Lie, tell then you are not on birth control and are very fertile, they better double up;
also tell them you have HIV, they'll probably slip on three.


Oh Danny;
The 2015 study did NOT find that people in consensually nonmonogamous (CNM) relationships were no more likely to contract an STI than people in monogamous relationships.
It found that people in consensually nonmonogamous (CNM) relationships were no more likely to contract an STI than people who claimed to be in monogamous relationships but were cheating.
We'll wait while you fix the post..........


If you're playing games by lying, you can only look forward to trouble and unhappiness.


Tell them nothing. They wear condoms or they go home.


Lie now and lie later. When you are ready to go bare with the right guy, tell him you are now using an IUD.

As a gay man who managed to stay negative through the plague years, I feel that anyone who wants to go bare will go and has gone bare with (possibly many) others and is more likely to be carrying something.


I love how Dan used this question as an excuse to claim that monogamishism is better than monogamy. His blog, his horse to beat I suppose.

Anyhow, I don't think there's anything immoral about lying to someone about having an IUD. If you really feel uncomfortable lying, you could always tell a technical truth and just say "no, I'm not on the pill," since in my experience men don't usually inquire about IUDs, rings, etc. But if you're looking to get to know these people and not just seeking random hookups with them, it seems to me that you're better off just saying you have an IUD but still insist on using condoms. Anyone who pressures you not to use condoms is someone you probably shouldn't be fucking anyway, so instead of seeing that trait as an annoyance you might want to start thinking of it as a red flag, a sign you should drop him and find someone else who respects your health and boundaries. I will note anecdotally that the partner's I've had who have been most vigilant about condom use (e.g. bringing their own instead of begrudgingly putting on one I supplied) have been the ones I later found out were secretly fucking loads of other people. Red flags all around, I suppose. My point is that having these discussions openly with our partners doesn't just provide them with information about us; it helps us learn things about them that down the road we might find useful to know.

And maybe I'm being a little hard on guys who are flippant about condoms. While it's not women's job to teach our partners sex ed, these situations can be a good opportunity to spread some knowledge (rather than diseases). Maybe some of these men never had access to sex ed (thanks Bush!) and simply don't understand that birth control doesn't protect against STIs. They also might not realize that there's still a risk, albeit small, of getting pregnant even if you're using birth control.


I wouldn't lie. In the event he's doing some intense fingering and feels that string, then goes "Huh, what's this?" and pulls, you are fucked.

Wear a condom or GTFO. Why bother to have sex with someone if they won't respect your boundaries. Use this to wash out the dumb assholes.


That whooshing noise you hear is the point flying over your head


@6. Better? No, not better. But a wash on the STI front.


LW, you don’t have to lie or not lie. Remind these men they are responsible for their own sperm and STIs are not fairytales. I was reading ages ago, how Australian scientists were working on condoms which are super fine.
Write up a poster which says” if it’s not on, it’s not on.”, and point to that if they get pushy.


1) "Put on a condom or get out / I'm leaving."
2) "I asked you to put one on and I'm not going to tell you a second time. This night is over. I don't feel comfortable knowing you have unprotected casual sex."
Young horny men are a dime a dozen, shut them down and move on to the next one.


@11 wins it! Well done!


funny, it smells like the bean burrito you had for lunch

only a wash when you handicap monogamy with a '25% cheat and don't use protection'.
why do you hate science?
the CDC tries and tries.
it's like you want another std plague or something....


"Write up a poster which says 'if it’s not on, it’s not on' and point to that if they get pushy."
It'd make a Great poster.
And a better Stamp.*

Well played, LG.

*are the "Pro-lifers" pro STDS, too?


Yes lie, and later if it's going well and you're getting more serious, you could always say that you decided to get an IUD. Take a few days off from sex to "recover", and everything is fine.


She says these are guys she sees more than once, does that me she might get into a relationship with them down the line? In that case, tell them anyway because is a great way to filter out assholes. Yes, it sucks to not get laid when you wanted to, but anything that helps you detect red flags in potential dating partners is a positive, not something to avoid.


Women are so conditioned to believe that they have no power that they don't realize how much power they have.

A man who doesn't respect that you want to use a condom is a man who isn't worth fucking - even once.

Seriously - try it for a while. When you're at the point where you might want to have sex with a guy, have 'the talk.' Put it out there: 'I WON'T have sex without a comdom until I'm in an established relationship.'

Any man who pushes back on this very reasonable condition - even a little - isn't a man, he's a selfish child who's more interested in his own plesure than yours (and I'd love to see a study that explores a correlation between men who refuse to wear a condom and men who refuse to go down... I'll bet it's huge).


@2 @13 That 2015 study did NOT exclude the 76% monogamous who reported no other partners; where did you get that from? It also didn't exclude the 28% of the consensually nonmonogamous who did not have an outside partner at the time of the study. Indeed, if it had, they wouldn't have been able to get a response to questions such as the first one as to how many lifetime partners (525 respondents). The only problem with that study is that it's pretty small (205 nonmonogamous, 351 monogamous), so it may not be a highly representative sample.
In short, your accusation is just flat-out wrong; you should learn how to read these studies with an objective eye rather than just making unsupported claims.


Your vagina, your potential pregnancy, your potential STD, your choice. Lie your ass off if that’s what it takes to protect yourself. I truly don’t understand the hand-wringing over this decision.


If a guy says, “Are you using birth control?” just say, “Yes! We’re using condoms, which incidentally will protect us both from “STDs!” Any guy who objects is a dick and deserves a SHORT stay in your life. Later on if and when it turns serious you can have the “fluid bonded” conversation. IF the guy is savvy enough to recognize that you’re using an IUD (FWIW, I couldn’t tell and I knew my GF was using one) remember, birth control is only one of the reasons to use condoms. STD prevention is a GREAT reason. Weeding out the irresponsible assholes who don’t respect your boundaries is an even better one.


There are several probs with Dan's beaten dead horse stats.

The first is that a study of consensually nonmonogamous relationships vs monogamous relationships is TOTALLY FUCKING IRRELEVANT to this situation as she's talking about dating. There is no relationship in the first place.

The second is that the study is about people in different kinds of relationships NOT about people who wear condoms or not- which is the LW's question. So to make it comparable, you'd have to compare the chance of getting an STI in the following situations: a) dating and fucking without condoms, b) consensually non monogamous and fucking without condoms, c) monogamous and fucking without condoms. It makes no sense to compare relationships in which you are fucking when it's the condom usage that makes the difference.

The third is that the study compares nonmonogamos relationships to monogamous relationships without controlling for cheating. It's fine and well to say all people are going to cheat (not true, but whatever, he's right it's a high percentage), but it doesn't account for the fact that plenty of mature grown ups in monogamous relationships later choose to become nonmonogamous - so this fact skews the data into the other group.

Fourth- and probably most importantly- it willfully misunderstands what she means. She said she didn't want to use condoms until she's in a committed relationship. It's totally fucking normal (and smart) to use condoms with people until you are in a committed relationship that involves trust and communication. She doesn't say she wants monogamy forever and ever amen. She says she knows that there are risks with monogamy too. Go back to point three- the stats are skewed because plenty of us realize that most of us are not going to a one-and-only-never-any-one-else-forever-and-ever marriage, whether or not we start out monogamous, and we discuss those things throughout the long term of our committed relationships and shift things around as we go. And it is just a simple fact that you are more likely to be able to communicate with people about your risks and trust them when you are in a committed relationship with them than when you are just dating.


Also, to the LW:

You get to choose what protection you want to use. If you want to use condoms every single time, then you purchase your own damn condoms and have them with you. When things start to get going but before you are naked, you tell him you will only have sex with a condom. If he demurs, you leave. He blew it, bet he'll be better next time.

I'm disturbed by the stealthing stats. If you think it would keep you safer to lie about the UTI, then do so. You can tell the guy the truth if it becomes a relationship and you trust him, and you can explain to him that you lied about it because you heard that stealthing was alarmingly common. I don't think most men worth your energy would mind this so long as you clear it up in a reasonable amount of time in the relationship. If it were a lie in the other direction by saying you were on bc when you were not, that would be totally different and unethical, but a lie in this direction does not affect the man's risk at all.



Obviously she should tell him wear a condom or no sex. But that isn't her entire question. She's saying that they might secretly take it off and she's thinking that they might be less likely to do that if there is a risk it would make them a father.


IUD not UTI (shudder with horror) nor DUI (more shuddering) nor UID (more horror) but Diu seems nice enough.


@14; kristofarian.. perfect. A stamp. As she’s kicking the toe rag out the door for not complying, she could say .. hold on .. then go grab her stamp and pad, and ink the inside of his arm.


OK, I'm not about to google "rawdog" but I give up. What's that? Bareback doggie-style?


Agree @19, Escapee, why is this even an issue. Then she is young and obviously nothing much ever changes. Women trained to indulge men and then cry foul about it.
Time she found her voice and let them know the rules. Also, stop the sex and check manually if he’s taken off the condom.
What children these men are, to indulge themselves like this.


@23/EmmaLiz: Please reread the letter, nowhere does she state that she believes they might take off their condom. She clearly states her experience is that most men assume condomless sex is acceptable.


IUD, can you lie? Yes, you certainly don’t need anyone’s permission or blessing in this case. Should you, or do you need to lie? No. I think you need to be clear that condom use is mandatory if these men want to fuck you. If they refuse, then no sex. Why would would want to fuck some who wouldn’t wear a condom because you asked, but would because you lied?


IUD, WHY would you want to get more serious with a guy who doesn't want to use condoms with a casual partner? These guys are trash. Bin them immediately.


Camino @2: The point is that you, the monogamous person, can never be 100% sure that your supposed monogamous partner isn't cheating. That's how you, the monogamous person, end up at risk of STIs. Because your supposed monogamous partner is lying to you, probably lying to their other partners, and less likely to use condoms with any of you. Dan has nothing to fix.

NoSpin @17: A "talk" is something you have before you stop using condoms, not before you use one. No words are necessary, just get the condom out, unwrap it and put it on your/his dick. If he protests, tell him no sex. If he asks if you're using birth control, tell him it doesn't matter, that maybe he doesn't care about STIs but you do. This is a great argument for making sure he gets you off before intercourse, because if you have to kick him out for being a risk magnet, at least you've had an orgasm! No condom, no joy for him. They'll learn.

Emma @23: I agree that that wasn't her question, but it is a good point which Dan raised. Yes, if she later gets serious with a guy who was willing to use a condom but she said she wasn't on birth control anyway, she can say she feared stealthers. Who really should be chemically castrated, IMO.

Lava @27: I agree. This letter has made me so glad I am not 21 anymore and no longer feel any awkwardness around talk of condoms.


Visual @6: "I will note anecdotally that the partner's I've had who have been most vigilant about condom use (e.g. bringing their own instead of begrudgingly putting on one I supplied) have been the ones I later found out were secretly fucking loads of other people."

I'd like to unpick that. Particularly the word "secretly." Are you still talking about situations like IUD's, aka, casual sex? When sex is casual it shouldn't be assumed that the person ISN'T fucking loads of other people. In fact, quite the opposite. By "secretly" it seems you mean they didn't tell you, but I don't see how they would have been obligated to tell you. Someone who's sexually active and using condoms -- at their own initiative, and with everyone -- is a far better risk than someone who doesn't want to use condoms, whether they're currently sleeping with anyone else or not. Now, if they've told you they're not seeing anyone else and they are, that's a different issue, but if you just assumed they weren't then I think that's on you for not asking. Sorry if I've made any incorrect assumptions from that once sentence.


It's not that guys who don't want to wear condoms are more interested in their own pleasure. They're guys who are more interested in their own power. They're picking some little point in the negotiations and seeing if can get a better deal for themselves. They keep pushing because they know they have nothing to lose.

Compare it to dickering over price at a flea market. The seller wants to sell for $100. The buyer offers $10. Both will stay locked in their own positions-- both will keep pushing-- unless one or the other is willing to call off the deal. It's got to be a matter of saying "my price or I don't sell."

So try this, IUD. Skip lying and tell the truth. The minute the guy starts pushing to have sex without a condom, the instant he questions your terms, tell him he must not want to have sex with you after all, and end the encounter. If you've got your clothes off already, get dressed and go home. If you're still in the bar, take your drink and leave the table. If the conversation is taking place online, easier than ever to exit.


Thank you, we understand all that.

Dan loves to trot this study out and claim that "people in consensually nonmonogamous (CNM) relationships were no more likely to contract an STI than people in monogamous relationships."
That is not what the study says,
and it is emphatically not true.
A fourth of the people in the group the study calls "monogamous" cheat and don't tell their partner.
The study does not compare "monogamy" to CNM; it compares "an imperfect implementation of monogamy" (the studies' term) to CNM.

If Dan wishes to tout the study he should describe it's conclusions as we did @2.

Two people actually practicing monogamy who don't already have STIs have a zero percent chance of getting STIs (unless you think you can get STIs from toilet seats or shaking hands...)

Someone actually practicing abstinence has a zero percent chance of getting an STI.

Those facts are Science!,
and important facts every human should be aware of.
They should be a critical central part of every enlightened sexual education curriculum.

Dan continually tries to undermine and misrepresent those facts and it is irresponsible and almost as immoral as The Wall.
He should correct this post and apologize and stop.

We didn't say anything remotely like that.


@2: I emailed the author of the study: "Commenter says I’m misreading your CNM/STI study. Am I?"

Justin Lehmiller responded:

"Sounds like you’re reading it right to me. The comparison I made was people in CNM vs. monogamous relationships. The monogamous group consisted of a mix of people who were maintaining their monogamy agreement and people who had cheated (23% of the 'monogamous' partners admitted to cheating). In other words, commenter is incorrect when they say I compared CNM to cheating—I compared CNM to people who claimed to be monogamous (of whom some were cheaters and some were cheated on by their partner). Hope that helps!"


Commie @34: "Someone actually practicing abstinence has a zero percent chance of getting an STI." Wrong. Ever heard of rape?

Dan @35: That was far more effort than Commentor Commentatus, who is back again under yet another troll-alias, deserved, but thank you for clarifying. Commie, please go back under your rock, no one wants to hear your moralising.


Ms Fan - I'll top your being glad you're not 21 anymore. Most of these letters make me glad to have given up sex altogether.


Informal study... Commenters, have you, or anyone you've been having sex with EVER removed his condom without telling? Seems like such a incredibly prickish thing to do (not that there aren't incredible pricks in the world). Just curious.


@31 FTW. Blame the stealthers. "One time I had a guy who removed the condom without telling me so I'm super careful." No one is going to get pissed about that.


"commenter is incorrect when they say I compared CNM to cheating"
We didn't say that.

"The comparison I made was people in CNM vs. monogamous relationships."
"The comparison I made was people in CNM vs. people who CLAIMED to be in a monogamous relationships (but 25% of the time were not)."
There, fixed it.

"The monogamous group consisted of a mix of people who were maintaining their monogamy agreement and people who had cheated (23% of the 'monogamous' partners admitted to cheating)."
People who are cheating are not "monogamous".
Here, let us help you;
"The GROUP THAT CLAIMED TO BE monogamous consisted of a mix of people who were maintaining their monogamy agreement and people who had cheated"
There. That wasn't so hard.
Words have meaning.

"I compared CNM to people who claimed to be monogamous"
There! You've got it!


38-DonnyK-- Your first survey answer: No, no one has ever removed a condom with me.

You're calling the practice incredibly prickish. I like Dan's wording better: rape adjacent.

I remember learning 40 years ago that rape wasn't about sex. Rape is about power. I'd add that rape is about violence. The distinction applies. When IUD wrote in, she was asking about what amounts to a civil crime, that about negotiating terms or maybe lying about intent in a contract. I'd counter that the discussion has entered the criminal code. Mind you, stealing by embezzlement and stealing by holding a gun to the victim's head are both stealing. This isn't about which is worse. This is about how we think about them.

By comparison, I'd say that rape by tricking someone into a nonconsensual sex act by stealthing and rape by holding the victim down to where she can't move are both rape.


Saying you're not on birth control is a good start, but it would also be helpful to use 'rando trying to fuck without a condom' as a 'sorting hat' to dump guys whose risk profile is likely to be high.

Now that I've read the comments, LavaGirl@4 said it far more concisely. And right on Kittenbottom@11 and NoSpin@17 and DonnyKlicious@20 and BiDanFan@30 and Fichu@33.

Any guy who plays that deserves and needs to never ever win the pussy lottery.


Curious@42 ~ There’s a pussy lottery?! I need to get me some of those tickets! I’m asking next time I’m at 7-11.


@43 DonnyKlicious
Thanks for taking that lightly; I was afraid it might smell too much like something an incel would get all toxic about.

Of course I just used that metaphor to suggest that women should not pick those scumbags' numbers! (Oh that reminds me, I recall reading that humans are devolving due to a lack of evolutionary pressures, and I think their choices WRT reproduction.)


I've never commented before. I read your work religiously and agree with your advice, Dan, 99% of the time. Here, I also think the advice is spot on. However, I was a hurt to read that you and others consider covert condom removal only "rape-adjacent." I'm among the shockingly high proportion of people to whom this has occurred, and it took me years to accept that an assault had occurred. That was because of both deep-seated internalized misogyny and the pervasive perspective that this is "not really rape." In my case, I woke up with a condom-free dude inside of me, so I hadn't given consent in multiple ways, but still.... The event affects me emotionally and interpersonally on a daily basis. I've found some relief through years of assurances from others that what happened to me was rape (rather than rape-adjacent), an incredibly serious thing that was in no way my fault. Sure, way too many people have been the victims of more intense versions of sexual violence, but what is the point of giving people the impression that these actions are "moral gray areas"?


@45 stillsad
I'm /s/o sorry that this happened to you. (Once upon a time I was concerned a woman would do the reverse to me [before the time came for me to dump her].)(Welcome to the comments!)

I don't think anyone actually thinks that behavior was less of a crime, maybe they're just thinking it's a different crime that we need a word for? I think it's all the same thing, and I think it's rape. But maybe people are distracted by that when there are holes in, or removed, condoms without non-consensual penetration, it's a matter of (the horrific additional crime of) forced pregnancy.


@33: “They're picking some little point in the negotiations and seeing if can get a better deal for themselves.”

Did you just accuse a young, horny guy of thinking with his big head? Because if you did, you might want to re-consider the line of reasoning which got you there. ;-)

Seriously, for some guys, the “raincoat in the shower” guys, sex with a condom is not pleasurable. Such a guy needs to learn quick, and understand quicker, that he’s not going to have sex with this LW, or with any other woman who agrees with her. That’s as it should be; they are sexually incompatible, and therefore should not be having sex with each other at all.


@32 Yes, you're assuming things that aren't what I said. In 2 of the cases I was thinking of there wasn't an exclusivity agreement, but there was an agreement to be upfront about other partners (basically fledgling open relationships), and those agreements were violated. A reminder that people commit "infidelity" and STI recklessness in all kinds of relationships, and that ditching monogamy doesn't protect anyone from being victimized.

Another tangential point is that the most common STI in the US (I believe, correct me if I'm wrong) is HPV, which can spread even with diligent condom use and for which men can't be tested. No idea how the risks compare for women in same sex pairings. But it's a reason that we're all better off only having sex with people we trust, even if they do agree to put on a condom.


IUD should do whatever it takes to keep herself safe, particularly with men she doesn't really know and may never see again or see only rarely and who have no special reason to care about her health.

Of course dicks are going to want theirs to be unencumbered--it feels better, keeps the spontaneity, and there's much less risk to them (if they're straight men having sex with women or gay/bi men topping other men): the penis (as my proctologist-friend once told me) is an excellent disease vector, much better at transmitting infections than contracting them. It's all those delicate mucus membranes in the vagina or anus that are at risk; if a bare penis is coming into contact with them, the bacteria or viruses are going one way. Even if the stealthers or refusers or wheedlers don't know this, they are far more protected than their partners.

Anecdotally, I came of sexual age in the era right before HIV or HSV, HPV, or Chlamydia were either things to either worry or even to know about. In those days, antibiotics and The Pill were all you needed. The Pill kept you from getting pregnant, and if you caught an STD, it meant a 10-day course of antibiotics. People talked about getting crabs or public lice, but that had an "eww gross" factor, more than a serious concern for health. I was pretty slutty, so I was on the pill. I had some friends who were also sort of slutty, and not on the pill, because to get on the pill meant to admit to yourself that you were having sex and they were in some sort of denial about their sluttiness. These women worried every month until they got their periods. The idea of using condoms, which we still often called "rubbers," was seen as sort of dorky and old-fashioned, but better than nothing. Almost every boy/man had one ancient one in his wallet, bought when he was 14 or so, probably past its expiration date by a good long time. I never saw one. I never used a condom with a man. I never heard a man offer to use one. They were treated as a kind of joke.

Virtually every man I had sex with didn't bother to ascertain that I was using birth control until afterwards. For my part, I was assiduous and wouldn't have had sex without birth control, but the strangers I was hooking up with didn't know that--they didn't know me! I was always astonished at how lightly they took something for which they'd be on the hook--or how little they cared about me. I also ended up despising them a little bit, too. Even though a lot of women were on the pill, plenty weren't (see my friends above), so unintended pregnancy was a real risk (I had multiple friends who had abortions and knew one woman who looked at abortion as her birth control and had 7 or 8 of them). Still, I can only remember a tiny handful of men who bothered to check beforehand whether I was using protection. They were obviously ready to risk pregnancy for the immediate thrill of sex right then, rather than not having sex, or having sex using the withdrawl (pull out) method or the ancient condom they had kept in their wallets for over a decade.

When I began dating in my mid-40s, following the breakup of my marriage, I found a lot of men from mid-40s-mid-to-late 50s who were also re-entering the dating world and "couldn't" use condoms. The last time these guys had had sex outside of their committed relationships had been in the same era I had, and the only thing they had to worry about was unintended pregnancy. They had literally never worn condoms. Some had had vasectomies; others expected the woman to handle the birth control--although this time around, the vast majority checked about that before having sex; maybe already being fathers and supporting their existing children made them less cavalier about the risk of pregnancy than younger men. But so many of them professed to be unable to stay hard while using a condom, and indeed, I saw many an erection wilt with the condom's appearance, and only revive if I agreed to forgo its use. Which I sometimes did, knowing my own STI health, if I knew I was at a point in my cycle where pregnancy was extremely low risk, and I thought I liked the guy enough to have a relationship with him.

I never encountered stealthers or liars (that I'm aware of), but once again, I found a lot of men who just found a way to get out of using condoms. Men who were younger (low-40s to mid-20s--I didn't date anyone younger than 24) assumed condoms were a requirement a a matter of course. I encountered a few who tried to tell me that the condom wasn't necessary, but as I had no intention of being in any kind of relationship with them and I had a strong feeling that the condom wasn't a threat to an erection, I insisted. They complied. Always.

This was a digression. IUD, go ahead and lie. It's your life and your health and these guys may not care that much about preserving that. If you get more serious with someone, either tell him that you had been withholding the truth or pretend to get an IUD (take a couple of days off; pretend to have cramps for a day or two and let him bring you a cup of tea). If he feels the strings, shrug it off. If he gets angry that you "tricked" him into using a condom, either explain why, or show him the door, now that he's shown you what an inconsiderate jerk he is.


@45: Welcome to the comments, stillsad, and I'm sorry that deeply shitty thing happened to you.


The more one looks at the "study" the less there actually is.

from the abstract:

"Participants were recruited for an online survey of “attitudes toward sexual relationships.” "

Ah. A self selected group doing an online survey.
This should be fun.

"Approximately two-thirds of the sample reported current involvement in a monogamous relationship, with the remainder indicating involvement in a CNM relationship"

So the folks just get to say what kind of relationship they (claim) they are in?
That's pretty precise and rigorous.
"Monogamy" could be anything from 'I only had sex with one guy this weekend!' to 60 years of faithful marriage...

"participants completed a questionnaire that included measures of condom use practices with primary and extra-pair partners, as well as their STI history."

"Approximately one-quarter of monogamous partners reported sex outside of their primary relationship, most of whom indicated that their primary partner did not know about their infidelity."

This is some high quality monogamy...
@18 reports that "28% of the consensually nonmonogamous ... did not have an outside partner at the time of the study." (we can only access the abstract);

If that is true a fourth of the "monogamous" group are cheating and over a fourth of the "open" group are practicing monogamy.<<<<<
That makes for some seriously fucked up cross contaminated samples....

"The percentage of participants reporting previous STI diagnoses did not differ across relationship type."

"Conclusions: CNM partners reported taking more precautions than those in monogamous relationships in terms of greater condom use during intercourse with all partners and a higher likelihood of STI testing. "

people self select to participate in the study,
then decide themselves which group they are in;
there is no definition of "monogamy" or CNM
so there are probably about 550 (the sample size) different definitions for what constitutes "monogamy" or CNM
but from the self reported data at least a fourth of each group should be in the other group.

What can we conclude?
Among people who choose to take the online survey people who described their relationship as CNM used condoms more and tested for STIs more.



Mercury must be in retrograde: Commenter /period troll is making sense.
Dan, that survey has no bearing on IUD's letter.


Stillsad @45: I think it is rape, full stop. And I stifled myself when I said those who do it should be chemically castrated. They should be castrated with a rusty axe. I'm so sorry that happened to you.

Tensor @47: I find it difficult to believe that there is no brand of condom on the market that doesn't ruin sex for a certain segment of the male population. That said, I admit I don't have a penis so I am making assumptions. For those men who really can't enjoy sex with a condom, they'll just have to accept that the only way they'll get sex is in the context of a committed relationship, and/or learn to view oral sex and mutual masturbation as "sex" until they earn sufficient trust.

Visual @48: Thanks for clarifying. I agree that cheating happens with consensual non-monogamy too, when agreements are violated and truth is withheld. And you are right that certain STIs, including HPV and herpes, can be passed without condoms, and are so common that routine STI tests don't cover them, meaning someone who has them can truthfully say they've tested negative and still pass on an STI they may not even know they have. Condoms are not a panacea, indeed, but sex is a crap shoot - someone who hasn't had many partners isn't necessarily a lower risk than someone who has.

Nocute @49: A digression but a very interesting one. I came of age when AIDS was a death sentence, but still, my earliest sexual experiences did not always involve condoms either. I got on the Pill as soon as I became sexually active. I'm not sure when exactly I began taking condom use more seriously, I think after a yeast infection put the STI fear into me.

Nocute @52: please don't feed the troll. Incidence of STIs among monogamous versus non-monogamous folks was mentioned in passing by IUD, discussed further by Dan, and seized on by a moralising jerk who doesn't deserve anyone's time. The general point stands: even monogamous people are at risk of STIs. Nitpicking the details accomplishes nothing.


@53: Bullshit, you Victorian-morality-peddling, homophobic, troll.
I am promiscuous and have been off and on over the past 35 years, and with the exception of herpes which I got from a partner who didn't know he had it (and with whom I was in a longterm, monogamous relationship), am proud to say that I have never had any other STD. I get tested every 6 month, always use condoms with randos (and sometimes within ltrs) and with my poly fwbs, and got the HPV vaccine (Guardasil) in middle age (meaning I paid the $600 for the three injections my insurance wouldn't cover because at that time the AMA was recommending it only for women 22 and under).

It only takes a little due diligence. And if someone contracts almost any of the STIs, it's not a huge deal. Life goes on. Most of the STIs are curable and all are treatable; people can and do live happily with them.

Go back to your rock. HIV is not a "gay plague," but a treatable virus.

BiDanFan, I apologize for interacting both before and now, but I really do think Dan's bringing up that survey was irrelevant, and someone needs to correct this hateful, weeping anal wart. I won't do it again.


@55: Yikes! Apologies for the multiple errors (including a comma leftover from when I was about to add another adjective to the troll's description. Reminder to self: it is especially important to proofread when you've written in a rage.


Why lie? Why not just say "I only want to have sex with condoms"?

I don't understand why there is even a question here. I know it's taboo to suggest, but if you're packing a handbag, pack a few condoms, something all responsible people should do. (Double/triple recommend if you're allergic or have reactions to certain types of condoms/lube/spermicide/etc)


@57: I agree; she should be upfront. If some dude tries to argue, she should insist. But if she believes the only way to get compliance from some dude she really fancies is to lie, or if she worries or suspects a guy will stealth, I think she can lie with a clear conscience. Between the wrongs of lying or possibly stealthing, I see lying to preserve one's health as the lesser of the evils.
All women--all sexually active humans--should always carry their own condoms with them at all times. This is incredibly easy to do.


@55 nocutename
Just curious what number you meant to type when you wrote "@53" (since I assume that wasn't for BiDanFan); sorry I wouldn't have to ask...except I probably skipped the comment number you meant to type for obvious reasons.


@58 nocutename
"If some dude tries to argue, she should insist."

Yeah she should insist, she should insist he get the fuck out. Otherwise her fucking will be as ill-advised as fucking a Trump supporter.


There was a post @54 that has since been deleted. NoCuteName was obviously responding to that person, not to BDF @53. I assume NoCuteName wrote the wrong number, and now that the offensive post is gone, it's even more confusing. I can't remember what the deleted post said exactly but it was basically along the lines that we need to all be chaste and that the plague years were a punishment (not in those words, but that sort of bigotry).

I agree though that the study was irrelevant to the question for all the reasons I named. I do get Dan's point which is that some monogamous people are under the impression that they are monogamous and yet their partners are cheating and therefore they still have risk of STI, but since the LW herself said a similar thing and never said she wanted to be monogamous, plus all the other reasons I named, I agree that Dan used this as an opportunity to ride his hobby horse here. It does come across as times as his attitude is "well no one is ever actually monogamous anyway so it's stupid to prefer that", and even though we shouldn't feed trolls, the troll here is right that some of these studies aren't really relevant to how we actually experience monogamy. Like, there's a difference between people who've been serially monogamous and those that are in a committed long term relationship for years (or decades). And many people experience monogamy at some stages of their relationship but then communicate and open up (or bring in thirds) at other stages. Also I'm skeptical of the idea that everyone cheats (or 60-75% or whatever)- I've glanced at some of the studies Dan has cited over the years and they don't always distinguish between cheating and having sex outside a marriage for example (people separate, they take breaks, they make arrangements) and they don't always distinguish between people at different phases of their lives or people who are technically cheating but if you started to dig into their lives you'd find it's in the context of a long term sexless marriage or health issue or whatever- all things that individually, Dan knows well and gives fantastic advice for. But then in the generalization, he's just all "most people are going to cheat anyway". He also pretty frequently says something like (and these aren't exact numbers, I'm remembering off the cuff) that since over half of all people in monogamous relationships cheat then it means every monogamous relationship includes cheating since he doubts that it could be cheating partners together all the time and chaste partners together the rest of the time. I get the commonsense aspect of this statement, but surely I can't be the only one with the life experience that there are people who are emotional and dishonest wrecks who never really get healthy relationships going, and they do tend to end up with people like themselves.

In short, I think communication is the key, and to have good communication, people need more realistic expectations of what relationships (especially long term and especially with families) is actually like. And while I applaud Dan for doing his part in dismantling the delusional conservative fantasy of hetnorm patriarchal marriages with two people who will only fuck each other forever and ever for decades, I also agree with some people above that he touts open marriage as better and monogamy as naive/impossible.


@59: curious2, there is a resident troll here (I can't remember how long you've been a regular, so forgive me if you know him or about him already), who gets kicked off regularly, changes his name and comes back weeks or months later, and eventually gets kicked off again. He is homophobic, and uses the specter of HIV as a way to wrap up his hate. He's also sex-shaming: basically an asshole who writes in a very distinctive style. I don't generally respond to him, but today he set me off. He's kind of BiDan's pet peeve.

I wrote my comment in response to one of his hate-screeds, and it was removed (yay, and thank you, webmaster), no doubt due to reporting him, so now I just sound crazy! But that's okay.


@60 I know ours how we do in these times, but there's no reason to presume such bad faith. I've hooked up without a condom before, and been told, quote "no glove no love". That's life. I got condoms the next day and we fucked like rabbits that summer, eventually without condoms. Life went on. No one actually LIKES condoms, but a vast majority of people consider them the cost of doing business. Sure, if someone is insistent on not wearing a condom you're past the "doubt" phase and into fact, so benefit of the doubt expires. But it should still exist (if we want to live in a society that's not at each others throats for every perceived misstep and nanotransgression)


@53: ‘For those men who really can't enjoy sex with a condom, they'll just have to accept that the only way they'll get sex is in the context of a committed relationship, and/or learn to view oral sex and mutual masturbation as "sex" until they earn sufficient trust.’

This is true of any man who wants to have sex with IUD, or with any woman who shares her beliefs. Not all women may share her beliefs, so it’s not necessarily the absolute rule you have presented it to be.


I do admit that my personal emotions are driving my fervor that anyone who even /suggests/ PIV w/ a rando w/o a condom should be immediately shown the door. (Unless both parties share this unconcern for the welfare of both.) It seems unwise to do otherwise. And it bugs me that they would meet the standards of anyone w/ standards.

@62 nocutename
Aaaah. Yes, I have seen at least one mega-toxic (as opposed to our more pedestrian ones) troll here. (And I recall BiDanFan showing leadership in this regard.) Some I haven't learned to recognize. One though (perhaps the one someone called commenter comentatus or something?) wrote comments formatted in short lines; a kind of poison haiku; that made them conveniently identifiable.


I’m in an ethical nonmonogamous marriage. I simply ask my partners to get tested, and to show me the proof - it’s a fantastic way to weed out the lazy, irresponsible assholes. The worthy ones will know a good thing when they see it and go posthaste, and the shitty ones will drag their feet...try to convince you it will be okay without, and that they swear they “really did” get tested but somehow don’t have the documentation...and about that time I find out all the unprotected sex they’ve had with countless people. There are many dicks in the sea, I don’t need their noise. Plus, in my experience - lazy to make a small effort IRL probably mean lazy to make an effort in bed.


Nocute @49; I came of age in the 70’s, and like you I don’t remember men wearing condoms, or little raincoats, as they were called. Or frenchies.
They all must have assumed women were sorting how to avoid pregnancy, given the newly arrived pill. How quickly patriarchy used the new freedoms to suit men. Unlike you nocute, nobody talked about STIs. We were listening to music and having communal houses in the city and dropping acid. Not me with the last one.Homisexuals were demanding visibility. University was free here during the 70’s , and subjects about Marx and Feminism being offered, so heady days. The women demurred, and played along. Taking their pills.
Then AIDS hit in the 80’s , and everything changed. I was out of the dating pool by then and remained so for thirty yrs. I feel a bit like Rip Van Winkle, the one who slept for a hundred yrs, think he’s the one, coming back to singlehood. The sexual scene is not what I remember.
LW, what hasn’t seemed to change, and after all these decades since feminism erupted, is the prevalence of dick men. Selfish men. Thoughtless men. Thankfully thru these threads I’ve learnt there are men who have become aware and empathetic and kind. So there have been inroads.
SA @29, said it perfectly. Why would you want to be with a guy you have to lie to.


Re: telling a partner to "go get tested". I've done the round of STI testing a few times. HIV testing is usually free at county/city clinics, but you have to wait a while, usually during business hours. But everything else, I've found I had to pay for it and it could get quite expensive. Insurance might cover for some people- for me, once a year with a wellness exam. Plus many STIs have dormant periods. I just never really understood the logistics of "go get tested and show me the results". I mean, for most people, that would mean waiting a few weeks and spending hundreds of dollars, right? Only to get results that show your STI status from weeks back (as recent exposures won't show up). Just never understood this. Makes more sense just to use condoms (or whatever risk is acceptable to you) and get yourself tested at least annually.

Re: the discussion with Sporty, Curious, NoCute, etc- I scrolled back but in case I'm missing something, Sporty, the insistence to leave is if you tell a guy to wear a condom and he ARGUES with you about it. Not if both people are mutually caught up in the moment. There is nothing nanoaggressive nor perceived about it- it's straight out clear asshole behavior to argue with someone when they tell you to wear a condom.


@65: “It seems unwise to do otherwise. And it bugs me that they would meet the standards of anyone w/ standards.”

So, anyone who does not agree completely with your rigorous approach to risk reduction (“seems unwise”) does not have standards? Yet, statistically, there are persons who behave in this manner without acquiring STIs or children. Does their lack of consequences for ignoring your ideas about risk and harm also “bug” you?


Russian Roulette you may want to play tensor @70, you are not the one who gets pregnant or as nocute pointed out above, nor the more suspectible one to STIs/ STDs.
Wake up, there are now STDs which are resistant to antibiotics. This is not some silly game. Take your responsibilities for your sperm and your infections seriously, because it’s that attitude there which leads to these sorts of letters.
Correction @67; Homosexuals were demanding visibility.


LW, be more discerning in your choices of men. Before you get them home or you go to theirs, tell them straight up what the deal is.
If they try it on, or rather try to not have it on, cut the deal right there. As EmmaLiz has pointed out. Walk away. Any hint that he is resistent to being a responsible adult man, kick him to the curve.
You are young, do not throw yourself away with underdeveloped men.
Be more discerning.


All this nit-picking over Dan's study is really quite funny to me (someone who, for the record, is very much monogamous). It's roughly akin to a Christian saying "No Christian gets divorced", then, when pressed about divorce stats, crying "If they got divorced it means they weren't a Christian in the first place." Cool. Congratulations. If you define your terms solely based on outcomes, just about any study becomes meaningless.

Yes, brilliant internet commenters, this study doesn't suggest that STIs arise fully formed while you're going out for Sunday brunch. I don't think Dan intends to give that impression, either. I don't think any good faith reading of his argument implies "Whether or not you have sex with other people has no bearing on whether you get a sexually transmitted infection."

What you're (rightly) pointing out is that there's a latent variable at play; some distinction that, if an oracle could know it, would perfectly cleave "~zero risk monogamous couples" from "nonzero risk monogamous couples." Some unknown percentage of people will cheat at some point during a relationship which was intended to be (and likely believed by at least 1 party to have continued being) perfectly monogamous. In this study, with its admittedly small sample size, that wound up being about 1 in 4. The risk they posed by being noncommunicative about their (one imagines) fewer partners proved to be about the same as the risk posed by those who were communicative about their (one imagines) higher number of partners. That is the obvious mechanism at play, and the thing Dan reiterates when he brings it up. It also happens to be precisely the justification he gives for ethical nonmonogamy as an option for generally monogamous folks: if there's a tension that might blow up the relationship down the road, maybe it's better to communicate it early and work around it.

What this study "tells us" hinges on what question we're asking; what decision we are supposed to use this info to help us make. If we are psychics with perfect knowledge of the future and of our partner's mind at all times, your criticism seems fine (though, again, I can't imagine anyone needing to a study to tell them the outcome). If I am a person who perfectly knows my future, but cannot read my partner's mind, perhaps this study needs some slight tweaking -- maybe it should consider individuals rather than relationships, and only consider those individuals who themselves haven't cheated (regardless of their partners' hidden behavior) as "Monogamous". I suspect in this case the stats would go down a bit, but not as drastically as you're implying.

The question Dan is asking is about choosing a relationship model, with the assumption that people are fallible. "If we are typical people with typical behavior patterns, and we go into this relationship with the intention of Monogamy, what is our risk of contracting an STI?" And the answer appears to be "About the same as it is for ethically non-monogamous couples." Which is interesting, and worth bringing up! It quantifies a trade-off everyone debating between these two models likely already feels: between exclusivity and transparency, mitigating risk (caused by unpredictable human behavior) up front vs rolling the dice later on.


@70 tensor
Your whole paragraph is illogical. Neither of your re-wordings of what I said logically follows from what I said. (And up front I'll tell you I dislike wasting my time with the likes of that, but regardless:)

Your last sentence wildly fails to do so: of-fucking course I don't want anyone to suffer consequences of the risks they take (are you NUTS?). (Oh, and that "there are persons who behave in this manner without acquiring STIs" in no way disputes what I wrote. Nor is "statistically" the right choice of word to precede that quote.)

It was obvious that I used the word "standards" to signify a wise approach to risk. As for where it feels to me like I am coming from:

First (I admitted my thoughts were emotional, remember), it bugs me to have any competition in the dating pool with people who are so unconcerned with the welfare of others. I know that's not logical (emotions are not logical), so you needn't tell me that.

Second, a wildly risky approach can rise to the level of being a psychological health issue, and it bugs me when people are a danger to themselves or others. (Neither is considered OK even in this society; "danger to themselves or others" is the fundamental threshold people are at some point given help not to pass.) I know there are people putting themselves at very great risk, and I'm not saying society should stop them, but I do think society needs to get them (and pay for) some therapy to give them a chance to overcome the underlying issues that are leading them to try to cause people/themselves harm. In other words, I want people to be free, but I also want to help people achieve harm-reduction and psychological health.


What the hell is she doing having sex with guys she has to lie to? She's 21 and down for casual sex, she can afford to be a little pickier. All she's doing is teaching guys that they only have to use condoms with women who are not on birth control. When the pants come off, if the guy doesn't pull out a condom without asking, the pants go back on and you kick them out. If he objects or debates or digs in his heels at all... you kick him out.

New rule: women who reward man for bad behavior lose their right to complain when men behave badly.


@67: Oh, no LavaGirl, I meant that, like you, we didn't talk about STIs too much or worry about them too much. Penicillin was supposed to take care of everything. I came of (sexual) age in the late 1970s (1979) and ran wild until the mid-1980s. I had settled into a monogamous relationship just around the time that straight people began to worry about HIV (1984), which was when I got HSV. Which at the time, was only marginally less stigmatized than HIV. And still, I've managed to have a fulfilling sex life: fancy that!

I get tested for everything at my annual gyno exam, but if I'm dating a lot of people or being especially slutty, I'll get tested at the half-year mark as well, or on request. So far no one has ever asked to see a printed copy of the results, but I should probably keep one on hand in case someone wants to see.

I looked back at my comment @49 and see I typed "public lice," instead of "pubic lice," which makes me laugh.


The tone here about blaming the LW for being with guys she has to lie to or with guys who argue about condoms seems to dismiss the fact that she's not psychic. You meet someone, they seem decent, you start to get physical, you tell them to put on a condom, then they argue with you, so you are supposed to go back in a time machine and prevent yourself from meeting that person? You don't often know what you are dealing with until you are in it.

And when you are newly with a person or casually with them, you don't know if they are the sort of person who will stealth or not.

The lie is simply a pre-emptive way to shut all of this down before it happens. I agree she should just say no condoms, no sex, and not have sex with the guy if he lies, but I'm also a grown ass fucking woman and I know that actual real life doesn't always work the way it does in hypothetical conversations.

Fascinating to hear Lava and NoCuteName's talk about sex in those days. My experience was different since I started having sex while everyone was still very much afraid of HIV/AIDS so I never had a guy resist wearing a condom. I guess if I end up dating youngsters for some reason later in life, I'll be having your experiences in reverse- shock at all these guys who argue about wrapping it. But a tiny bit of hope here- it does seem men are generally becoming more aware/responsible/concerned about pregnancy on the whole then. I wonder how much of this has to do with the right wing focus on abortion and all the subsequent debates. That really picked up steam in the 80s, right? Maybe having those conversations in the culture very loudly might've educated a lot of men about contraception and reproduction in general? I think of some of the incredibly stupid thing older male politicians have said over the last 20-30 years about female biology and they're usually ridiculed for it, but maybe that ignorance is the norm for men of that generation?


Ideal world EmmaLiz, a woman doesn’t start removing her clothes till that convo is had. If he shows resistance, then he is probably more likely to Remive the condom during sex. Why waste time on idiots. Lots of man available to a twenty one yr old, why settle.


Just a friendly reminder that not all nonmonogamous people use the primary/secondary framework, and that there are plenty of nonmonogamous people who use condoms with all of their partners (whether their relationships are hierarchical or not).


For what it’s worth, and yes it’s no comparison to reduced sensation, I’ve always hated condoms.
When we finally realised my husband’s snip hadn’t worked, two kids later/ the Dr had excused the first one by belatedly saying sperm can stay good for up to six weeks after; still my husband didn’t check and still I didn’t insist on it/, he had to use them. At least till I thought I was surely full of dried up old eggs, which proved to be not true, for one of them.
Condoms do something unpleasant physically to my body, itchy afterwards. And it’s a much more powerful sensation having skin to skin.


Don’t think you can make that a rule Chase@75, while women are still being trained to indulge men. And boys are watching shitty porn, and leaning to barge into women’s space. No. Both need to be adults, the man in some ways leading the way, because the woman continues to be bombarded with shit.
The men, as I remember them, EmmaLiz, were mostly sweet to me. yes they wanted the women to take up this new freedom, and women did too. Because, surprise, sex wasn’t this ugly sin some had let us to believe. Men broke my heart over and over of course, still they were mostly gentle and romantic men. I think back fondly on all my lovers.
Maybe it’s time women started consciousness raising classes again.


It’s been a shock to me, meeting men post marriage, older internet porn men. And to enjoy the sound of an old word, it’s unseemly to me and slightly embarrassing for them.
I hate to read about a young woman being violated like this, thinking she has to lie to get protected sex. This is not the sixties and seventies, different rules apply.


Wow, I can only say I'm glad I missed Commie's post @54. As his other offensive posts, remain, that one must have been a doozy.

EmmaLiz @61: I agree the study, and Commie's diatribes around it, are a digression but it's not irrelevant -- IUD herself said, "I know people cheat and monogamy doesn't mean STIs won't happen but it's the risk I'm comfortable with." So mentioning that there is in fact data to back up IUD's view was relevant, though it certainly got more bandwidth than it deserved as an aside. The study Dan mentions cites a 23% cheat rate, and that's either cheating or being cheated on; allowing for relationships that include two cheaters, that means, what, a 15% chance that any self-defined monogamous person has cheated. I also think there's a distinction between one-time and serial cheaters, but this is enough of a digression...

Tensor @64: All women SHOULD share these beliefs. As should all men, and all non-binary people. And all men should expect that the women they fuck have these beliefs. Does no one care about their own sexual health anymore?

Curious @65: This particular troll is instantly identifiable by his use of the royal "we."

EmmaLiz @68: Where do you live that there are no free clinics for STI tests? Another casualty of Republican moralistic rule? In my world, you use condoms as a given, then a few months in when you decide you want to be serious/monogamous/fluid bonded, you then get tested and continue to use condoms while awaiting the results. Where I live results are given by automated phone call, so there is no piece of paper to show anyone, another reason you have to give it enough time to make sure you can trust them.

Chase @75: I agree with your first paragraph. Fuck your second.

Lava @78: Yes, I have to grudgingly agree. I have rarely met with resistance to using a condom, but if IUD is experiencing this regularly, perhaps she should raise this before she agrees to going back to his place. Though I imagine that would just increase the risk of the guy stealthing instead of openly trying to get out of using the condom, as many men will agree to anything to get laid. :(

Beedeetee @79: I didn't see anyone arguing otherwise. There are also monogamous couples who use condoms. Who are also irrelevant to this letter, which is about men who don't want to use condoms, not about people who do.


@38 @DonnyKlicious I've never had anyone remove a condom mid-sex but I once had someone remove my birth control and I've had two other partners penetrate me unexpectedly without a condom. I can also relate to some of @nocutename's comments @49, though I started having sex in the mid-'80s when condoms were (IME) a given. I was surprised to find as a divorcee a few years ago that practices had changed with attempted negotiation being far more common these days. I now initiate a safe sex talk at a neutral time to gauge compatibility and this sometimes weeds out those who would otherwise attempt to negotiate in the heat of the moment. Sucks from a spontaneity perspective but seems to help.

Not sure why a commenter here finds it somehow reassuring that only 23% of individuals in the supposedly monogamous relationships were cheating. Unless the researcher explained that every cheating individual was in a relationship with another cheating individual, we can assume the number of couples affected by infidelity is higher than 23%. If some overlap and some don't, maybe 35% of couples? Who knows. Furthermore, unless all these couples broke up 5 minutes after participating in the study, seems likely the 23% figure will continue to climb over the duration of the relationships. Not everyone cheats from the onset of a relationship.


FutureCat @84: Was that me? I certainly never intended to imply that a 23% cheat rate was "reassuring," only that it is far lower than the 60-75% figure EmmaLiz mentioned @61. And I admit I misread it; Dan's expert said 23% admitted to cheating, which I agree with you probably works out to about 35% of relationships see one or both partners cheating, which seems shamefully high indeed. I wonder if this 23% is people who have cheated in their current relationship or people who have ever cheated in a monogamous relationship; I hope the latter, but I could see that being closer to 60-75%, with a high incidence of youthful drunkenness and immediately learned lessons. Guess the point is, life is full of risks even for the monogamous, which is what our troll refuses to accept.


@85 @BiDanFan I wasn't referring to you. :) And I agree the stats will look different depending on numerous factors such as individual vs. couple, current relationship vs. all relationships thus far, and even the current relationship figure is fluid and subject to increase over the course of the relationship, some of which will occur after the person is polled for the study. The study is reporting a snapshot in time during which some individuals have already cheated and some have not cheated but will do so at some point following the study. And of course some will never cheat.


Regarding the cheat rate (if that was in response to me)- I don't remember the number Dan cites but that's irrelevant to the point I was making- he has said several numbers over the years, I'm thinking of talks he's made which you can see on YouTube. I don't care about it either way on an emotional level- so I never said it was reassuring or not. I'm saying 23% or 60% or whatever (makes no difference), it's bad faith argument to assume that everyone is going to cheat because researchers find that loads of people do. Also both cheating and monogamy are defined differently in different studies Dan has mentioned over the years (for example, what is considered monogamy here in this study, cheating being self-identified, etc), and in the second place, as our troll correctly pointed out, there are actually at the very least three groups at play here: monogamous couples, couples that are cheating, consensually nonmonogamous couples so unless you can probably and objectively define those groups then it's impossible to compare their outcomes or use that data to compare to anything else. This doesn't make a flip of difference to me emotionally- I'm not reassured nor unassured about it. It's just bad science and a stupid argument to follow it through the way Dan does. Might as well draw conclusions from a Cosmo quiz.



I can't remember if you are the commenter troll in new ID or not, but I don't know what your point is. Nobody in the world is unaware of the fact that two STI-free people having sex with only one another for decades and decades will never get an STI. That's like talking about how abstinence is the only way to 100% avoid pregnancy. Duh. Everyone gets that. Likewise, since most people are not going to be virgins who only have sex with one other virgin forever and ever, it's also not that interesting of a point to keep making.

I agree with you that it's bad science to try to compare outcomes for groups that are not clearly defined. But you are making a moralist argument here about promiscuity which is yet another group that is not clearly defined and is as useless, scientifically, as everything you are railing against. And the reason is that you- like Dan- have an agenda here. The difference between your agenda and Dans is that his is attempting to be liberatory and yours is bigoted.


BTW it's a fascinating problem in public health which is that you are dealing with objectively scientific and measurable data on the one hand (stuff like, how many people got pregnant this year, how many people contracted chlamydia in this county, how many people presented at the ER b/c their spouse stabbed their eye out). Then on the other hand you have more narrative data like what sorts of relationships people are in, what taboos they have, how they move around in the population, how people identify themselves vs how they behave, etc. So the result is that you can end up with a wide variety of conclusions depending on how you handle the qualitative stuff, which is often subjective or skewed by the researcher's own perspectives.

What I mean here is this conundrum is very interesting to me, but I don't really give a shit about the specific conversation here regarding monogamy- I just got sucked into an argument about it because it's peripheral to my own hobby horse here so apologies if I fed the troll. I'm not sure Camino is the troll though- I think they were just paraphrasing the troll's deleted post, not the origin of it. So apologies to camino also if I assumed you were him.


@88 @EmmaLiz Sorry, I was not referring to you in my comment. I was preferring not to name an obvious troll who seemed to be intentionally misrepresenting what "monogamy" means, seemingly taking it to mean that truly monogamous couples do not cheat and therefore were excluded from the "monogamous" group in the study and other problematic framings of the issue. I don't think anyone is suggesting that everyone cheats, only that a substantial number of people who self-identify as monogamous do cheat and doing so is a barrier to informing partners of sexual health issues, need to get tested for STIs, etc.


@EmmaLiz: Camino's the troll.


I would question the low percentage of women stealthing. I knew two women whom I dated (consecutively!) that did that when I was 19. One said she was on the pill, later admitted she wasn't. The other said she was infertile, had a kid two years later.

Bullets dodged by young, dumb, lucky me.


nocute@76 ~ "Public" lice would be the WORST, as per Webster's definition of public: "...affecting all the people or the whole area of a nation or state..."


@94: DonnyK: indeed! The mind reels to think of it. I prefer to keep all my lice private.


BDF @83: Oh, you like double standards? Tough shit. Being an adult means taking responsibility for your decisions, and there are two adults in that room. If you're going to give him grief for wanting to have sex without a condom, you don't get to let her off the hook for wanting to have sex with guys who don't respect women. Responsibility isn't gendered.


Jane Austen set an impossible standard for what a man who respects women looks like. I’ve never found my Mr Darcy, I still live in hope. Delusion is not just for the young.


@93, znak; good point. Nobody pretends women are angels floating down from the sky, so men too have to protect themselves, by wearing condoms.
I do agree with you Chase @96, if a woman, whatever her age, is going with rando men, she has to put on her big girl tiara, and be responsible for herself. She doesn’t know these guys, they are strangers. sorry, given the increased rate of rapes and murders of women, I doubt I’d be going home with randos these days. I did yes. So who knows, let’s hope we all have a sixth sense about murderers.
a few lessons I’ve learnt, LW. At twenty one, you are at the peak of your growth, and more power to you. And men come at you from all directions.
Over the yrs, that energy starts to deplete. Enjoy your life thru studies and reading and dancing and singing and working, as well as with men. And don’t waste a minute of your time on dropkicks. As someone above said, if I remember. Next.


Nocute @95 and @76 You may not have to worry about that subspecies of louse for long, public or pubic. Due to the number of ladies that shave, pubic lice are in danger of becoming an endangered species. While I have never had an infestation of them I will not in the least bit worry about them becoming extinct.
Oh and I do believe in using condoms.


One kid on my brother’s college football team had crabs. Since they washed all the uniforms together, the whole team got them.


If IUD has repeatedly encountered the same situation, maybe she needs to step back, and ask herself why it keeps happening? Perhaps if she got to know her perspective partners better before any needed conversation about condoms even takes place, she could mititgate her risks of experiencing both STIs and disappointing near-sexual encounters?

Just a thought...


Tensor @101: Why does it keep happening? Because she's young, and presumably the guys she sleeps with are also young, and therefore stupid. No big mystery.


Znak @93: That's not "stealthing." Stealthing is secretly removing a condom after sex has begun. Presumably what these women did was "lying," or in the case of the second, "being mistaken." You knowingly didn't put a condom on your dick, correct? But that's their fault?

    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.