Savage Love

Sissy That Talk



Last LW - re finding yourself suddenly single during a threesome, at least you are well rid of a truly stupid man.


1- the problem is probably the US - without cut dads telling sons how to care for their dicks there's a lack of knowledge about the condition and how to self treat it that's unlikely in Europe, say.


MBP~ there are two solutions to any problem. Duct tape, and in your case, WD40. Not only does this all-purpose lubricant/solvent grease things up, it comes in a handy spray can with a straw to blow the miracle liquid into the tightest of spaces (like the foreskin of your boyfriend’s dick, which will slide back slick as a whistle!) Just don’t insert it into his urethra or you’ll blow his bladder up to the size of a party balloon!

NOMNOM~ I’m putting BOTH of your names in for the “Seriously Stupid Fuckers of the Year Award”! Your boyfriend for his severe case of lazy-ass dumb-fuckery and you for taking WAY longer than the required half-second’s worth of deliberation before dumping his self-centered ass.


JUST KIDDING about the WD40! Y’all can stop typing those “OMG, Donny, have you got an amoeba eating your brain?” posts/replies. The answer is, “Yes I do, but it’s only affecting the part of my brain responsible for facial recognition... a rather inconvenient affliction as just yesterday I mistook the neighbor’s dog for my girlfriend. Luckily their kids turned the hose on us and I came to my senses and beat a hasty retreat from doing it doggy style under the hedge between our yards.”


Dan, don't recommend circumcision. Look at stories of men who've been circumcised as adults and feel half the sensation. Or this article.


Luv, here's an article on stretching tight foreskin. I'm sure you could Google better articles too. It takes a long time (months, easy) but your boyfriend can stretch his foreskin so that this gets better.


NOMNOM, he went down on her but not you because he takes you for granted. For that and for the unsafe sex, DTMFA.


While I agree with the tone of A1, I'm going to quarrel over the implications of Mr Savage's pronoun choice. Who decided that anyone male who ever appeared feminine of centre must be given female-gendred pronouns even when not, as M?? Harriet would put it, en femme? That's too performative for me, and really very Boys in the Band. So much for smashing (male) gender roles.


I have an uncut FWB who, several years in, admonished me never to retract anyone's foreskin because, as he put it, "It really hurts!" He was surprised when I told him that's not the norm, and that there's an actual name for the condition and treatment for it.

But there's really no reason for him to do anything about it. He doesn't have any significant problem with ED or hygiene, is multiorgasmic, doesn't really have a refractory period, and doesn't experience pain unless someone else is trying to expose his glans.

MBP doesn't say whether her current is one of the "two different partners [she's had with this who] had difficulty maintaining erections"; if he is, then maybe it's worth considering treatment. If it's just a matter of having discomfort when a partner does something which isn't an important part of sex for him, though, doing nothing could be best.


@6 what an uninformed and irresponsible suggestion. The correct product for this situation is Liquid Wrench.


I've seen foreskin that didn't retract all the way. I've also seen foreskin that didn't cover the dick while limp all the way and foreskin that totally covered it and continued for a substantial pucker. I've wondered before if the variation is part of the reason some cultures have gone all in for circumcision, to make all the in-group males look the same?


Dadddy@all- regardless, he didn’t use a condom because of no time?! Fuck that- dump him. The lack of oral is just window dressing.


@13~ :-)


Be grateful for that threesome, NOMNOM. Now you know that you're not dating a man who doesn't like cunnilingus; you're dating a man who's not into you enough. And he's a jerk.
DTMFY (dump the motherfucker yesterday).


@13 Liquid wrench is for tight nuts. You use it when you have blue balls.


SISSY has already been discussed. MBP is an easy one -- ask boyfriend to speak to his doctor; -consider- circumcision, which even Ashton @10 acknowledges is an option if there is a "serious or urgent medical reason," as is the case here. Might not be his best option, but a doctor would be the best judge of that. Agree with Miko @16: NOMNOM should DTMFA immediately for not using condoms with their third, even if the oral sex problem wasn't a problem. (Did Mr NOMNOM go down on her the first time they were together? Has she asked him for more oral sex? Is there a reason he doesn't like her pussy, such as hair or taste? All irrelevant given his shitty threesome behaviour.) I don't expect much disagreement over this one. I would note that she describes their mostly-doggy-style sex life as "boring and routine," another data point in the ongoing "do women like doggy style" debate.


NOMNOM and her partner bought condoms, so clearly it was understood that vaginal intercourse between her boyfriend and their third was permissible, but only with a condom. That is really MF behavior, and worthy of dumping.

But the question NOMNOM does ask is why won’t her boyfriend eat her pussy. First, I assume there is no general hygiene issue. It could be that in the moment he was so turned on that he was willing to do something he normally finds unappealing. Of course he still didn’t eat NOMNOM’s pussy in the moment. So maybe more specifically the opportunity to eat someone new. Perhaps he would quickly lose enthusiasm for eating this woman too. My only other immediate guess is that NOMNOM maintains a natural amount of pubic hair and this woman removed all or substantially all of hers. In my opinion, any variation in smell or taste between women who remove their pubic hair is minimal than between a woman who is natural and one who is hairless. Also, licking lots of hair when performing oral sex is not fun.


FC @12 "But there's really no reason for him to do anything about it. He doesn't have any significant problem with ED or hygiene"

Schrödinger's smegma. It's unknown how things are under his irretractable foreskin. I'd still say that it would be a good idea to do something about it. Either stretching it himself (I did that successfully as a teenager, retracting is now completely effortless) or have a doctor look at it. (Not to get a full circumcision, obviously; there are other, much less destructiive options.)


@20 BDF: "Might not be his best option, but a doctor would be the best judge of that."

ACK! Not in a fee-for-service medical system where doctors have usually decided on the more invasive and (not-so-coincidentally) more lucrative procedure.

My initial reaction before reading the comments was that he could stretch his foreskin using lanolin - but a steroidal crème is the logical assist, as it will stretch and thin the skin with repeated use. A lot better than dealing with severe discomfort and pain post-circumcision as an adult.

MBP could help her partner with the stretching by incorporating it into foreplay, as long as she wears gloves and he washes his dick before any penetration is attempted.


@11. venn. Here I would either say 'he' or go for 'all the pronouns' ('she/he/they').

Someone calling themselves a 'heterosuckual' (or some punning variant thereof) is asking to be seen as straight. Yes, they suck cock--but they're straight. A self-proclaimed 'cross-dressing' guy is asking ordinarily to be taken as a man. But there's not an exact equivalence, in that his motivations for cross-dressing may be that they, or he, don't/doesn't entirely or normatively feel a man. (The read-across to the cocksucking het is blurry because he could also feel queer performing a gay sex act, besides feeling straight otherwise. Or he could be implying he's a heteroromantic. Many possibilities). This particular situation is confused further because we can only take the bf at the lw's description. Maybe the way he'd set up his own gender identity would be different?

In the third letter, the unprotected sex is more of a cause to dump than his going down on the third.


Helenka @23, ohh, good point. :(


I don't know, the threesome LW doesn't sound a whole lot different than the variation from the guy letters that say I was all-in on an MMF threesome and that realized I was jealous halfway through.
The going down stuff is a red herring. She says he almost never does it - not never. And if that was a really important thing for her, she should have used her words beforehand. It seems to me that is exactly what Dan would have told some dude moaning about his wife giving a third a BJ (which she rarely gives him) during a threesome when he didn't say anything about it beforehand (or even during), Isn't that what Dan always says?
The condom thing is a little more problematic. Still, she was there and could have said something (or was she too busy getting eaten out by the third?) Yes, it should be talked about if that is that important to her.
As I said, just sounds like a pretty standard I got jealous during a threesome situation to me. Certainly not immediate DTMFA territory.


Last LW, have you considered stabbing him?


L Hand @26, no, this is "promised to practice safe sex and then did not" territory. If anything it is more analogous to stealthing. I wonder if the third consented to sex with her without a condom -- but NOMNOM certainly did not. This is exactly why Dan and most of us commenters skipped the question about whether NOMNOM could have improved her sex life with her future ex by using her words and asking for more oral and jumped right to DTMFA.

Assuming for argument's sake that he had used a condom as they'd agreed. Is "he seldom goes down on me but he went down on her" NOMNOM's issue or her future ex's issue? NOMNOM said he goes down on her approximately once per year, which can reasonably be rounded down to "never." So her jealousy is not irrational. If he'd used a condom, would reasonable advice be, use your words, talk to him and tell him you'd like more oral sex? Sure. But he didn't, therefore he's a motherfucker to be dumped, regardless of who's getting cunnilingus and who isn't.


MBP: Phimosis isn't super uncommon; but what NEVER happens is your doctor asking you to get an erection and examining your foreskin. And for the most part, there is a strong, strong, strong taboo against men complaining about sexual dysfunction until later in life.

NOMNOM: I guarantee your BF doesn't like going down on this woman, but did so to "be polite". Trust him when he says that meant nothing. However, the no-condom thing is a much bigger deal! If it's something you guys agreed to use, then it's a sign of respect to use the condoms as agreed upon and very sketchy to not - and what does he know about this girl's STI status? While it's actually fairly safe for men to have sex unsheathed (I've read that simply urinating after sex decreases transmission by 99% for men!), if he's, uh, going back and forth, you are at a higher level of risk (that you aren't electing to undertake yourself).

So, yeah, wear the condoms, get on the same page, make sure your own relationship is respectful before anymore threesomes. I think you would probably get more oral from him if you allowed him to admit he doesn't enjoy it (and almost certainly not because of anything particular about your vag) and once that's out there, he won't feel the pressure of having to "fake it".


@29 "almost certainly" is too strong a take. Every woman is different down there and it's possible you have issues, but you're likely "normal" and I suspect his aversion is his own issue rather than anything particular about you. If he has a problem with your vag, make him say it out loud before assuming it yourself.


BiDanFan@26 Here is the exact line on condoms "So I agreed to have a threesome to spice things up, and we bought condoms." Since your into rounding things up and down, I am going to round this to, we wanted to have condoms on hand but didn't have a conversation as to whether they were a must or not.

By the way, did she use a dental dam with this lady? What kind of protection against STDs were the two engaging with with each other? Why is it only the penis-haver responsible for safe sex with the third? What about toys? Were they never shared? Were they washed and sterilized between uses by the ladies. And yes, I realize that some STDs are more likely to be contracted by PIV sex - but since we are talking about risk - it is exactly that a likelihood.

As I said, I see a classic letter of jumping into a threesome without really having a good conversation first.


Sporty, today you complain about the “strong, strong, strong taboo against men complaining about sexual dysfunction,” few days ago it was the lack of penis-oriented sex toys.
Before you blame whoever look at us, penis havers, see if there’s anything we can do to ease the situation. We all masturbate yet most of us are ashamed to admit it in the first place, let alone purchase a toy. And when we do buy one it is usually a guess as there aren’t that many reviews about those products if any at all. And did you ever host a tapperware-like party for your buddies, presenting and selling them sex toys or bring up a functionality issue during your check up?

We should talk about those issues and own that conversation, influencing manufacturers and public opinion alike. Instead we just bitch about life after an extremely short token hug of some sort with our male friends, tapping each other’s back right away to signal “let go”, click the shot glass and only allow ourselves to show emotions during sports games.
Either way you look at it, it is in our hands.


In my experience doctors do ask about sexual function but it's usually merely an invitation for the patient to bring something up. People are embarrassed about bringing such things up so they often go unaddressed. I can say that when I have brought up any problems I have had they have been addressed in a frank and nonjudgmental fashion.


@26 I agree with part of your take, it seems foreseeable that a threesome might lead to a partner doing something they rarely do otherwise, or even that they might want to do a particular sexual act for someone other than their partner, for whatever reason. It’s certainly come up in Dan’s letters that a person finds that being with someone new unlocks a sexual dynamic they don’t feel with their long term partner. A mature person (who’s getting consent for a threesome!) would use it as an opportunity to engage with their partner rather than sulk.

HOWEVER, I’m firmly in Dan’s camp that oral comes standard (particularly eating pussy since women often need it to orgasm). It does not seem like the LW knew she was signing up for no oral, so she’s well within her rights to dump her partner for that alone, as well as for not wearing a condom (also standard in nonmonogamy unless explicitly waived).

It seems like their sex life is no great shakes anyway. Maybe they could work it out, but if after four years a guy doesn’t eat pussy regularly, he’s probably not going to do it enthusiastically if you ask him.


@34 I agree oral should come standard for everyone. In fact, for me (cis/het/male), not being able to give oral would be a much bigger deal-breaker than not being able to receive. I also can't remember the last time I had sex that didn't include giving oral.
On the receiving side, I certainly enjoy it but it's not near the top of my list. Which is one of the reasons why when I am with someone who doesn't absolutely love giving it, it almost never happens - which is fine. Every now and then, for whatever reason, I may ask or it may just happen - and that's fine too.

In any event, getting to your primary point, I agree. It sounds like a relationship that is probably pretty stale and he really just isn't into her anymore. She reluctantly agreed to a threesome in hopes to spark something and it did - just with the wrong person. So while I don't think he deserves the DTMFA label, I do think that one of them should put the relationship out of its misery.


@31 are you the MFer in need of dumping? Because "I didn't think I needed to use the condoms we bought specifically for this threesome" is the defense of someone who knows he did something indefensible. Without the condom thing this could -maybe- be worked through so long as NOMNOM was happy with annual oral at best (I know I wouldn't be, but that's her choice). But barebacking a special guest star without discussing it with your partner is 100% dumpable. He knew using a condom is expected, that's why they bought them.


I hope NOMNOM followed up with the woman they had the threesome with. I've had men who "didn't have enough time" to put on a condom or ask me about it and it felt like a violation every time.


@36 are you the bitch that thinks the issue is all on the guy? Are you a the MFer that barebacks other women without using a dental dam? When you are in a FFM threesome do you ever think to use your words and say - hey, use a condom. Or instead do you just assume that they will materialize on the guy's penis without anyone saying anything or without anybody noticing?


@37 So you take home a guy and you never say one word about expecting or wanting him to wear a condom. Then, after not saying anything, not offering him a condom, not watching him put one on, not seeing it on his penis, and not feeling it, you feel violated every time? Seriously????


Seriously, who the fuck doesn't like to eat pussy? I just don't get it.


I always brought condoms, in multiple sizes if it was a first time partner, and was always clear about them being non-optional for penetration. Guess what? Some men don't give a fuck about what you tell them. Some men wait until your back is to them in a threesome and shove themselves in without warning. Some men take them off halfway through sex without telling you because "it got uncomfortable." Some men "forget" to put one on when switching partners during group sex. So yeah, I felt violated when they ignored my words and the condoms I placed in their hands.

Of course none of this applies to the letter because the boyfriend bought the fucking condoms himself.


Those first two examples I gave? Legally defined as rape. But sure, I'm a bitch for expecting men to listen.


@1 Daddy: WA-HOOO!! Congrats for scoring first post.
@41 & @42 Baby Rae: You're not a bitch. You're being honest. Bravo and rock on, sister!

Folks, check out Lindy West's hot new book (after Shrill), The Witches Are Coming.


@NOMNOM: I second Dan the Man: DTMFA.


@9 curious2: I responded to your comment @113 in last week's SL. Thanks! I'm sorry it has taken me so long to respond, but I am now back after a bad cold.


@6 DonnyKlicious: That's why I nominated you official Savage Love Pecker Checker. Keep up the good work.
p.s. I knew you were kidding about the WD40. :)


@6 DonnyKlicious: That's why I nominated you official Savage Love Pecker Checker. Keep up the good work. I knew you were kidding about the WD40. :)


Unintentional double post! Whee--Griz is on a roll!


Okay--who's up for that Lucky @69? Tick..tick..tick...



1 and 3: I'd throw all their shit on the front lawn, light it on fire, and leave.


See you’re here L Hand. Guess not wearing a condom when it’s expected by others is no big deal in your world.
This man has not been attentive to you LW, why have you stayed with him? Now, his disrespectful and dangerous behaviour/ does he not know where babies come from, because contraceptives fail/ around the third, after his minuscule oral attention over the years and his all the time boring doggy sex, these must be enough clues for you that this man is not worth your effort.


Ideally, a woman is not responsible for watching the man put on a condom because trust he’ll do the right thing, because usually she’s lost in a little passion. The reality is with men of your type around, L Hand, is women need a magnifying glass to make sure there are no holes in it. INCEL be gone.


@51 & @52 LavaGirl: How is everything your way? I heard about all the devastating wildfires in Australia and lack of rainfall. I hope you and your family are okay.


Thanks Grizelda. I did respond to you on last week’s thread. We go ok here.. though fires up at Noosa.. very rich area. Saw ex heads of our Fire Depts, from different states, hold a news conference this morning. Telling our reactionary state and federal govts. that they are not facing the truth of climate change when it’s here now, burning our country.


@54 LavaGirl: I read your comment @138 from last week. I'm glad to hear you're all right where you are. So sad that so many there aren't so fortunate. We had a terrible summer here in our PNW region last year, too, after an extreme lack of rain. Smoke and CO2 emissions came from so many wildfires in British Columbia from the north (as many as 500!), the Olympic Mountains to the west, Eastern Washington, and as far south as California. It was difficult to impossible to go outside for weeks.
Sending big hugs, positrons, and VW beeps from my Love Bug and me. :)


Back at you Grizelda. Hugs and love.


L Hand @31, they bought condoms so he could wear them while fucking the third. "Oh, well gee, I didn't know the condoms were for putting on my dick" is an even lamer excuse than BF's "I didn't have time."
I agree they didn't have a conversation first, but they need to have a conversation after -- a conversation that starts with "you're a selfish jerk, goodbye."

He/she @34: Yes. I remember, at her request, inviting a man to join me and a female ex. She was a "one and done" with me; with the third present, she was keen to keep going. Yes, this pissed me off. And yes, this turned out to be just one of many signs that she's a selfish person, which is why she is now an ex.
I agree with you that this seems like a three strikes you're out situation. Strike one, being boring in bed and never performing oral. Strike two, performing oral on the third. Strike three, fucking her without a condom. He's out.

BabyRae @36: Said better than I could have. Thank you.

BabyRae @37, that's because it WAS a violation every time. Good point that she should follow up with the special guest star, apologise for her boyfriend's selfishness, assure her she's dumped the motherfucker, go to the STI clinic with her if she'd like.

L Hand @38-@39: Are you for real? No, we don't expect condoms to materialise on men's dicks. We expect men to put them on their dicks. This woman DID use her words -- she says "we bought condoms," not "I bought condoms," meaning they had the discussion. I'm not even going to comment on the rest of your post because you either know so little about the way some guys rush past foreplay and try to stick their dicks in as soon as they get within a foot an unclothed female crotch or, far more likely, you are That Guy and you're trying to use dental dams (which we all know nobody uses since the risk in oral sex is infinitesimal compare to PIV/PIA) as a straw man to justify your selfish, rapey behaviour. Oops, I did comment.
And here I thought L3 would be an open and shut case. Shows what I know.

Griz @45, glad you're feeling better and welcome back!


Dan, perhaps you need to spend more time (re) educating people that condoms are standard, since it seems some people are trying to pretend that's not the case.


@57 - re "I agree they didn't have a conversation first" -- they definitely had a conversation about condom use first. They didn't have a conversation about who was planning to go down on whom, but that seems a bit superfluous given that a threesome is generally about everybody going down on everybody. They didn't have a conversation that went, "Since you're so selfish, if anyone's gonna eat that woman's pussy it's gonna be me." Again though, that goes back to the problem of whose pussy he didn't eat rather than whose pussy he did.


Great cartoon, Joe. That’s just what the first letter is about.


@60. Lava. Yes, I thought the same. Justifies the rerun.


@41 I love it how you read things that I didn't say and insert things the LW didn't say. In any event, I TOTALLY AGREE. Anytime you are in the moment and you tell a man to wear a condom, he should wear a condom - PERIOD. If he does not, if he takes it off, if he lies about it, he has assaulted you.

So, now that we all agree about that, let's actually talk about what was actually written in the letter. All we know about the LW situation is that they bought condoms - NOT that there was any other discussion with the boyfriend, the LW or the third as to whether they needed to be used. This is not unusual!!! I HAVE condoms with me every time I have sex with someone new. I use them less than a third of the time. Why??? Because if the person I am with doesn't require them, I make the decision as to whether I want to wear them.

In this case, assuming there was no discussion beforehand regarding the requiredness of the condoms other than the purchasing of them (and I will bet there wasn't, because it doesn't sound like LW and her boyfriend talked about ANYTHING), if either LW or third REQUIRED condom usage, one of THEM should have said something. If it wasn't said in the moment (and they were both freakin' there) and it wasn't done, than the responsibility for it not happening lies with ALL THREE OF THEM.

What's funny is assuming it wasn't a dark room, both the LW and the third probably could have seen that he hadn't stopped to unwrap a condom, or stopped to put it on, and wasn't wearing one while he was having sex with the third. And you know what, they probably decided, oh well, it wasn't that important to me (same thing with the oral - by the way - where the LW could have spoken up in the moment).

What then happened is that after the fact, the LW decided she didn't love the whole thing and decided to blame as much as she could for both things shed didn't actually love on someone else - which, frankly, is not an uncommon reaction. People don't tend to like to take responsibility for their own action (or inactions) when they can blame someone else.


@BiDanFan58 I'll agree that condoms are "standard" when you agree that there can be zero exchange of bodily fluids during any sexual interactions (female or male). Time to pull out those full body garbage bags.

In any event, your wrong. Condoms aren't standard. Condoms are a mutual decision. If one party requires them (either one) - THEN they are standard. And having condoms (I always have them), and wearing them (I rarely wear them), are NOT the same thing.

And before you try to twist what I said and what the LW actually wrote, one more time for the peanut gallery - EITHER party can make condoms a requirement. And of course, "stealthing", lying, or taking off a condom in such a situation is absolutely a violation and, I think, an assault.


@52LavaGirl Totally agree that a man "doing the right" thing includes putting a condom on when asked. I love how you like to respond to things you think I said. Why don't you try responding to what I actually say in the future.


L Hand @63-@65, if you discuss beforehand that someone should use condoms, you shouldn't have to reiterate it "in the moment." That's yet another cop out. And ugh, you deserve a pond scum award for knowing condoms are important yet risking STIs two thirds of the time. I despair for straight people, I really do.
Who knows whether NOMNOM knew the boyfriend was fucking the third without a condom in the moment or whether, afterwards, she found the box of unopened condoms and confronted him? We don't.
In reality, L Hand, as you doubtless already know, once a man has stuck his dick in before you have the chance to stop him, many women figure the damage is already done, or they're too caught up in the moment to say stop and wrap up, you douchebag. That's why it IS primarily the responsibility of the person with the penis, the person who is actively sticking that penis somewhere, to put a condom on first. Doing the right thing includes putting on a condom even if NOT specifically asked. Are you asking these women about condoms or are you just sticking it in, reasoning it's their responsibility to stop you? I think I already know the answer.
People like you are the reason the phrase "why even are men" exists.


@BiDanFan66 Never realized you were such a totalitarian conservative. So you are saying that condom usage can't be a choice between the two parties - the must be worn by the guy regardless of what the involved parties decide?? I never thought you would be in favor of allowing the condom police into the bedroom - who knew?

By the way, how many times have you used a dental dam? Yeah - that's what I thought.

Once again, getting back to what we actually know about the condoms from the LW (based upon what you and LavaGirl think you know) - we know that condoms were bought. We DO NOT know what conversation occurred about their usage.

Sorry, but unlike you, I am not about to let the government (or anyone else) into my bedroom to tell me what I can and cannot do. Wearing or not wearing of condoms is a decision the parties involved can make. And just like any other sexual act, the decision can be made or changed in the moment by the parties involved. For that reason, it is up to the parties involved to use their words.

What is utter BS is when one of the involved parties fails to use their words about what they want/need/expect at the time and then tries to blame the other party after the fact - utter BS.


L Hand @67: Sorry, but if you're stealthing (promising to wear a condom, and then not, or secretly taking it off), then you're definitely inviting the government into your bedroom.

Everyone seems to agree that the precise details of NOMNOM's case are unclear, but her letter makes it plain that he'd agreed with her to wear a condom and then didn't. It's possible the 3rd didn't want or ask for a condom, but that's irrelevant. It's also possible that he had a conversation with the 3rd about condom use without NOMNOM knowing about it, but that's also irrelevant and, IMO, improbable. The guy is a scumbag.


Oh, hey.


@68fubar How many times do I have to say that "stealthing" (or lying, or taking off a condom) is an assault? Why is it that everyone seems to want to respond to what they think I am saying vs. what I actually SAY?

Why don't you answer these questions? First question - can people decide whether or not their is going to be condom usage in the moment or not?
Second question - if condom usage is super important to someone who is not going to be wearing one, why shouldn't it be that person's responsibility AT THE VERY LEAST to say something about it rather than just assume that the person who is going to be wearing a condom?

As for the letter, if you want to assume facts that aren't there and then make your decision based upon assumed facts - well be my guest. My comments are based SOLELY on what's actually in the letter. As for the LW and the boyfriend, we know that condoms were bought. As for the third, we know absolutely NOTHING about what she expected about condom usage.

For the last time, I totally agree if there had been a discussion beforehand between any of the three that condoms were absolutely required, boyfriend violated the terms of the agreement. I also totally agree that if any of them changed their mind in the moment about condom usage (in either direction) and ARTICULATED that change by using their words, failure to abide by that decision is an assault.

But I totally disagree with anyone who says condoms are required and should be assumed. I also disagree with anyone who feels violated by having sex with a penis-haver without a condom if that person never once mentioned condom usage before the sex. Frankly, I can't imagine any reasonable person disagreeing with me on either of these points.


I can't believe that I got out 69'ed by Dan himself, LOL!


So glad it was Dan who snuck in for the 69, because a MF who doesn't give a rat's ass about STIs doesn't deserve it.
The default should be condoms for casual sex, and I can't imagine any reasonable person disagreeing with me on that point. You didn't answer my question about whether you're offering to use a condom and she's saying no thanks, although if you're having casual sex with women who are saying no to condoms, you shouldn't not put on a condom -- you should put on your clothes and run. You're assuming that no conversation means no condom when you should be assuming the opposite. Just because someone doesn't say "please use a condom" doesn't mean you can stick your bare dick in, which you haven't denied is what you're doing. It is completely unreasonable to risk every STI out there, plus pregnancy, by assuming that barebacking is fine unless your partner says something. Shudder.


I'm glad you're feeling better, auntie grizelda!


@72 BiDanFan Sorry, missed your question. I actually do always ask. And I have chosen to use them when the person I am with says she doesn't care and I have chosen not to. Needless to say, every time the person I am with says I should, I have. I would not consider it "my fault" (or anyone's fault - because there is no fault) if neither of us said a word about it and we had sex without them.

I still can't believe you claim "I don't give a rat's ass" about STI's while refusing to answer my question about whether you always use a dental dam (much less, about whether or not you share toys without a complete and total sterilization). Call me an MF all you want. You're a bitch AND a hypocrite.


So do you "always ask", or do sometimes "neither of you say a word about it?"

If you're responding only to what's in the letter then all we know for sure is that they bought condoms specifically for this threesome. We're assuming that he didn't ask "hey, is it alright if I don't wear a condom?" Because if he had tried to renegotiate in the moment, she would have said no. And if he didn't ask, then they didn't make the choice in the moment, he made it for them.


@15 d - a guy who doesn't go down on you every time you have sex is crap in bed. She's well rid of him. He's lazy (at best), definitely selfish, and he didn't want the new girl to think he was crap in bed so he rolled out the tongue he deliberately forgot he had. Guy is trash.


@21 Sub- if it's a "hygeine" issue bf has moral obligation to tell her - could be an infection, could be fucking cancer, bf's who just quietly let that lie for months or years don't care about your health.


I see L Hand has never been in a threesome. Or an open relationship.


@78 and it's pretty obvious why.


BabyRae @75, boom. No, L Hand, neither did I dodge your question about whether I use dental dams (I don't) nor is it hypocrisy to use condoms but not dental dams since, as I already said, the risks from oral sex are minuscule compared to the risks of PIV/PIA without condoms. You're creating a straw man by cycling without a helmet and then saying you're doing nothing wrong because I don't cycle in a full set of leathers. There's no justification for your lack of care for the sexual health of yourself or others. And there's no defending this LW's boyfriend who was there when the condoms were purchased, knew what their purpose was, and chose not to use them.


@80BiDanFan First, happy to dispense with the name calling. And while I agree that oral sex is less dangerous, it still is dangerous.

It basically boils down to you (and BabyRae and others) thinking that condoms are default. First, from my experience, it is the other way around. Regardless, it shouldn't matter - it is a situation that can easily be resolved by talking.

As to the LW, I am willing to agree that boyfriend probably should have started with that default given that's why they bought them in the first place. But at least as to the third, there is no evidence that he did anything wrong as to her (he may have- we just don't know). As to LW, she engaged in at least somewhat risky behavior with this woman herself. And I agree that this is a relationship that should end (he doesn't seem to be into her).

Finally, I respect your decision to always require condoms. I think you are naive if you believe that most people practice that.


I see the incel troll has taken over.


@82 Yeah, I know it's hard for a FemiNazi misanthrope like yourself to accept that both parties to a sexual encounter should take responsibility for protection - easier just to blame the penis-haver.


Troll, you might have had a bit of a free rein this week, won’t be long bud, people will latch on, and you’ll be pissing in the wind. It’s not about competition between genders/ sexes, that’s an incel’s game. If you can’t attract real women, work on you. Do some therapy, join a non incel men’s group. Intimacy is not about being competitive, so grow up with your childish argue/ get attention points.


For a start troll, most women are on some form of drug/ contraceptive which changes their whole reproductive cycle. And you sleaze bag, all you fucking gotta do is take responsibility for what comes out of your dick and put a condom on, all by yourself. Nobody watching. Who the fuck do some of you men think you are, like you LHand.


I really don't want to participate in this one, and I haven't been paying much attention, but I do feel moved to say:

@72 BiDanFan
"The default should be condoms for casual sex"

Yes. If one wants to be reckless one should ask to. One is free to be recklessly irresponsible alone, but not when others' well-being is involved.

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.


Feminists, like me, L Hand, love men and enjoy men. Some men.
When men like you turn up here, Mr D has smartened his act a bit, it’s you who has to sit back and learn. Or fuck off.
Although, it’s always instructive to see how the entitled male mind works, remind myself how ugly that mind is, and it re energises me. It’s also very boring boring boring.


All of you are total losers with nothing better to do than argue with strangers on the internet and are making the comments section totally boring with your own personal agendas and beefs. That you think you have any “sexual expertise” or you know what is going on “out there” when you obviously have this little going on in your life is a total joke! PS- as a woman who IS actually “out there”, condoms AREN’T the norm with het sex, including threesomes. Maybe they should be, but they aren’t. And I would 100% expect to speak up IN THE MOMENT if I wanted my partner to use one and I WOULD CHECK his dick also if necessary.


I'd bet my left arm that SISSY's boyfriend was not, in fact, dumped by all his exes for his kinks. I'm seeing a slight variation on the "all my exes were crazy; isn't it funny how I'm the common denominator" red flag.

SISSY's boyfriend was almost certainly dumped by at least some of his exes for the same projectile shaming and wallowing in self pity that SISSY is about to dump him for. Given his way of spinning everything to fit the narrative in which he is the victim and everyone else is at fault, somehow this got warped into being dumped for his kinks. Plus, it's a handy way to keep his alleged "Domme" on a leash, herself.


@88: Even assuming that (1) bareback is the norm for hetero casual encounters, and (2) a person's expectations should be made explicit in any event, NOMNOM's boyfriend sounds like a tool.

"Didn't have time" is a really half-assed explanation. There's no way around that.

He's avoiding responsibility for his decision, and his real reason is almost certainly "didn't want to."

If he can't be forthright in response to a direct question, I certainly wouldn't bother with him, all other issues aside.


Thank you Newbie@22, Yes, I think we all know what it’s like out in the trenches. It’s sad to think women are being so risky around stds, and having to check the man has some decency.
Please if you find this all so boring, jump on board and add your opinions.
No need to be arrogant and sexually unsafe.


NOMNOM: "Our sex life was okay, a little boring and routine and always 'doggy style.' And he hardly ever goes down on me—like, at all. I can count on one hand the number of times he's done it in four years!" Even before reading the rest, use words in a language you both speak to explicitly communicate your needs. And dump him if he can't or won't meet those needs.

After reading the rest, dump him for "not having time" (what the fuck is this bullshit?) to use condoms when having sex with (relative) strangers. But make sure you use words in a shared human language to communicate your wants and needs to future partners. Humans can't read minds, and we're much worse at intuiting what people want than most people believe.


Lava I'm going to take issue with your using the word "incel" to describe a poster who claims to have lots of sex with living breathing humans. Incel means something very specific - involuntarily celibate. You cheapen the insult when you fling it at people who are, by their own admission, the opposite of celibate. There are other terms you could use - but the bottom line is - language matters. Especially now in our current political climate. Calling men with whom you disagree "incels" is analogous to the manosphere using the word "cuck" to insult men with whom they disagree. It's not only inaccurate, it's silly.

As far as condoms go, in the United States at least, until our current Supreme Court wholeheartedly reaffirms Roe v. Wade and a woman's inalienable right to complete reproductive freedom no matter which state she happens to live in, condom use should definitely be the default in any casual sexual encounter. And if you disagree with that assessment, then you need to immediately donate to Planned Parenthood and vote for and campaign for pro-choice candidates enthusiastically.


@Donny #6: Applause for your random amoebic meningoencephalitis reference!

@7, 10: Fuck off. I'm as opposed to routine genital cutting as are eye-rollingly-self-described "intactivists," and this is literally the one kind of situation where circumcision is possibly medically indicated, and it should be considered (Dan ALSO mentioned the stretching possibility). Doing nothing also isn't a great idea - phimosis can lead to nasty infections if the wrong bacteria or fungi set up shop (and this is a sitiation where just because you haven't gotten an infection yet doesnht mean that you won't get one tomorrow).

@21: "Also, licking lots of hair when performing oral sex is not fun."

Most of the women on whom I've gone down didn't shave, or even trim. I've never run into the issue of licking lots of hair. Possibly you're doing it wrong? The labia majora are the only part of the vulva that grow hair AFAIK; spread them apart to provide a hairless tableau to lick, suck, etc.

@58: A shocking number of women, at least in the under-30 demographic. I've had the bizarre experience of being the (apparently rare?) male-bodied person who INSISTS on condoms with relatively new partners and loves going down on female-bodied people, where around a 2:1 ratio of women have refused to LET me go down on them and about half have seriously resisted using condoms for PIV sex. I think "stealthing" is rape and the people who do it are garbage, and I simultaneously think (unscientifically extrapolating from my anecdotal experience) that women are significant contributors to the orgasm gap, condom avoidance, etc.

@L Hand #63: Enjoy that antibiotic-resistant gonorrhea! Condom avoidance is a public health issue (like the antivaxx movement), not just a matter of personal preference, so I consider this unethical rather than simply ill-advised from a health standpoint. I am "in the trenches" and continually disturbed by the number of WOMEN (let alone men) who try to avoid using condoms, as I say in my reply to BiDanFan. The fact that something is COMMON doesn't make it okay - see the extreme examples of slavery, rape, killing Jews in Nazi Germany, etc. to illustrate the point that an appeal to norms is not a valid way to dodge ethical critiques. Your behavior is still objectionable, even if the specific women with whom you're sleeping aren't the ones objecting.

@Dan: Masterful trolling of your regulars; extra applause!


JibeHo: true, words have meaning. I think that Canadian man influences these men, and he’s not celibate. Nit sure getting their dicks wet is the defining criteria. What word do you suggest for a man who doesn’t see the link between his ejaculate and being responsible for it? Loser maybe. Insensitive oaf. Dumb fuck.


Not sure not getting their dicks wet is the defining criteria.


Any guys other than John out there finding half of women refuse to use condoms for casual sex? Or are we supposed to infer that John is REALLY REALLY handsome and women are desperate for him to impregnate them, or possibly he just has a taste for Catholics?


@69: WA-HOOOOO!!!!! So beautifully fitting that Dan the Man scores this week's Lucky @69 Award! Savor the highly envied riches and decadent glory. :)

Who's up for the Big Hunsky?

@57 BiDanFan and @73 nocutename: Many thanks. It's great to be back.:)


And the winner IS......................


Cheeky Dan, I didn’t see him sneak in there. Hope you enjoy your treat Dan.
I don’t see why JohnH would lie, no@97. Though I don’t agree with his vaccine comment.
If women are being so reckless with their own bodies, that is their choice.
I don’t see Dan was trolling us JohnH, he was playing with us. There’s a difference.


Oh my, a Hunsky for me.


Lava. Incels (the involuntarily celibate) by definition don’t get there dicks wet. So yes, that is, in fact, the “defining criteria”


Ok JibeHo. I’ll give them other names.
A lot of those people are ex vaxxers JohnH, because they have lost babies several hours after they received multiple vaccines or the child suffered adverse reactions. Vaccines yes can eradicate disease. What is now being done to small bodies in first years of life is not like vaccines in your youth. Check out the schedule and check out how much money the US govt pays out for vaccine injury.


@100: WA-HOOOO!!!!! Major congrats to LavaGirl, for scoring this week's Big Hunsky! Savor the highly envied glory. :)


L Hand @81, the question isn't whether Boyfriend did anything wrong to the third. That's a red herring. Even if she is careless about her sexual health, NOMNOM did not consent to her partner having unprotected sex with someone else, therefore he committed a dump-worthy offense against NOMNOM. Did Third consent? Or, as you ironically probably nailed it, was she distracted doing something with NOMNOM or blissed out post-oral orgasm and he stuck his dick in before she knew what was happening? This is another reason I think NOMNOM should reach out: Third may think she is complicit, or at least complacent, about her boyfriend violating her. If she wants to preserve whatever friendship she has with Third, she needs to make sure Third knows this was not okay with her.

L Hand @81: "I'm happy to dispense with the name calling."
L Hand @83: "FemiNazi misanthrope"
That lasted about as long as your claim that you ask about condoms every time.

L Hand @83, when will you get it into your thick skull that the person who inserts the penis into the vagina is the only one who knows when it's gonna go in and therefore had better make sure there's a condom on it? If women are lowering themselves onto bare dicks, that's on them. But that's not how M-F sex happens most of the time, and you know that.

Curious @86, either they're really young or really drunk. Somebody's keeping the STI clinics in business, that's for sure. I wonder how L Hand would react to a paternity suit?

Newbie @88: LOOOOL! Joke's on you for reading all of us losers' comments. Who forced you to do that? Anyway, thanks to both you and L Hand for making me grateful to be bi and poly. Nobody expects anything less than religious condom use, with rare and regularly tested exceptions.

John @92, yes. Hopefully she's learned a lesson. Speak up if your partner's not going down on you. Ask and ye shall receive, and if you don't receive, DTMFA.

JibeHo @93/Lava @95, correct. He's not an incel, he's a skank.

John @94, now I'm glad I avoid both straight men and women in their 20s.

Lava @100, congratulations! However, these women are not just gambling with their own health but the health of every other woman this guy will sleep with. Even if he does use condoms with the others, condoms do not 100% prevent herpes or warts. Women should care more not just about themselves, but about their sisters, when they consider barebacking. I think the antivaxx movement is an excellent analogy.


Let's say for argument's sake that this clueless boyfriend really did think they were buying condoms, not because NOMNOM expected him to use them with the third (thus protecting -her- from any STIs the third may have), but just in case the third asked him to use them. This is clearly revealed to be bullshit because when NOMNOM asked why he didn't use the condoms, he didn't reply, "She never asked," he replied, "I didn't have time." He knew they were expected, and he didn't care. DTMFA.