The Urban Dictionary is definitive for the purposes of Savage Love. The Urban Dictionary's top definition of monogamy is

"The custom or condition of having only one mate in an intimate relationship, of being dedicated to a single partner.
Monogamy is a traditional ideal in various societies, yet many people in these societies are not monogamous.

Cheating (being involved with someone else, with secrecy and deception) is a destructive way to be nonmonogamous. On the other hand, swinging and polyamory (types of responsible nonmonogamy based on the knowledge and consent of everyone involved) are viable choices for some people."

Tumblers of salt at the ready for the other, obviously not serious entries.
^ Tongue in cheek with the "definitive" thing. But I do think most people understand "monogamous" to mean "committed to one sexual partner at a time."
You can be monogamous and celibate simultaneously. Celibacy refers to having--or not having--sex, while monogamy is about fidelity, i.e. not cheating.

If I was married and deployed overseas for an 18-month tour of duty and my husband was back at home and we were committed to monogamy, we would both be both celibate and monogamous during that separation.

BDF's Urban Dictionary definition of monogamy doesn't mention sex per se, but "intimacy." It's quite possible to have an intimate relationship that doesn't include sex. And what about kissing and making out? For some people, usually teenagers, that is the extent of physical interaction in an intimate, romantic relationship. Yet if they would consider it "cheating" if one of them made out with someone else (as many would--heck, some people consider it "cheating" if their partner watches porn, as we've read), and if they are faithful to each other, what other word would you use to characterize the nature of their relationship?

My parents are both monogamous and celibate now, owing to my father's health. If my mother were to have another sexual partner, it would violate the monogamy that both she and my father hold as vitally important. The explanation that what they have is celibacy and not monogamy wouldn't fly.

As LavaGirl pointed out, many people want to wait until marriage before having sex. Thus they make a commitment to monogamy before losing their virginity. I've never heard anyone contradict them if while they are dating they define themselves as a monogamous couple.

I don't understand the hair-splitting about whether WWWM can rightly ask for a monogamous relationship before embarking on sex. She clearly means that she wants to establish intimacy and exclusivity before having sex, which is incredibly common. And while anything might happen once she starts having sex with some hypothetical boyfriend down the line, it's a huge assumption based on nothing at all to suggest that she will not want to have sex and demand that her boyfriend not have sex for the duration of a relationship.

It's possible that the two-months-long relationships she's been in have ended because the man was having sex with someone else and she found out. It's unclear how long she needs a relationship to be established or how serious or exclusive it is before she considers the man to be someone she trusts and the relationship to be virginity-losing-worthy. She said that she's never had a boyfriend, so presumably none of these guys and she were exclusive or all that emotionally or intimately bonded, and certainly not assumed to be monogamous.

Nocute: I would use the term "fidelity" to describe what you are calling "monogamy."
Fidelity means not having sex with other people.
Monogamy means having sex with each other, and only each other.
To me. No sex, no monogamy. It is nonogamy.

But yes, I agree it is hair splitting and we all know what WWWM is talking about. She wants someone to commit to not having sex with other people while simultaneously not (yet) having sex with her, which most people, judging by her experience, aren't finding a reasonable request.
Actually, hey! I can see another side to this. I've been thinking in terms of monogamous relationships, but of course there is also the concept of monogamous individuals. If a person is naturally oriented to wanting to be in monogamous relationships only, they are a monogamous person, regardless of whether they are currently in a relationship of any sort. Similarly to how bisexuals are bisexual even if they are currently only dating a person or persons of one gender, or not dating anyone at all.

So if two people who identify as monogamous are in a relationship, I guess there's no reason why they can't call it a monogamous relationship. Whether they are having sex is not really anyone else's business.

But if someone said to me, "Would you like to be monogamous with me," I would read an implicit offer of regular sex into that offer. Why buy the cow if it's not giving milk, and you can't get your milk elsewhere either.
A date is what I have on my calendar with an individual. I have a date with my Granny to go to an opera broadcast. I have a date with my husband to have sex. I have a dinner date with an old friend. I have a date with a mentor to discuss a business plan. I might even have a date with my dental hygienist for a tooth cleaning.

Dan has discussed social monogamy vs sexual monogamy. We are much more inclined to pair-bonding than we are to sexual exclusivity. Even cheaters often like being married. So as far as Dan is concerned, the general term "monogamy" covers both instances (sexual and social) unless stated otherwise.
@141: "But if someone said to me, "Would you like to be monogamous with me," I would read an implicit offer of regular sex into that offer." Yes, so would I. Who says that's not what WWWM intends to offer?

What if her prospective says "yes," and they immediately bone? Sounds to me like that's what she wants to do and things never progress that far.

I don't read her as saying she demands monogamy and fidelity and then imposes celibacy indefinitely.
Nocute @143: This goes back to the unknown quantity problem. If someone I've never had sex with asks me to be exclusive with them, I am going to say no, because I have no idea whether we are sexually compatible. Sure, perhaps teenage virgins who have never had sex before are happy to make this commitment with their first ever lovers. But experienced people, which is who WWWM is dating, are unlikely to commit in advance to sex that could be bad sex, or not-frequent-enough sex, or too-vanilla sex, and that's what WWWM is asking them to do.

"Would you like what's in this box? I won't tell you what's in it, but you do have to promise to keep it forever if you say yes." Unsurprising she hasn't found someone to say yes.

If I've been having sex regularly with someone and I know the two of us have a mutually satisfying sex life together, then asking for a monogamous commitment makes sense.
BDF, i think I have a different sense of conversations and expectations that I think WWWM (and many, many people, including probably lots of the guys she's dated) has than you do.

I think it's not at all uncommon for couples to go on a few dates and assume that neither is (still) dating anyone else, and this can happen, without discussion even, before they have sex for the first time (and we're all being really heteronormative and PIV-centric all over this thread, btw). So long as the relationship is clearly heading towards more sexual contact, some people wait several dates--or so I'm told--before having sex. Not the way I roll, and I suspect, not the way you do, either, but not necessarily so extraordinary to wait until date #5 or 6.

But the other thing I think you're not taking into account is that this is not a binding agreement we're talking about here. There's no rule that one of them can't break up with the other after having sex or promising (or implying the promise of) monogamy.

I would hazard a guess that the vast majority of American couples never have the "what are the terms of our relationship" conversation--at least not until long after at least one of them has held the presumption of monogamy and exclusivity from the second date or first sexual contact of virtually any kind or duration. I've gone out with plenty of guys who assumed, from the moment that we kissed (at the end of a first date, mind you--or, according to LavaGirl, a meet-and-greet that doesn't rise to the level of a date), that we were now some sort of "couple" with attendant expectations of fidelity and exclusivity. Or at least they thought I would feel that way; and they were absolutely flabbergasted by my saying that not only did I assume they were having sex with others even as we were having sex (even if this occurred by date 2 on the nocute calendar and date 1 on the LG calendar),* but that I was most definitely having sex with others or not planning on not having sex with others even though we were having sex. I don't know if my position made them feel relief, or anxiety, or turned them on (I think it affected different men with different combinations of these reactions), but they certainly responded as though to them the concept was a novel one.

*I kind of like the LG calendar, because I like being a slutty girl, and on this calendar I get to be the ultimate slut--the one that has sex beforethe first date!
@142: Right, and children have play-dates, dates to play not play-meet and greets.
In my lingo land, a date is something that occurs between people who have already met unless it's a blind date. So I'll concede people meeting for the first time after communicating online, are on a blind date.
And undead, play date is a strictly American expression. I never ever set up play dates for my kids. It is gathering fans here though, of course.
Not to say my kids didn't play with other kids. I can't believe this is really a topic for multiple posts.
So the question the LW could answer is, how many blind dates were part of that group of thirty. Because if I was her, they wouldn't be tallied in the final count. As they really are just a meet and greet.
I also don't think one can be monogamous with someone you've never had sex with. A person away from their spouse can claim to be monogamous because they have already partaken of sexual union.
One could promise monogamy, say the religious couple who get engaged, and will wait for marriage. It's not monogamy, it's a commitment re the future.

#146 – You make some good points, but they're still couched as though we're talking about a normal 'ol 30-year old woman who can't find the right man. There's a couple more things going on -
- She's a virgin, and has held onto said virginity for reasons that are not entirely clear from her letter. If she sees in dreams a 20-foot tall image of Mom/her maiden aunt/the priest she grew up with/whoever telling her that she's a dirty, dirty girl for wanting some guy's pee-pee in her hoo-ha, or whether she swallowed whole some Disney nonsense about only giving it up for True Love, she has a bit more baggage than many guys want to deal with.
While yeah, not everyone fucks on the first or second date, that's hardly unusual, plus guys around 30 have a certain set of assumptions about (most) women around 30, pace Seandr.
- 30 first dates? Man, I don't think I've had 30 first dates...To paraphrase Jack Burton from Big Trouble in Little China, 30 first dates and you can't find one dude to fit the bill? Come on Mary, you must be doing something seriously wrong.
- It's kind of hard to tell when, even if she gets a commitment, Mary will let him in her Valley of Dreams. It's unclear whether she actually did get such commitments from some among the Chosen 30, and still kept them waiting. I repeat, if you have a face like an angel and an ass like Belladonna, so he's thinking about how rapturous it will be when he does get to fuck you, and/or you keep him drained some other way, you can keep a guy in a sexless relationship...for a relatively short period of time. Stringing him along for weeks, I say good luck. This is not Mayberry, or high school, or even college, and you're (presumably) not in one of those Soviet cities in the frozen waste where the women number in single digits.
- And yes, we know, such a commitment from a dude is not binding, legally or otherwise. So...why ask for one, at all? If you think the dude's gonna book after nook unless he pinky-swears...we're back to the low self-image. And of course, depending on how horny you get the guy, you can make him say anything, things that will seem non-binding and foolish in the light of the next day.
Mary, people want to get laid. Men, women, all of us, and that's a major driver for getting people in relationships.
Lo Pan: There have been others, to be sure. There are always others. But you know, Mr. Burton, the difficulties between men and women. How seldom it works out? Yet we all keep trying, like fools...
"Thumbtack at the base yada-yada-yada more focused and precise": brilliant, simply brilliant! Thanks again, Dan!
@Cat Bro: I don't what is going on with WWWM, but 30 dates over 10 years, some leading to repeats, with nothing lasting more than two months doesn't seem that crazy to me.

And maybe there's something wrong with me, because I have racked up a lot more than 30 first-and-last dates in the 8 years since my marriage ended, and only two relationships of any consequence, neither of which lasted more than 11 months.
So thank you for making me feel like shit.
Putting my head out here, cause it's Mothers Day in Oz, and I know I'm safe.
This girl Is 30 yrs old. Her peak sexual life is just behind and in front of her.
Her not managing to make any connection to a male, past a couple of months is not the same story as it is for you nocute, and you know that.
A woman of forty five plus has a statistically smaller pool of potentials to work with and the older men are, the less malleable they are.
That's why women grab them early, hold on for dear life and mould them.
A job their mothers should have completed, but hey, we mothers of sons do our best.
Ms Lava - Mould them? That seems sexist. (Then again, as my mother did what I suppose you'd call her best, conversion therapy being her idea of moulding me, I could be biased.)

I'll be so bold as to doubt that Ms Cute would count malleability as a highly desirable quality in a prospective partner. Flexibility, perhaps.
Ms Fan - From over here, it seemed as if the SNP had been overachieving recently; 69 down to 63 doesn't seem too bad. Labour did considerably worse.
Oh it was too Venn. Good call. I was being flippant , just a little.
How about older men are more likely to be stuck in their ways, not so flexible. Whatever. I was just reacting to nocute comparing her situation to the LWs. It's understandable, just not appropriate here.
Nocute @146: Oh, I don't disagree with your read on the process of hetero dating.

One thing I'd respond to is this: "the other thing I think you're not taking into account is that this is not a binding agreement we're talking about here. There's no rule that one of them can't break up with the other after having sex or promising (or implying the promise of) monogamy."

And that's exactly what WWWM appears to be afraid of. She says, "I've waited this long, so I'm not going to jump into the sack with just anyone without knowing that I can at least trust them," and continues that there is only one guy "she can really trust." My read is that she won't have sex with someone without the assumption of the sort of binding agreement you're referring to. Perhaps she's just withholding sex and not making it clear why, and the guys are concluding she's just not into them. Or perhaps she's being clingy and possessive before the relationship gets sexual, and the guys are scared off. My take is that she doesn't want to accept the risk of a relationship not lasting once sex enters the picture.

I did note @61 that her dating experience does sound fairly typical, if that makes you feel better! Very few of my "relationships" passed the two-month mark as well, at least before I became poly.
Venn: I point you to this graphic as evidence of your "considerably worse":…

Labour lost one council, hardly a crushing defeat. Nice to know the British media is just as biased as the US's, isn't it? Particularly when it's funded by the public and required to be impartial. Hmm.
@BDF @160: Well, anyone can insist on a binding-sounding agreement for having sex with someone, but there's nothing to keep someone from breaking up with you. Not even marriage.
WWWM's main problem is that she can't find a guy that she wants to have sex with, who wants to have sex with her too. That's a pretty common problem, perhaps even more common than having an unsatisfactory sex life. And these two most common sex problems have similar causes, too. Mutual pleasure (in sex and otherwise) requires good communication and realistic expectations.. the ability to cooperate, to work (or play) with someone else, to listen to what they want and clarify what you want, to create & agree to mutually interesting plans and follow through.... some understanding that people act in their own self interest, that different people are interested in different things, and different people have different ideas of the "right" way to do things. Regular mutually satisfying sex also requires similar sex interests&goals, and some mutual sexual attraction. In short, there are a lot of ingredients/skills required for cooperation in general, and a few extra ingredients to mutually satisfying sex.

So there are a lot of potential problem areas. WWWM might be bad at communication, focused on criticizing her partner or bragging about how perfect her lifestyle is... perhaps she's blind to her partner's boredom or irritation, or has a habit of speaking to others with disrespect and condescension. She might have unrealistic expectations of a sexual relationship, that there is no middle ground between kissing and PIV, or that her pleasure is "supposed" to be secondary to her partner's, or hold uncommon (old school religious) values like sex-for-pleasure is less valuable than sex-for-procreation, or maybe she simply overestimates the risk of pregnancy or STIs. She might be unable to articulate her desires, or be unable to show respect for the desires of her potential partners. Maybe she is even dating people she's not attracted to, but sees as a smart match.

Since she identified a second problem, that she is still a virgin entering her third decade, I'm inclined to focus on how that might affect her dates. Guys make a lot of noise about virgins, but it usually goes hand in hand with prizing youth and gullibility... an older virgin with self confidence may be a turn off to many. For me, I'd consider it an interesting challenge, but the keyword here is challenge.. I wouldn't go out of my way to date a virgin, especially one who was under the misguided impression that inexperience was attractive. Instead, I have felt flattered when told that a guy had chosen me to be his first.

So, I agree with the SLLOTD, that it may work better to leave out any conversations about sexual experience, especially an announcement of virginity, if you're looking to lose it in your 30s. And if you've ever let a guy grope you, or if you've ever stuck your hand down a guy's pants.. congratulations, you've had manual sex. Hell... you can have a dick inside you without breaking your hymen.. happens enough with tampons right? So there may be some wiggle room to claim that you're not even a virgin.

The whole problem may be that your virginity is intimidating guys. And there's an easy way to figure that out.. Don't tell dates that you're a virgin.
BDF [114] - there is no aggression here, other than on your side. Anyway. You have the right to be just as judgmental and wrong as you wanna be
Sounds like the sort of thing a right cunt might say. Don't worry, I'm not insulting you, just the things you say.
LW3 If that happened to me with a cock getting stuck "accidentally" in my ass, I'd say loudly and not politely something like "Shit! That really hurts! Cut it out!" And I'd jump out of bed and that would be the end of sex for him for the day. I wouldn't be crying; I'd be pissed off and he'd know it. That would not be fun and arousing for him and I don't think he'd make that "mistake" again.
Well, that escalated quickly.
Quick, who wants to talk about whether porn degrades all women?
BDF- what's your take on the latest round up of Labour members anti Jewish/Israel comments?
Interested in your perspective as my main media sources come from a place where almost any criticism is likely to be dismissed right away as “anti-Semitism.”

That said, and despite what looks like a very suspicious timing, I do find some of the statements quite troubling. And while I may be willing to overlook some low-ranking Labour members’ comments, your former mayor Ken Livingston comes across as a misinformed asshole.
Thank you, Mr. Ven, for an accurate description of my ideal mate and for bestowing the Jane Bennet award on me. I am equal parts chagrined an honored to be the recipient, but i guess I really am a Jane Bennet because ultimately, I think it might be apt, and want it though I might, we can't all be Lizzys.
The BBC, the main television network, is funded by the government. I wouldn't count on it to be impartial! - but it will have different biases and priorities than a private sector broadcaster might. Britain also has many privately owned newspapers, and those have a much wider variety of political perspectives than mainstream media in the US or Canada do.
Sorry, the above was re 161's comment about the partiality of the British media.
Nocute @162: You know that. I know that. I think WWWM needs to learn that.

Hunter @163: Labour lost seats in Scotland, maintained them elsewhere, lost control of ONE council in the UK, and got more votes and won more councils than any other party in the UK. Old Crow @171: Having lived in both countries and worked in the US news media, one big difference is that the US news media (pre Fox, anyway) at least maintain this sense that impartiality is a requirement of the profession; British news media have no such commitment. It's appalling the outright lies they publish. :(
CMD @168: I am reminded of, of all people, Jesus Christ's admonition that before you worry about the speck in your brother's eye, you should worry about the plank in your own. Ken Livingston is a Trump-like figure, a political narcissist who doesn't think the rules apply to him. Odd, there are those types on the right and the left. My take is that it's a witch hunt; most of the "anti-Semitism" is actually support for Palestinians, which is a common cause of left wingers, but criticism of Israel as a nation is being conflated with racism. If you opposed the Iraq War, does that make you anti-American? It's ironic because the Tory party is blatantly, unapologetically racist, and they're using questionable memes to tar the Labour party with the same brush. No doubt there are some actual anti-Semites among the Israel critics, but it's a storm in a teacup really. Another non-issue for the right-wing press to smear Jeremy Corbyn with.

Philo @165: Ha! Sorry, I was too busy lol'ing at the Britishness of your phrase "right cunt" to take that at all personally.

And now, you lot have killed my boner, I have Facebook if I want to talk politics! So I shall say, Sympathies to all of the straight dudes out there, after a girl I've fancied for months drunkenly stuck her tongue down my throat on a dance floor this Saturday night, then appeared to change her mind and dashed off without even saying goodbye. Women eh? :)
@BiDanFan: drunkenly stuck her tongue down my throat on a dance floor ... dashed off without even saying goodbye.

In my world, that's a good night, as it spares me from having to tell her I'm married and probably 10 years older than she thinks I am.
How did Dan miss WWWM's primary issue?
I've basically decided I want to be in a monogamous committed relationship with a guy before having sex

This has never, ever worked in the history of humanity*. Very few people are going to stick around dating someone for longer than a couple months without any sex. The 30 guys have all bailed becasue they thought you weren't into them sexually becasue you wouldn't have sex with them for months of dating. You still have more Catholic baggage that you need to dump at the next station, WWWM. And this is coming from someone who is only really sexually interested in people I like as people and know at least a bit, who has no interest whatsoever in putting my genitals anywhere near strangers whom I might happen to find pretty. One can get to know someone pretty well over the course of six weeks with multiple dates per week (which shouldn't really be an issue to prioritize if you're both initially into each other).

*It's never worked as a social norm. Plenty of individuals manage to pull it off, but always less than 5% of the population as far as we can tell, and most of that 5% is lying - to themselves - by only counting PIV sex as "sex".
Oh, I should note that "sex" is NOT only PIV whenever I use the word, and I assume that's the case for everyone, becasue I assume people aren't heterosexist assholes. Would any of you really keep dating someone after two months of no sexually arousing behavior, or even two months of no orgasms? Absent other information, I'm assuming "sex" means "all/any sex" and that WWWM's partners are running after a couple months of dating where she won't so much as touch them on the penis*.

*Ref: this SMBC Theater skit
Ms Fan - I was confining myself to Scotland, comparing Labour's results there to the SNP's. Confining losses to under 10% for a party in power in the election right after its major referendum failed (I may be wrong, but THINK SNP backed independence, although really the only thing that sticks in the memory is that Murray, A finally came down on the Leave side) isn't all that bad (and might barely get noticed if it had only been a reduced majority instead of going into forced coalition territory) - I refer the Honourable Member to the Contract on America Republican takeover of 1994, with a turnover of well over 20%, and it's 2010 cousin. Labour's result makes me think of what happened - I think to the Liberals - in Canada that election when the Reform party took over the Conservatives and got into power and somehow the Bloc Quebecois ended up with the second biggest delegation.

Isn't Labour centrist or centre-right (at least by European standards)? I'd have put you down as a reluctant/strategic Labour voter, not as a true party believer.

One thing you might know - I have a particular interest in the SNP since reading that 1/8 of the delegation to the main UK Parliament was identified as being out. Is that just for the ones they send to England, or are the Scottish Parliament candidates equally diverse (or nearly so)?
Given his assumption in the first sentence of #177, I'm almost inclined to give Mr Horstman the next Bennet Award.
John [177] - Oh, I should note that "sex" is NOT only PIV whenever I use the word, and I assume that's the case for everyone, becasue I assume people aren't heterosexist assholes
I'm assuming that you were born with a dick, here... many women are born with hymens. They may bleed the first time they use a dick, dildo, or fist.. or the first time they use one vigorously to get off. A woman never knows if she's going to bleed, or even experience pain until it happens.. some may think they have stretched out their hymen already, then bam, blood everywhere. It can be disconcerting, embarrassing when it's a surprise.. and make fisting, using dildos, and PIV particularly intimidating forms of sex to start. The most common of type of het sex that can "break" a hymen is PIV, so I think women may emphasize PIV virginity more than men. (Also I think the possibility of pregnancy probably scares those with uteuses a little more.. but kids are scary to all sensible potential parents.)

    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.