Savage Love

Sissy That Talk



I salute Ms Jibe for words having meanings. I'll add that using "incel" as an insult, whatever might be the pros or cons about making the term a taunt, seems singularly ill-suited to this venue. Is not a significant part of Mr Savage's mission the distribution of aid and comfort to those who are involuntarily celibate?


And L Hand, of course these women should be insisting that you use a condom. I've had to do so on many occasions. My point is that they shouldn't have to.


@108 BiDanFan As long as LavaGirl continues to call me an incel troll I will continue to call her a feminazi misanthrope. I never started calling anyone names - that was you and her. If you don't call me names, I won't call you names.

And disregarding everything else, when will you get it through your thick skull that we disagree on whether condoms are default or not. I am willing to respect your right to request and demand them with every sexual encounter with penis-havers (what about penetrative sex toys??). You don't respect my right to negotiate with my partner as to whether they are going to be used or not. That's authoritarian and paternalistic in my mind - but hey that's just me.

Finally, as is almost always the case, whether the parties involved believe they should be default or not, I suggest that the problem can always be solved, as in most cases, by the parties using their words in the moment. For some reason, this seems like to much of an ask to you and I have no idea why. If I were you, and believed that condoms were that important, I wouldn't only use my words, I would watch as the person unwrapped the condom and put it on his penis. Frankly, I am not sure how anyone who is looking for something like that to happen could miss it unless they are being willfully blind in the moment - but once again that's just me.


By the way BiDanFan, herpes and warts are exactly the kind of STD's you are subjecting yourself and everyone else to by engaging in unprotected oral sex. But apparently that's A-Ok in your book. Just sayin' ...


@109 L Hand
"your thick skull that we disagree on whether condoms are default or not...You don't respect my right to negotiate with my partner as to whether they are going to be used or not."

Nothing about the concept of "default" precludes anyone from negotiating. Negotiating is what one does if one wants to depart from default. Your point does not seem soundly reasoned.


@111 Two different concepts there. We disagree on default and she doesn't respect the fact that I negotiate with my partner (because I do use my words in the context) to decide on whether condoms that have been bought and are present are going to be used. Pretty sound logic to me.


Nope, L Hand @109, it was BabyRae @36 who called you a motherfucker in need of dumping. I merely agree with her assessment.
Yes, oral sex risks herpes and warts. And that's all. Condomless sex risks HIV, chlamydia, gonorrhea, syphilis and more -- not to mention pregnancy -- in addition to increasing the risk of herpes and warts. Thanks for proving my point.
What about penetrative sex toys? They get disinfected between partners and/or condoms put on them, thanks for asking.
You would watch the person unwrap the condom and put it on his penis? Funny, I would unwrap it myself and put it on the penis. Much more fun that way.
Thank you, Curious @111, for defining "default" for L Hand. Default means you should expect to use condoms. That does not preclude anyone from agreeing not to use them, if both/all the people are that stupid. And yes, I'm talking about what the default should be, not, apparently, what it is. This is an advice column and that's what advice is about -- the way things should be. And people should be using condoms until they make a mutual decision to get tested and commit to use condoms with anyone else. If that is authoritarian and paternalistic then so be it; it's effective, which is all that matters.


L Hand @112, you're right about one thing only. I don't respect you or your partners who don't want to use condoms during casual sex. I think you're idiots. You have a right to be an idiot, sure.


@BiDanFan I thought you were using "MF" in your 72 post to refer to me. If you were not, my apologies. And I darn well know what default is.

Just out of curiousity, why are you so opposed to people actually talking about whether condoms will be used before they have sex with each other? That is what I am advocating for. I don't know why that's so difficult.

Finally, I do think that you are imposing a double standard by pooh-poohing your failure to use protection while calling others stupid for making the same choice. By the way, your stance means every single time you have penetrative sex with a penis-haver, he is wearing a condom? If so, I'm impressed. If not, you are a hypocrite times 2 regardless of your reasons for not doing it (monogamous, been tested, etc.) - because all of those reasons have loopholes as well (cheating, HPV isn't detectable, HIV isn't detectable early on, etc.)

Frankly, its pretty condescending for you to say the risks you engage in are fine but the risks others engage in (which don't involve you) make them stupid. I suspect it comes from a place of equating penis-havers with disease spreaders (it takes two), but that's just a hunch. I obviously cant prove it.


@115 L Hand
"why are you so opposed to people actually talking about whether condoms will be used before they have sex with each other?"

I don't think anyone is. But if they don't talk about it, the default /should/ be to use condoms for casual sex, because for it not to be the default would be recklessly foolish. Because being idiotic calls for talking; to not talk before presuming to endanger others is Wrong with a capital W. It's a simple matter of ethics.

One cannot place the burden upon others to constantly anticipate all the infinite ways you might harm them; it is not others' responsibility to articulate specific unwillingness' to be harmed, it is yours to ask their specific consent /to/ be harmed.

As I said @86 "I imagine there are venues where it is not the default (I'm guessing often among people so young risk is not well-considered because their brains have not fully formed), but that is an exception."


@116 This makes no sense to me. First, I am not even sure who you are talking about endangering whom. Second, I am not talking about infinite ways in which someone may be harmed. I am talking about one very specific conversation at one very specific time. The hoops people seem to be wanting to jump through in order to avoid agreeing that the answer is to talk about whether condoms are going to be used at the point in time where that particular fact is relevant is hard for me to fathom.
Finally, nobody is ever going to convince me that there is any fault if a conversation doesn't occur and condoms are not used. There are lots of risks out there that we take everyday -some small, some large. If there is a particular risk that you are worried about, it is incumbent upon you to minimize that risk to yourself. It's called taking responsibility for yourself and not blaming others for something you yourself could have (and should have) prevented.


@117 L Hand
You seem like a sociopath. By your logic it is your responsibility to ask me not to kick you in the balls before I sneak up and do so. I appreciate the invitation.


If people want to bring up vaccines here, have you done your research to back it up? Have you checked the incredients which are injected into babies starting at birth. That Drs and other medical staff are speaking out against them. And that all of you if you rely on vaccines need booster shots every decade so if you haven’t been getting them, why you do insist on little bodies being subjected to multiple ones in their first yrs of life. And given it’s such a good money spinner, they keep inventing more and adding them to the scheldue. Babies have died just hours after receiving them, so talk to the parents of these babies and then see how cocky and convinced you feel.
Informed consent for any medical procedure in a democracy. So inform yourselves. Check content of vaccines check possible side effects and check how many are given during a child’s developmental years.
/ LHand. I’m not allowed to call you an incel anymore.
Call me what you like, I know who I am, and I know silly boys like you who haven’t yet started to wear big pants or take responsibility for their own bodily emissions when I see them.
And you’ve dominated this thread with your one liner. ‘Boys have to be reminded you’all, and watched, to make sure that condom is on and stays on.’


Re circumcision, that violation of male bodies nobody every much talks about, I’ve often wondered how much this infantile injury and bodily mutilation effects men, how much it informs their rage.
A parent usually helps the boy learn to pull back the skin, so how come this poor guy missed out on those lessons? Why hasn’t he been to a Dr himself about this because this is not good. And he says it sometimes hurts. He needs medical help now, LW, and it might end up being a partial circumcision to help loosen the skin.


It’s good manners as a dick haver (which I am) to offer to wear a condom for penetrative sex where there hasn’t been a previous conversation about the topic. A woman might not ask that a man wear a condom, but she might still strongly prefer it, and a good lover cares about the peace of mind (and full sexual enjoyment) of his partner, no matter how casual.

But when it comes to a committed/fluid bonded but nonmonogamous relationship it’s unethical to not wear a condom unless the committed partner also consents to barebacking. You can choose to take the risk for yourself, but you should not take the risk for your partner. That’s why condoms come standard in non-monogamy (this works for women too—they should insist that their thirds wear condoms as well).

I don’t have experience with FFM (hope springs eternal!) but female condoms could be a good way to ensure that everyone’s reasonably protected and the guy doesn’t have to change condoms between women.


@LavaGirl The fact that you are an anti-vaxer makes me smile.


@121 I think you solved the problem of responsibility right there!! Women, go get your dental dams - take responsibility for your own protection. I have zero problems whatsoever with this solution.


@123 you seem to think there are winners and losers to an internet argument, but the losers in this context are the people who reasonably rely on their partners to make mature and considerate decisions that affect both of their sexual health, but the other partner does not.

I think if you’ll go back and reread my post you’ll see that is what I’m writing about. The suggestion regarding female condoms (which are not dental dams, btw) is for convenience rather than responsibility.


a p.s. to my @118
By L Hand's logic a penis-owner would get to stick their (for all they know infected) prick into a partner without a condom unless the partner had previously asked that the dick be sheathed.

So I believe I disagree here with He/she/themdidwhat???@121 in that as I see it in casual sex words are more than called for to have good manners, they are called for to avoid being unethical.

The primary responsibility is on the dick-owner, as they own the appendage that needs sheathing (assuming they also cause the penetration). (If OTOH the owner of the orifice does the physical action that causes penetration [for example, if the dick is motionless and a pussy leaps onto it], then it's responsibility of the person whose pussy-leap physically causes the coupling to have obtained consent for condom-freeness.)


@126 I’m not sure how much we disagree in practice, but I don’t think it’s unethical for a man to have unprotected sex with a woman (provided there is affirmative consent for PIV generally) without asking if he should wear a condom, for the following reasons: (1) women can own male condoms just as easily as men, (2) female condoms exist, which women can buy and use without asking the man to do anything, and (3) the man and the woman are both at risk of infection from unprotected sex. A woman could “sheathe” her vagina with a female condom, and might otherwise put the man at greater risk through unprotected sex, but I don’t think that’s unethical because the man could withdraw his consent to intercourse generally if he does not want unprotected sex.

Women have sexual agency here, they can, should, and do ask a men to wear a condom if that’s what they want. And women can and should withdraw their consent to intercourse if a man will not put on a condom.

All that being said, I think a man should always ask anyway.


The thing is, it's absolutely possible to talk about condom use in the moment, the point of disagreement is that the responsibility to start the conversation is on the vagina owner every time if it needs to happen in the moment. If a conversation hasn't happened yet and a penis (flesh or dildo) owner is about to go in, they should ask first. I shouldn't have to have the "wait wait what did you just do?" Conversation after I've already been exposed to whatever STDs this person is carrying around. And if they go barebacking strangers without asking that risk is pretty damn high.

Also, I will take credit for asking if L Hand was the MF in the letter way back at 30 something. Remember? He responded by calling me a bitch and telling me it wasn't rape when I've had men stick their uncovered dicks in me without warning.


Smile all you like LHand, Im not sure though that babies dying from vaccine injury is something to smile about.
Trolls like you are best not to be fed, then hopefully they wander off and annoy others somewhere else with their small minds.


Please give examples Mr D of how men are held to different standards to women here?
As with Mr H, I see you as a troll. A clever one who knows how to pretend, or try to, still your hatred of women seeps thru in your snide little put downs.
Then again, educating ignorant men is part of smashing the patriarchy. One must keep trying.


Lava - Please keep your anti-vaxx "stuff" far away from here - it has no place on Savage Love.

Find another outlet - I'm confident your zealotry will very quickly receive an enthusiastic welcome and a loving home somewhere far far away, in one of the dusty corners of the internets.


L Hand @115, yes. Of course there have been a few slip ups over the years. But I have followed a policy of condom removal requires a serious relationship and a clear STI test. Cheating? Solution, polyamory. I am fluid bonded with one of my partners, which I suggested after five months of our being each other's primary sexual partners, during which he never once asked or tried to not use a condom, which gave me the confidence to trust him. Trust he's since earned by telling me straightaway that a condom broke with another partner, which a cheater would not have been able to do.

The women who are fucking you without condoms are disease spreaders too, so your hunch is wrong.

You're as free to think I have a double standard (I don't use condoms during oral sex with men either, for what that's worth) as I am to think you're careless and stupid for having unprotected casual sex with the sort of person who engages in unprotected casual sex and is therefore a massive risk.

And yes, I think people should have conversations about condoms. If those people are casual partners, that conversation should be "shall we use your condoms or mine?" If those people proceed to a point where they are committed, that conversation should be "shall we get a test and stop using condoms? How will we prevent pregnancy?" I don't think the conversation should be "I'm not fussed about condoms if you're not, what was your name again?"

He/she @121, I do have that experience, and changing condoms between vaginas is really not a massive burden. Imagine, for example, how hot it would be to make out with a woman while another rolls a condom over your penis. Thank you for being a responsible dick haver! I would say I'm glad to learn they are out there, but I have encountered plenty. In fact, in my experience the men who moan about condoms are the minority, and they don't get invited back.


@127 He/she/themdidwhat???
I'm afraid @126 I buried the lead (which came after "OTOH"). I think the ethical responsibility is on the person who "does the physical action that causes penetration". While that might be I think in practice be more often the one that does the penetrating, it's quite feasible for it to be the person who gets penetrated. So I'm not gendering this, I'm 'action-ing' it (at it is often as in this case actions which bear ethical responsibility).

My thought being that the act of penetration ends the period during which consent may be obtained to depart from the default. In other words, the key is as BabyRae says @128, the offensive behavior must not happen to the other party "without warning".


Curious @134, yes. It is the responsibility of the person who is initiating the penetration to put a condom on the penis before the penetration takes place.
It is the responsibility of anyone who is having penetrative sex to ensure the availability of condoms for this purpose. Meaning if you don't have any, ask before clothes start coming off whether your partner does.


@135 BiDanFan
I might suspect ulterior motives of members of the group of commenters loudly focused upon the gender equality of principles who do not endorse this principle of the responsibility being that of the person "initiating the penetration".

"No one had asked me not to" is a pathetic ethical argument.


@132 that does sound hot!

I don’t think changing condoms is a burden at all in that context, I’d be happy to wear out a case of em’, but some people seem to think even pausing to consider putting on a condom is a drag.


Lava - why would a man lie about the women who want him to maybe get them pregnant?


Lava I understand I am not to argue with you about this bc according to research anti-vaxxers double down when their beliefs are questioned, but there is no data to say vaccines are more dangerous than not vaccinating, so before demanding citations from others it's best to provide your own. SciHub is your friend there if you do not have institutional access.


@133 Hunter - I did not have time is a lie, a way to show the new woman she's more important than the gf/that he doesn't value the gf, or I'm losing my hardon had to rush it (and again the new woman is the priority over gf). It takes 10 seconds to put on a condom at most.


@139 no
"no data to say vaccines are more dangerous than not vaccinating"

I'm no "anti-vaxxer", and I agree vaccines are less dangerous to society that not vaccinating.

But I don't look forward to when it comes time for my next vaccination. The last one as usual vaccinated for a whole slew of things, and I felt quite unwell for (IIRC) days. So just I wonder if some sensitive people would be better off if there was an option to not just throw all the vaccinations into one shot, but to enable one to spread them out over a few.

Still, this is my only quibble with vaccinations; I haven't seen anything to convince me that they aren't a good idea.


Oy. I'm not going to get too deep into this one, and this will be the only comment I will make on the subject. LavaGirl, I generally respect you, but you're the one who needs to do the research (with RELIABLE, PEER-REVIEWED sources!). Infants have died hours after a lot of things, including being on the beach, but correlation doesn't equal causation -- the beach doesn't inherently cause children to die. And what about the parents of children who couldn't get vaccinated and then died of diseases they got from children who should have been vaccinated? I'd be happy to provide you with comprehensive review articles detailing the HUNDREDS of double-blinded, peer-reviewed, comprehensive studies that prove modern vaccines and, yes, the standard vaccine schedules, are safe. Not that I think it will do anything to change your mind.

I, for one, am infinitely grateful to have been given every single one of the many vaccines I have gotten in my life, including, even though I've never had sex, the HPV vaccine -- which (attn. curious2) did give me pain at the injection site and made me feel mildly under the weather after several of the injections. Still totally worth it.

There are people who can't get some vaccines (like the very young, very old, people with certain types of compromised immune systems, or people allergic to eggs), WHICH IS WHY it's so important for everyone else to be vaccinated. It's called herd immunity -- if almost everyone is immune to a pathogen, the rate of transmission will be so low that even people who can't get vaccinated will be protected. Herd immunity is why it's an issue when people don't vaccinate their kids -- once the percentage of people vaccinated gets below a certain threshold, the protection for those who can't get vaccinated vanishes.

There's a good reason for every one of the vaccines on the standard vaccination schedule, every ingredient in every vaccine, and good research behind every age at which children get different vaccines. And yes, you need to get your booster shots. I just got a couple last year. It's not such a burden.

Science is real, including -- and often especially -- the parts that make some people angry. If you otherwise believe that science is real, ask yourself why this is an exception. It shouldn't be. Science is, after all, the only magic that works -- because everything has to be proven. So, please, people, get your shots, get your kids their shots, and if you ever interact with children or the elderly (or if you just don't like getting sick), get your fucking flu shots, too.

If you're interested in the history of the vaccine panic, see this excellent video by the New York Times' Retro Report series.

So much for not getting too deep into this. Unless I'm called upon to provide links to studies, this will be my last word on the topic. I'd be very happy if we could move on from the subject. /comment


Ms. Lava,
Vaccines DO tire one out. They cause your body to build up lots of immune cells responsive to the virus or bacterium you're getting protected against. Your immune system requires lots of energy. That's why they ask if you are feeling well before they give you the sho; you won't have enough energy to fight off a bug you've got already AND build up immunity to something new at the same time.
There ARE some experimental vaccines that are not well tested; my recollection is that U.S. soldiers received some of these during the run-up to the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq.
But the vaccines that your doctor gives these days for flu, tetanus, polio, mumps, rubella, diphtheria, pertussis (whooping cough), and to HPV are MUCH safer than risking contracting those diseases. The rates of the most dangerous forms of cervical HPV (the major cause of cervical cancer) in Australian young women dropped from 29% in 2007 to 2% in 2012 (Patel et al., Eurosurveillance, v. 23, p. 1700737, '18; doi: 10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2018.23.41.1700737).


With regard to condom usage: Men and women are pretty much the same. Men don't like condoms because they cover the most sensitive parts of the penis and can potentially decrease sensation. Women don't like dental dams because they cover the clitoris and can potentially decrease sensation. But both prevent transmission of STIs. I don't like using male condoms, but I like the prospect of contracting STIs a lot less, so there's no question but to use condoms with a new partner - that's just basic common sense.
The female condom is a gamechanger. It should be more effective at preventing STIs than is the male condom, since the edge of the female condom can cover parts of the vulva that can harbor bugs that are not contained only to the female vagina or male shaft, such as herpes and HPV. However, that means that the female condom can possibly cover parts of the clitoris (depending on one's anatomy), so....perhaps more safety, perhaps less sensation.
For women who aren't sure if their partner is going to use a male condom, put the female condom in before you get started! That way, you won't have to worry about whether the guy is an a**hole who will try to stealth you. And if he tries to pull the female condom out, you'll know in time to stop him from going in.
I would like to imagine the response if a woman asked a guy to "use protection", and he pulled out a female condom for her....
But both men and women should take responsibility for your own protection, and you won't have to be dependent on your partner reining in their dick-/clit-ful thinking.




Is anyone game for the Double Whammy (@100 + @69 = @169)?
(So beautifully played, Dan the Man, on scoring the Lucky @69!)

@141 curious2: I am a believer of vaccinations--particularly annual flu shots (at least the egg culture kind works for me). The occasional year I have missed my chance to get vaccinated and catch a virus---you don't want to come within 100 miles of me.
I am currently having a problem getting a vaccination for shingles--something that is supposedly vulnerable for someone my age. My pharmacy is currently out of the vaccine and I'm on a waiting list. I haven't had a booster in several years.


@141 curious - slowed vaccine schedules endanger people and are associated with reduced vaccination. So, bad policy, generally doctors aren't keen on endangering patients for no reason. What you are experiencing is immune activation, the thing that keeps you safe, the thing the vaccine is supposed to do, the thing that saves you when the real illness comes. Your body is making you feel bad, not the shot. You having an especially strong response is good news, but does indicate you would have been especially susceptible to the disease/had it more severely. To reduce that experience overall for you personally what you want is every shot you can get crammed into one day, not feeling sick multiple times from multiple shots. It's not the shot that's getting you, it's your own immune system and that response is going to be relatively consistent. Get as many in you as possible, schedule it before a weekend or a break, and save yourself the needless illness of a spaced out immunization schedule, plus of course the needless time wasted exposed to diseases you are more susceptible/vulnerable than average to.
Lots of people have vasovagal response to shots as well, if you have any fear of needles ask for sedatives in advance. Vasovagal can get you for a good while and sucks.
Of course the main reason to get vaccines is so you don't accidentally contribute to killing or maiming babies, old folks and cancer patients and the like, so I'm not sure what a good reason to delay re that would be.
Get your flu shot. Not just because we are decades overdue for a superflu (1918 flu killed so fast you'd get on the subway healthy in Manhattan and die by Coney Island, 30% kill rate some places, and yes, we do have it on ice in Georgia! And wherever the military keeps it I suppose) we definitely won't be able to stop (and not just bc Trump's been gutting the CDC), and you need all the immunity you can get to the individual bits that make up the virus (it mutates each year but the 2 bits are often recycled and remixed, you get H1N1, then H2N4, then H1N6, etc) but also so you can have some moral high ground as it kills many more people than anything else we vaccinate for here every year (right now anyway) and it can be so ambiguous in symptoms you don't know you have it, plus prodromal phase - well, it's just worth it. Be a good person.
Anyway, your Dr knows all this, get the nurse on the phone and ask. This isn't mysterious knowledge.
Legit reasons to delay vaccines:

The only relationship vaccines have with autism is that an unvaccinated mother getting sick during pregnancy, with the flu say, increases odds of autism. Which is visible in utero (the autism). Also increases chance of mental illness in the kid. Both are very very genetic, but fever in utero ups those odds. Anyway, useful to know if you gotta uterus!


Ah, I should say "parent", not "mother", apologies.


@142 cm - yup, if you don't believe in vaccines you don't believe in antibiotics, the entirety of modern medicine (I mean, there are plenty of fair pot shots to take (looking at you surgeons) but vaccines ain't it), and you definitely don't believe in climate change.

We've wasted so much, and I mean SO MUCH money on proving to anti-vaxxers that vaccines don't cause autism or other vague harm. Can you imagine what we could have used that money to cure? Can you imagine having to waste years of your medical research career on this because yes, it does actually kill people to not vaccinate? Usually kids?

Maybe we could have thrown some of it into a week in schools where we taught people what a legit source was. Or what science is maybe. I think a lot of people genuinely don't know.

There's a reason antivax is being boosted by the Russian troll factory and that reason is not complimentary to the education of the electorate.


The cervical cancer thing - you can get those shots at any age, you may have to pay for it if over the age range. It's a brutal way to go.


Curious @136: There is an awful lot of deflection going on, rather than addressing the shortcomings of one's own argument. "Well YOU don't use dental dams!" "Well YOU must be a sexist." Clearly easier than addressing the substance of one's own carelessness, and this deflection just shows how indefensible this approach is.

He/She @137, those people lack both imagination and impulse control. This discussion has made me grateful to be a GenXer. I grew up when AIDS was a death sentence and condoms were a given. I'm glad people are no longer dying but I am not glad people have forgotten the simple concept of preventing pregnancy and 90% of STIs by taking, as Ms No @140 says, a maximum of 10 seconds to put on a condom. And making it fun by putting it on one's partner. I had a drunken conversation with a male friend who said he dislikes pausing to put on a condom so much he just doesn't have casual sex, and when I asked if his partners were putting the condom on him, he said never. WTF?

Biologist @144, I tried to use female condoms and I was unable to feel that my partner had pushed it completely inside, thereby ruining the effort entirely. Back to standard condoms for me.


You can also put condoms on with your mouth, it's easy, so not sure why it's supposed to be such a buzzkill. Fit might matter to some, but get a variety pack and figure it out on your own time, you know?


@131 be - yeah, and it seems like no one remembers the fluid bonded testing protocol either. I guess they don't teach it anymore? I know it's been updated.


That guy is selfish. Dan is right. DTMFA.


@151 bids fan Yes, the female condom does seem to have a greater likelihood of user error, particularly given that hardly anyone ever uses them and proper use is rarely taught. It's also less aesthetically pleasing (it seems a crime to obscure a naked pussy) and noisy in a trash bag way.

If I had to guess, I'd say that men usually apply their own condoms for the same reason that women usually remove their own bras: one party generally has a lot more experience and the momentary awkwardness of an inexpert maneuver can dampen the mood.


@147 no
"what you want is...not feeling sick multiple times from multiple shots"

While your argument is robust public policy, you are not correct about what what I want. I imagine you considered that I might want to feel half as sick twice...

"slowed vaccine schedules"

...separated by a week. Good point that public policy needs to expect people not to be compliant enough to actually /get/ two half shots as reliably as one full shot, but it still sucks to be not have the option to do what would be half as unpleasant (yes, for twice as long).

I submit that some people's health situation is sensitive enough that they might even forgo the one full shot entirely when not given the option of the two half shots. That's not good public policy either.

I'm irked by being told 'what I want'. An alternative path for certain patients would be feasible. And don't worry, the great majority of people would rather just make one trip for the one full shot anyway.

I'm also irked by the general tendency of doctors, justifiably proud of their work, to not want to focus on it's hardships for patients lest that focus harsh their buzz. (Surgeons, for example.)


@156 no
p.s. "what you want is every shot you can get crammed into one day, not feeling sick multiple times from multiple shots"

That also might very well be what my employer wants, but don't conflate that either with what I want.


He/she @155, given that men don't use condoms while masturbating, I would not grant men any more inherent expertise in applying condoms than women. I'm willing to bet I've put on far more condoms than a certain Mr L Hand, for instance.

Also, since when do women usually remove their own bras? Is this something else I'm doing wrong? :) IME, one only removes one's own bra if one's partner is struggling, and with the right attitude, this can lighten the mood more than dampen it. "Momentary awkwardness" is to be expected during sex. Women, this is no excuse to let your partner unromantically put on his own condom.


curious2 I'm not fully aware of the research here, but I think no was saying that people feel the same level of sick from one shot as they do from multiple shots because the immune system is either being activated or it's not. And you may have to insist, but it is always your right to refuse or delay any medical treatment, including vaccines, even if it's ill-advised. You doctor/nurse won't be happy about it, but if you insist on making another appointment for the other shot (and they have an opening to see you at the time you need), they can't really say no.


So much for @142 being my only comment on the topic. * Sigh * Talking about this just makes me too tired, even though everyone is being polite here, because of associations with past difficult conversations. You know? It's hard because I'm passionate about science, including vaccine science, and sometimes it feels like banging my head on a brick wall to argue with people online. Let me try again: I hereby recuse myself from the rest of the conversation. For real this time.


@158 bidanfan okok! I submit to your greater experience :)


On the topic of condoms, I always assumed most people used condoms every time unless they were monogamous for a long time and had other birth control in place. It's disconcerting to learn otherwise. I guess once I start having sex this will be one more thing I have to worry about. Great.


Calliope @162, disconcerting indeed. Your assumption should be the rule for sexual relationships. Unfortunately there are many who don't see it that way. I would buy condoms and keep them handy, and learn to put them on, using a dildo or the good old-fashioned banana for practice. And apparently you must specifically mention condoms before getting amorous or people like L Hand will assume you don't care whether they are used. Like I said, though, your assumption is my reality and I've met very few guys who won't put on a condom if the alternative is not getting laid. So it's more "prepare for" than "worry about" but yeah, forewarned is forearmed.


@159 CalliopeMuse
Oh, so the "full shot" (I don't recall it's been a while since my last one) comes in multiple injections? If so cool!

@163 BiDanFan
"I've met very few guys who won't put on a condom if the alternative is not getting laid"

Sleeping with such a guy even with the condom would I think raise one's risk.

Maybe it's better they not get laid. Evolution might be better served if they were shot in the head.


HST??? @121: Being someone who has enjoyed the occasional FFM, I've found they work best when my primary partner and I have focused on our lady guest together. The women get orgasms, at their own pace, and I come last - in our guest, with a condom.

BDF @158: I don't think it's a given that men don't use condoms while masturbating. I have, from time to time, to vary the sensation, to incorporate some fantasy or other, or to prevent cum on the furniture.

I don't remember any woman putting a condom on me, or even offering to do so. Now I feel I've missed out!


no @153: The Google offers no solid leads to the "fluid bonded testing protocol". Could you elaborate?


@165 fubar
"BDF @158: I don't think it's a given that men don't use condoms while masturbating. I have, from time to time, to vary the sensation, to incorporate some fantasy or other, or to prevent cum on the furniture."

Yes; Dan has even repeatedly recommended it.


I take my own bra off. I can't remember every having a partner take it off--or at least, take it off in a non-awkward way.

I've put my share of condoms on penises, but most of the time, my partners put the condoms on themselves--I don't know why, exactly. Even if the person being penetrated doesn't roll the condom on, there are ways to make it a sexy part of foreplay, especially through talk.

Since it's my health, I stay vigilant about condom use, unless and until we have a discussion and become fluid-bonded. I keep condoms near my bedside and in my purse. But here's what I've discovered: if the man is under 55, or has been single and dating in the past 20 years, he's used to condoms, often has his own, doesn't balk. If he's older or has only just gotten out of a monogamous relationship that began a long while ago, he's likely to be less used to the idea of the inevitability of wearing condoms. Some of these guys protest that the condom isn't necessary; many of the older dudes' erections wilt at the sight of a condom, and have to be finessed a bit. If the guy is ethically non-monogamous, he tends to understand the necessity for condoms, and to have his own and to insist upon them himself. I remember being with someone once and as we began making out it suddenly turned out that neither of us had a condom. I was carried away by lust and suggested we could have PIV without one, and the guy refused. I recall we still had fun, but once our heartbeats had returned to normal, I thanked him for having been clearer-headed than I had been.


Curious - obviously do what you want, was just answering your questions, if you don't want to ask your Dr or nurse basic Q's you have a right to ask or do any academic reading on how the immune system works that's 100% fine by me just don't spread this crap (illness, malignant info) please. You're strengthening the anti-vaxxers.

Yes CM the reason why you wanna slam the shots is bc you have no idea which or what is setting you off in particular and since c's immune system is apparently consistently such a goddamn freakout machine they're better off getting it over with.
The dose is the smallest it can be and be effective. There is zero physical benefit to multiple doctor trips to experience it multiple times. Your immune system varies in punch due to sleep, nutrition, stress, hell, arguably your mood, and so c might have lucked out/unlucked out in the past and is basing their beliefs on the wrong impetus, but superstition affects individual medical outcome (and certainly pain scale, general malaise scale) so that might be the main issue. We are all Pavlov's dogs. C if you want to be believed all you gotta do is research your condition and present it to the doc. The work has been done, it's out there, go find it. Again, Scihub is your friend if you don't have institutional access, vet your sources as per usual academic science standards. Google scholar and pubmed are useful too. You can make your case and change your doctor's mind if the evidence is on your side, which it will be if you're right.
If you aren't familiar with academic researching just take a course on the immune system (MIT is free online) and explain it to your doc. Personally I'd have trouble having faith in getting any other care from a doctor who is happy to delay the schedule but if you like a doctor who will disregard basic safety protocols and not explain why for you I'm glad you've found each other. I don't like doctors who won't give me info about my own body.

fubar - ask any Dr, pp, anyone that's not a crisis pregnancy center. It might vary by region (syphilis for example is typically location specific) and race, gender, who you fuck and where you've both been.


Fu - the basic concept is you both test, safer sex for the interum (used to be a year, now it's usually shorter bc the tests are more accurate/sensitive), then test again 6-? months out to make sure you're both actually for real clear.

Most STDs have no symptoms (other than stealth infertility or internal scarring or what have you) some take a long time to show up enough for the test to find 'em, this is how you stay actually safe rather than say, oh I like them a lot and their junk hasn't oozed that I can tell (nor has mine) so we're good! I mean, that last bit is how most people get married (then you are signing up for everything about them I guess) so the people being responsible are few and far between but that's only more of a reason to follow the protocol. Sex makes people much more risk takey than they'd otherwise be on average, i think. Ditto love.

Last time I checked 8% of the clap is oral (also increasingly untreatable!) so this isn't perfect, but bc it's so population specific you get more or less protection simply by virtue of what/where you are than the numbers make clear. It's very reliant on the judgement of former partners and I know where I am on that (absolute sweethearts but, um...) so I'm more of a problem than my own behavior would indicate, you know?


And clean was the wrong word to use, apologies. Perhaps riddled?


Ah, autocorrect saved me.

Still gonna go with riddled.


Curious, Fubar, I stand corrected re condoms during masturbation. And Nocute, re bras. Perhaps mine are so petite that partners think, not inaccurately, they'll be easy to remove. I guess once one is in a long term relationship, one cares less about the romance of undressing one's partner than the efficiency of undressing oneself.


Re female condoms (@151/155), they do take a little getting used to. The first few times I did a lot of checking -- reaching a hand down to feel for it. I soon got the hang of how deep to insert the inner ring so it would be stable.

As far as I know, there's only one size, and I suppose a huge penis might push the condom deep inside. But with an average penis it stays put (once I got used to inserting it appropriately).

As for crinkling noise, I think that was the first generation of female condoms. Anyway, I don't notice any noise when I use them.

Big fan here -- doesn't affect erections, doesn't require me to ask the guy to put one on; can be inserted early on so we don't have to pause right before PIV. Great invention.


BiDanFan @173: Well, there's the efficient undressing that happens in long-term relationships; and there's also slow strip teases, or a sort of D/s dynamic, in which the person wearing the bra gets told to remove it. Or various other ways for a bra to be removed by its wearer that still manage to preserve the "romance" no matter what size the breasts are. I have never felt that the romance--or the excitement was compromised because I take my own bra off myself.

I have also had men practically rip a bra trying to get it off. Those things are expensive, particularly if you have large breasts and need support + beauty.


@169 no
What the fuck are you talking about?

"was just answering your questions"

You were? Show me one question I asked, that you then answered. (But here's one question I do have for you: are you a looney?)

"if you don't want to ask your Dr or nurse basic Q's you have a right to ask or do any academic reading on how the immune system works that's 100% fine by me just don't spread this crap"

Again, what the fuck are you talking about?

You lectured me @47 for absolutely no reason about stuff I already knew. Where do you get these ideas you're addressed to me in these quotes? Are you foaming at the mouth from rabies, seeing a straw man instead of what I actually wrote?

"just don't spread this crap (illness, malignant info) please. You're strengthening the anti-vaxxers"

I said something true from personal experience. Keep your gratuitous zealotry away from me, stop being a condescending raving bore. I don't ask for much, but I do insist upon rationality if someone wants to talk to me.

Fuck that was weird. I wonder if "no" is responding to someone here other than me. Perhaps voices in their head?


Curious I'm glad you know how the human immune system works. It didn't seem so from any of your posts but clearly I was wrong. It would help if you didn't spread anti-vaxx propaganda and discouraged your doctor from doing so. Thanks for calling me crazy!


And no worries about rabies, I am vaccinated!


@169 no: WA-HOOOO!!!! Congrats on scoring the much envied Double Whammy (@100 + @69 = @169)! Bask in the glow of decadence and enjoy.:)
p.s. @178 no: I'm glad to hear you don't have rabies.

Is anyone up for the Two Hunsky at this point in the comment thread?


Interesting, EricaP @174. Perhaps I will give them another try, with my fluid bonded partner just in case anything goes wrong.

Nocute @175, my bugbear is when someone has their hands under my shirt and unhooks my bra before the shirt even comes off, meaning that when I try to take off shirt the bra will pull on my boobs which HURTS.
There are also cultural differences. I dated a German who efficiently stripped naked straightaway, leaving me half dressed and wondering when she was planning to do anything about that! :)


@177 no
"Thanks for calling me crazy!"

Expect it again the next time(1) you put words in my mouth, addressing a conversation to me which you are really having with a straw man you made up in your head.

Which by inference you admit with your silence when I asked:

""was just answering your questions"
You were? Show me one question I asked, that you then answered."

You might think it makes you look better to not admit such a mistake, but actually admitting a mistake demonstrates a strength, and not doing so demonstrates a weakness.

I don't suffer gladly people having conversations they address to me but are actually with a straw man they made up in their head, and which less engaged readers might think are /actually/ (you scoring points) with me. (I appreciate and engage in conversations that are genuinely interactive and intellectually honest.) Yours was the technique of cowards and madmen.

(1) But please don't have their be a next time, I have much more pressing things to do than rhetorically mop the floor with you.


oops "don't have their" should be "don't have there"


nocutename @175 Not a lot I can speak to in this conversation, but the price of bras for the large-breasted is something to which I can attest. I just got new bras a few months ago and it cosr me about $150 for three of them! So worth it, though, to have bras that actually fit. I practically feel like a whole new person!


@curious2 There are vaccines that you get in multiple installments months apart -- the HPV vaccine comes to mind. What I was saying, though, is that if you have more than one separate vaccine scheduled for one day (which is what your complaint was about), it's totally your right to insist on coming back another day for the second, etc. You will have to insist, because doctors generally consider it ill-advised for multiple reasons, but they can't give you a shot you don't consent to.


@183: CalliopeMuse: Hurrah! I know how a well-fitting bra can lift my spirits! Wishing you good times ahead with your new bras.

@174: EricaP, I am going to have to try the female condom based on your comment. I think it might be just the ticket for those men whose erections wilt at the sight or thought of a condom. Do your partners ever tell you they don't like the way it feels for them?

Any other penis-havers who have encountered the female condom? How do you like the sensation?

Regarding HPV vaccines: I had the series when my marriage ended and I knew I'd be dating again. Neither the AMA, the CDC, nor the NIH had recommended the vaccine for people over the age of 23 at the time, so I had to pay for them out of pocket: at $200 per injection (and it's a set of 3 injections, none of which can be skipped on a particular schedule), it was expensive, but the peace of mind is worth it. I've lost two friends to cervical cancer over the years, and if there's something I can take to help to prevent it, you better believe I'm on board.


@183 CalliopeMuse
" more than one separate vaccine scheduled for one day (which is what your complaint was about)"

I think what I was referring to @141 with

"my next vaccination. The last one as usual vaccinated for a whole slew of things"

was a single shot containing many different vaccinations. But it's been years, so maybe I forget or something has changed. When it's time again I shall ask about fewer vaccinations per shot or per visit or whatever; I know I've never imagined it was worth asking because I too rarely see the medical community consider the dark linings in the silver clouds of the wonderful things they do.


nocutename @184
No one has complained, perhaps because they know the alternative is wearing a condom themselves.

I'm so sorry to hear about the friends you lost to cervical cancer. My condolences.

For those considering paying for HPV vaccination today, this article says one shot may provide good protection:

One dose of human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine has comparable effectiveness to 2 or 3 doses for preventing cervical pre-cancer, according to a new study. [July 2019]


@ curious2 Must have been the MMR vaccine (measles, mumps, and rubella), maybe. Or maybe DTap (diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis). Those are the main ones that come with multiple vaccines in one shot. I'm not sure it's even possible to get those particular vaccines in separate doses. I've never seen any evidence that multiple vaccines per dose increases adverse effects. In fact, I think one of the reasons those ones are given together is that they have similar effects and the same schedule, and, like i think no was trying to say, putting them together doesn't usually cause an amplification of side effects because of the similarity. I think the increased effects you experienced were just bad luck or maybe your body doing what you expected it to (this is a real effect called nocebo -- the opposite of placebo). IDK for sure, though. Everyone is different.


Actually now that I've done my research, it is highly unlikely you had an MMR booster because those are almost never needed after childhood. The good news is that you only need Tdap (the name of the DTap booster) every ten years, so you're good for another decade! In any case, it's still a very good thing you got that shot -- tetanus, diphtheria, and pertussis (whooping cough) are three particularly nasty things to get.


@187@188 CalliopeMuse
Ah yes the dap/tap name ring a bell. Only 3? Yeah, might as well just deal with it, so never mind!

I don't think I nocebo myself; I've had a good record of not getting in my own way healthwise. I'm pretty sure it's that long story short my system is too sensitive in many contexts.


And to think curious what that concoction does to a baby’s body, given multiple times over the first few yrs. Autism has increased from one in the thousands in the seventies, when there were very few vaccines for kids, to now when it is one in every fifty children, even under that, In the US.
These parents, the ones who did vaccinate their babies, and either the baby died or suffered neurological damage very soon after receiving multiple vaccines at once, aluminium anyone, they are the ones who investigate and push for public awareness to the truth, a truth they have experienced.
There used to be adverts where Drs told us smoking didn’t hurt you, and tell us their favourite brand. As if western medicine with its ties to drug companies is some god.


Yes, vaccines have there place. Why hit a baby at birth with vitaminK, with a hep vaccine. A baby. Right. Off shooting heroin at a day old. The scheldure now inflicted on children is insane. In NY unvaccinated children can’t go to school. Over a few measles outbreaks, and how many died and some of those were vaccinated. So much for it working. Which brings us to this herd mentality rationale. Either it works in the body or it doesn’t.
Informed choice rather than blind belief.


It starts with mandatory vaccines for kids, and where does forced medicines stop? What could be next. Forced sterilisation of the disabled. Dan talks about slippery slopes, here’s one.


In Sydney, the area where the most children are unvaccinated is the Eastern Suburbs. Rich rich area, filled with medical Drs and specialists, other professionals. Now why would that be.


Herd immunity.


@190 LavaGirl
"Autism has increased from one in the thousands in the seventies"

Is it autism, or autism diagnoses that have increased?


Both, probably, curious2, but, again, after literally hundreds of studies there is absolutely zero evidence that is linked to vaccines. The scientific community took those concerns very very seriously, but they didn't pan out. Make a list of things that have changed since the '70's, and you'll see what a ridiculous amount of factors probably play some role in autism diagnoses, one of which is NOT vaccines. It's been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. The study that originally started this bullshit in the '90's got emphatically retracted for many reasons including: faulty self-reported data, straight-up fabrication of data, inaccurate statistical analyses, jumping to conclusions, dozens of better studies disproving the premise... If you actually read the thing (which I have!) It's bonkers that it got published in the first place. The lead author (the only one who didn't voluntarily retract his name from the study) has long since lost his medical license in the U.K., partly for putting patients in danger in various crazy ways, partly for absolutely fabricating data, and partly for other stupid things. Watch the NY Times video I linked to.

And this is why I didn't want to get involved. I'm wasting my time defending against irrationality. I have an exam in less than 2 hours and I'm doing this instead of studying. For real, this time, recusing myself from this.


@197 CalliopeMuse
"Both, probably"

Wow, I assumed that because I think they started looking for it far more during that period, they would find it more.

Hope you aced your test Calli!


curious2 @198: I would assume the same thing, but Calli's point is that either way, Science has debunked any and all claims that vaccinations are related. That doesn't mean that vaccinations aren't hard on children's bodies, or that big pharma isn't malevolent. It just means what it means: no correlation.

One of my hobbies is genealogy. Death records from prior to about 1930 or so are chock full of babies and children who died of all the things we now inoculate against, much of which is now eradicated... almost... diseases like the plague are now making an encore. I wonder why that is?


Oh, hey.


@199 fubar
"I would assume the same thing, but Calli's point is that either way, Science has debunked any and all claims that vaccinations are related"

Oh I'm not disagreeing, I'm just (as I so often do) quibbling around the edges of the discussion.

The discussion itself kinda freaks me out. Mostly what I saw LavaGirl writing. But I'm also more generally saddened with the vitreol I imagine the vaxx wars are fought with.


@Calliope 162 For all the hate that BiDanFan wants to spew my way (and she has done at it every turn), what you should be used to (and ALL I have ever said on the matter) when you start having sex is plan on having a quick conversation with the person you are about to have sex with about condom use before you start actually having sex. That's it. That's all it takes.

If condom use is not talked about before that time (and frankly, you are an idiot or a fool if you don't talk about it - apparently talking with potential sex partners is too difficult for BiDanFan to contemplate - maybe her male sexual partners can only grunt??), it would be very smart of you to assume that the guy ISN'T wearing a condom. If he is - great no issues. If he isn't, stop him before you let him penetrate you (or you jump on him) and tell him that a condom is required.


L Hand @202: I'm not going to re-read the entire commentary, so correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm let with the impression that you've morphed from "no condom is default" to "conversation is required" but with a touch of "without conversation, no condom is default and it's the condom-requiring woman's responsibility to verify".


Something is wrong with comment posting today. It must be the impeachment enquiry!


In case the At Risk Youth are still reading this commentary, here's the scenario. It seems that when comments are deleted, and pagination is activated (over 100 comments) then things break.

My post #203 should have been the first on page 3, but page 3 didn't become available until I posted #204. Even then, #203 is not displayed.

In addition, the page 3 selector is available only on page 1. On page 2, it doesn't appear.


@162 CalliopeMuse
"I always assumed most people used condoms every time unless they were monogamous for a long time and had other birth control in place. It's disconcerting to learn otherwise. I guess once I start having sex this will be one more thing I have to worry about. Great."

Condoms are what Dan likes to call a magic sorting hat. If a partner neither brings protection up nor plans to put a condom on their penis, you've (to quote another Dan phrase) learned everything (I would say "a very great deal") about them.

You've learned that they're disrespectful (of you, and that condoms should be the default for casual sex). You've learned that going ahead and having sex with them--even if you succeed in getting in a conversation before they surprise you by putting their unsheathed penis in you--might be expected to be sex accompanied by a higher-risk than had they shown themself to be responsible instead of reckless.

It is depressing that walking penises are out there eager to penetrate orifices without condoms unless you ask them not to before they do.

But I think a smart strategy might be to /not/ to bring it up, since that would ruin the opportunity to (very very vigilantly) observe to discover whether they don't regard condoms as the default, so you can then hit the button on their ejector seat and never speak to them again as long as they live.

Of course if /you/ choose to be the one "initiating the penetration"(quoting BiDanFan@135) instead of the person with the penis, then it would be your responsibility to bring it up. Whoever initiates the penetration needs to get consent to depart from the condom-default before the penetration occurs.

@203 fubar
I hesitate to quibble upon such a wonderful comment, but...

"L Hand've morphed from "no condom is default""

I don't think L Hand took that initial position.


@fubar 203 Haven't "morphed" into anything (feel free to read all you want). I have always said you should have a conversation at the moment. I have also said that anyone that affirmatively lies about what they are doing or going to do is committing assault. And the last thing I have said, is that if you don't have a conversation (and why in the hell wouldn't you???), AND you haven't seen a condom going on, noticed that time has been taken to put one on, helped in putting one on, or looked or felt to see if one was on, you have no right to be upset if the penis that you want and expect to penetrate you (and may even help to penetrate you) doesn't have a condom on it.


@Curious 206 You would be surprised (and presumably even more depressed) by how many walking vaginas out there actively desire to be penetrated by a penis without a condom. The last three walking casual vaginas I penetrated all desired to be penetrated by a condom-less penis. You might also be surprised by the fact that I had condoms with me on all three occasions and used them on one of them. And none of this is inconsistent with anything I have said throughout. Although I have seen a whole bunch of blatant hypocrisy on this thread.


@203 L Hand
"you have no right to be upset if the penis...doesn't have a condom on it." by surprise.

Sexual assault.