Surrogate partners? Did the Reallocation of Sexual Availability Bill pass the house??

What country does the first LW live in, that has a 31st day of April?

@2: lmao

On another note... Alex “Info Wars” Jones has been caught on camera with transporn on his phone (https://www.newsweek.com/alex-jones-infowars-trans-porn-marissa-minx-1093041). Another “conservative” caught in the more of hypocrisy.

Mildly irritated that when the majority of comments about Shroom Dude disagreed with Dan, he chose one that agreed with him to highlight. Isn’t the point of this roundup to air dissenting opinions?

@2 - Finland, apparently! Or, it's a typo?

Damn. I saw the last butt pic, assumed it was female, thought it was incredibly hot, and indulged an impure thought or two before reading on... learning too late that it belongs to a "mid-twenties gay from a small town". Am I in danger of becoming gay myself?

@7 are you new here, or have you just missed the 'being gay isn't dangerous and liking men sexually doesn't mean not liking women sexually anyway' message?

Fairly sis guy here, but hey, those were all cute butts. I'm with @4 now.

@5 yeah, and seriously, if you don't want to disclose, just tell her it didn't work. There are other people. No sense imvesting hard in someone it turns out you are incompatible with because of a core belief that she was very up front about. Of course, you might be compatible, but the only way to know is to use your words like anyone who graduated kindergarten. For real, you have a valid choice but if you're a lying dirtbag (intentionally withholding information that was requested up front is lying) then this girl, your current girl, and any future girls or guys are totally justified in treating you as such. Telling her it didn't work is the truth, or telling her you very occasionally do shrooms is the truth. Not telling her but leading her on despite her being explicit is not moral or ethical unless you have the moral compass of a Fox news anchor or a Trump cabinet member. FFS

Dear pedant: The term "ethical non-monogamy" is used to distinguish open relationship models from cheating, which is unethical non-monogamy. You're welcome.

To the non-Mormon: We all need money, so it's arguably more permissible to lie about something inconsequential to get a job than it is to get sex. Particularly if, in the case of the LW, one is already getting sex with one's primary partner. Apple and orange. If someone's profile says "No Jews" and you are Jewish but not obviously so, is it better to lie or to date someone you're incompatible with under false pretenses? "Thankfully," you got another job. So wouldn't this person be just as fortunate to avoid the just-say-no absolutist and find someone else to fuck who wouldn't mind an occasional shroom trip?

Sporty @1: I haven't really missed your comments, but it's distressing to learn you've been spending time on the incel sites instead of here. Though unsurprising.
Here's the column on surrogate partners. As you can see, it is anything but forcing unattracted women to service bitter men.
https://www.thestranger.com/savage-love/2018/08/21/31085655/savage-love

Fresh @5: Wait, Dan said disclose. So this person who said lie -is- disagreeing with Dan.

1.
Right on, Dan, for using the comment calling out doc Blanchard for even drawing a (ridiculous, loaded) line-in-the-sand between surrogate partners and sex workers, and for the unsupportable way she drew the line. Surrogate partners sometimes do sex, hence they are sex workers; (society needs to embrace that) there's NOTHING wrong with that, and drawing that line made her part of that problem.
2.
It's SO hypocritical that a Trump-lover objects to people saying they "hate" anything, since rightwingers are literally DEFINED by nothing so mych as by a stew of psychological pathologies underlaid by (the ONE thing which binds them together...) hating liberals. Hey, if Trump didn't want to be hated, he shouldn't behave so hatefully, like such a heinously vile loathsome asshole pig.

The guy in the first butt pic looks like he's trying to lure that kitty over. I hope he doesn't live in Thurston County.

@5

Dan told shroom to disclose. The commenters agreed with Dan en masse. The controversy was about whether Dan's response adequately scolded shroom. So, Dan did post a dissenting opinion.

Damn that last dude has a nice ass. I wanna grab one of each cheek and-- never mind. Why don't straight dudes ever have asses this nice? :( This is one of those times I wish I was a dude, lol.

The point multiple commenters made about shrooms that Dan missed (and did not highlight here either) was that someone who says "no drug users" isn't necessarily close-minded and in need of re-education - they might just mean "no drug addicts", or they might have legitimate reasons (like being a recovering addict themselves), but whatever the case, they have the right to set that boundary in the same way that someone who identifies as monogamous isn't necessarily uptight or controlling or close-minded either.

Speaking of which, as for whoever wrote "I don’t think the ethics of non-monogamy are in question, such that they have to be specified" - what planet are you from?

(...though maybe "what drugs are you on?" would be more apropos...)

Chase @15: The closing line "Plus, calling something “ethical” rarely makes it so" revealed this commenter's bias, to me. They don't think non-monogamy can be ethical, which is why they don't understand the phrase that sets it apart from cheating. They don't see a difference. Judgmental or bitter? Or non-monogamous yet still shady, themselves? Hmm.

@17: Good catch. Yeah, there’s something fucked up going on there.

Cool Dragon @14: Some straight dudes do have nice asses. Too bad picture uploads aren't allowed here!
BiDanFan @17: Judgmental at a minimum. Maybe bitter too. Even people who purport to support non-monogamy seem to be judgmental about it.

About the shrooms guy - my experience has been that if someone says they are a very occasional drug user - "every couple of months, maybe" - they are, about forty percent of the time, a considerably heavier drug user who is either in denial or outright lying. "I didn't think you meant pot" "things are really stressful at work right now and I need a break" "it was a party, c'mon!".

@20, I can't remember the exact numbers, but shroom guy said something like 3 times in the past 2 years. Not currently using, and not planning to use in the future but it could happen. So considerably heavier use would still be very minimal. (How do you define considerably heavier than not currently using?)

@20: Maybe true for some things, but IME not so much for mushrooms. I've know a lot more people who took mushrooms a few times over the years than people who used them monthly or more frequently. Anecdata, but they certainly seem to have a lower potential for heavy use or abuse in my experience.

As for May Day, it's both a pre-Christian Northern Hemisphere Spring festival that has persisted in many areas that became Christian-dominated (with the syncretized Easter being Christianity's Spring festival) and an international labor day of solidarity and celebration for Socialists and Communists.