Savage Love Dec 17, 2019 at 4:00 pm

Bloody Business

Joe Newton



TMIAS's letter made me squirm more than anything I have ever read in Savage Love. So, congratulations are in order, I suppose.


While my situation is not exactly like TMIAS's of bloody ejaculate (I am cis female and for over four decades have been cursed with dysmenorrhea and menorrhagia--severe menstrual body pain accompanied by bloody hemorrhaging during monthly periods), I can empathize with the LW. Fortunately a uterine ablation procedure five years ago has since stopped the nasty flooding, but ohhh, the pain still hits and hits hard! My heart goes out to you, TMIAS.

@1 saxfanatic: WA-HOOO!! Congrats on being "FIRDT"! Bask in this week's SL glory.:)


What to do if one is a hypochondriac with good health insurance but with a profound aversion to pain or anything in the least bit invasive? now that is a conundrum as one ages and the bodily woes add up...


Exactly what Dan said to letter number two - you're both idiots. Who doesn't read the entire profile before meeting in person?


It's not even the 'fine print'. As far as I know, it's the sidebar, or the header, or whatever it's called--the most prominent section of anyone's profile, where it states their gender, sexuality, single/coupled/non-single status and what they're looking for. It's above their self-description. Anyone missing it is only looking at the photos--I guess. Daters can even specify 'only monogamous', 'only nonmonogamous', 'open to nonmonogamy' etc. The embarrassment of the conversation post-meal is not on the lw; it's on the clueless guy.

But having said that, what did they talk about online? Did her poly/open/nonmonogamous lifestyle not come up in any shape or form?


@3 delta35: Do you mean me (I'm among those over 55), TMIAS, or both of us?
@4; RTFP's letter is (for me, anyway) one of many reasons I hesitate to use online dating sites at all.


RTFP~ This guy was obviously an idiot (OKCupid isn’t exactly the Christian Mingle of dating sites, so nonmonogamy shouldn’t flip anyone out), but to top it off this was a SECOND DATE. You shouldn’t be picking out silverware patterns, you should be finding exactly this kinda stuff out. Consider this “bullet dodged”. In answer to your question, “the right time to bring nonmonogamy up” is when you are discussing expectations. That depends on the amount of energy you are feeling between each other and how fast things are moving. I’ve had relationships escalate rapidly when we were both feelin’ it and others that simmered for a couple months before a monogamy decision had to be made. In any event, it was all there in black and white, so caveat emptor! If you’re too lazy/stupid to read a couple paragraphs that are supposedly DESIGNED to give you insight to your date’s needs/wants you can’t cry foul when she doesn’t fit your pigeonhole.


I had my hand covering my crotch and also looked back nervously on occasion while reading the response to LW1. That said, “an ultrasound…of the prostate and surrounding organs” sounds like potential fun.

My apologies if I further scare saxfanatic @ 1, I’m still traumatized myself, but couple of years ago we had a young woman describing in detail the intrusive torture techniques she would love to perform on a penis, and she got those ideas in college classes!
I was unable to scroll down when I first read it as both my hands provided intuitive protection.


I used OkCupid to met kinky women, and was clear in my profile the kind of relationship dynamic I was seeking with a partner. Sometimes, a woman with an otherwise vanilla profile would answer a question or two that indicated she was kinky, and I could assume we had complementary kinky interests. But where she provided no cue that she was kinky anywhere in her profile, I would ask in the first message whether she had any experience with kinky relationships. Sometimes the seemingly vanilla woman was not at all vanilla, and other times their response made clear they had not read my profile, had not interest in kink, and our exchanges stopped.

Conversely, I met a woman who was kinky, and with whom I was enjoying a great date, when nearly an hour into our first date, asked what I wanted in a relationship. I discussed my kinky interests, but she responded with questions concerning non-monogamy. While we did share kinky interests, she was highly non-monogamous, living with in a house with some of her non-monogamous partners, and her dream was to raise her children in this non-monogamous collective. Needless to say, all of that was a surprise, because none of that non-monogamous life plan was disclosed in her profile or during our pre-date exchange of messages. Obviously, it felt like she was springing something very big on our date that should have been mentioned in her profile or during an exchange of messages.

So based on these experiences, I would suggest that people using a conventional dating site to seek a partner for non-conventional romantic relationships disclose what they are seeking, and where it is not clear that the other person shares your non-conventional interest, clarify their intent during an early exchange of messages prior to investing any significant amount of time getting to know each other.


I LOVE "screw diligence", and will henceforth be calling all such research this excellent term! Also, sorry to hear of your trouble LW1, that sounds awful :(


"it's likely your normal"

I had to read this twice in order to confirm that there was no misspelling here.


saxfanatic@1: Yup. Bigly. [shudder]

For LW2, we need to separate her ask into 2 questions:

Q1: what is the courteous and ethical level of disclosure? Answer: exactly what you've done. You disclosed right in the profile - it's not your fault that your partner was a lazy illiterate dumbass.

Q2: What's the smart way to proceed if you suspect you are dating an illiterate dumbass? Answer: depends on how much you object to having your time wasted. If you're like "meh, I want someone to go to the concert with and he seems fun?" Yeah, go ahead. If you're like "if this doesn't have serious potential I'm not getting my ass of the couch, and also I have had it up to HERE with dumbasses giving me shit for my nonmonogamy?" Then you should probably make an extra effort to clear things up before you bother to shave and shower for him.


Sympathies to TMIAS. I bet readers with uteruses are squirming far less than those without, because we're used to blood coming out of our sex orifices. Why would TMIAS need to use condoms for the rest of his life? If Mrs TMIAS is squicked out by the bloody load, she could blow him to the point of ejaculation and then point his dick elsewhere, or he could withdraw instead of ejaculating into her. But she might not mind. After all, as far as PIV, she has had decades of blood in her vagina and managed to survive. Sounds like this would be no messier than period sex. If this is TMIAS's new normal, surely a monogamous couple can work with this in ways that don't require condoms.

So RTFP, your date is at fault for not reading the fine print, but you did read the fine print and didn't bring up this incompatibility when he messaged you to ask you out. You should know that a lot of guys on dating sites don't read at all, and your answer to "want to go out sometime?" wasn't, "Sure, so long as you're okay with my being non-monogamous." Lesson learned for both of you.

Harriet @5, as a poly person, when I meet someone new I'm up front about being poly (as this woman was, I mean it was right there in her profile which she reasonably assumed suitors would have read, as you yourself say), but in "getting to know you" chats I try not to dominate conversations with "my partner this / my other partner that," unless it specifically comes up, because getting to know me should be about getting to know ME, not listening to a bunch of gossip about third parties. If she's not cohabiting with any of her partners, I can imagine a lot of conversation could be had without mentioning them. RTFP did tick the disclosure box by putting her status in her profile, and she reiterated it verbally once she realised he hadn't got the memo, so I don't think she did anything wrong.

Sublime @9, had this woman identified herself as non-monogamous on her profile? I think that the first date was the right time for her to initiate a conversation about her relationship goals, after enough chatting to rule out any personality or appearance based dealbreakers. I would think that putting all that on a profile would be putting the cart before the horse. In my experience, "looking for a play buddy" does not imply "looking for a monogamous partner," so I don't think her timing can be reproached, unless you clearly stated you WERE looking for a monogamous partner who was also kinky.


@13/BiDanFan: There was absolutely nothing in her profile to suggest she was interested in a non-monogamous relationship, let alone one that was both highly non-monogamous, and required intertwining a future partner and future children so fully into a collective. Even among poly people, I am not aware of another group collective like that, although I am sure some may exist.

So no, I don’t think she needed to lay out everything in her profile, but should have made clear she was non-monogamous. OkCupid also allows you to bury some more information discreetly into your responses to questions you answer, which would have been another good place to reveal information about her non-monogamous interests. That is one strategy kinky women employ to make a reveal without highlighting that they are not vanilla in the text of their profile.

Had she done that, I still would have appreciated in our message exchange some more details about her expectations concerning non-monogamy, even if not all the details. I think she would save herself and her dates a lot of time.


Sublime @14, I agree that non-monogamous -- perhaps without all that detail -- is something she should have put in her profile. She did indeed waste your time, as she should have known her preferred relationship would be a dealbreaker for a huge percentage of the population.


Mx Wanna - Not just any class - Gender Studies, as Ms Cute appreciated at the time. And she specifically didn't want any of her accomplices to enjoy the experience. The responses included a depressingly high amount of YGG cheerleading.


@13. Bi. She did nothing wrong at all.

If there's an understanding between two people that one (or both) is ENM, then someone giving an impression of themselves can speak of their partner, I'd think, without the focus being taken away from their interests and personality--e.g. 'I went to the Matisse exhibition [with my primary]. I was astonished how he continually extended his style through his working life--how initially decorative elements became the subject of, by the end, fully formalist or abstract compositions. Just arrangements of shape and color... We left quite blissed out'.

@14. Sublime. Well, someone with kinky tastes could want to have sex with someone without supposing each and every of their sex-partners might become the father of her children she's raising in a poly commune/household. Do straight people, even those who 'want' or 'might want' children, detail the methods by which they intend to discipline their 4yo s in their okc profiles?


Hunter @18, he's a dumbass because she put "non-monogamous" right there in her profile and he was too dumb to read it. Who's not reading? He's not reading. She's reading, she read monogamous, but because he messaged her she presumed that he is indeed the kind of monogamous person who's not opposed to fucking around between relationships, and that's what she'd be to him. One foul, indeed no real harm, and hopefully two lessons learned. His lesson: read the damn profile. Her lesson: don't assume they've read the damn profile.


I'm sure you can figure out some way somebody here is a closet case, Hunter.


There are couples where one person is monogamous and the other person is non-monogamous, in which the later is perfectly fine with the former /not/ seeing anyone else.


I'm a closet case! I'm secretly only attracted to jellyfish. >_<


(This is a joke, in case that's not clear.)


I wish society could accept my cnidarian preferences, but alas, we haven't progressed so far.


(Not intentionally comparing any sexual orientation to anything absurd. I was just trying to be as silly as possible in making fun of Hunter 78 and realized after that it could be interpreted as problematic.)


To nobody in particular: if you find yourself looking for closet cases, and there are none to be found, perhaps you're stuck in a closet?


@18. Hunter. 'Monogamous', like 'straight', is more of a socially acceptable catch-all than 'nonmonogamous'. It is much more likely to mean 'in principle monogamous, and monogamous (for sure) if I find the person of my dreams, but actually a little bit more complicated than that'. E.g. 'I have a long-standing FWB I'm loth to give up who's visiting in three months; I'll pass on sex with her if I'm with the woman I think I'll marry, but not if I find a compatible sex partner who's open to ethical nonmonogamy'. A self-labeled monogamous guy messaging a non-monogamous person (by label) is leaving himself open to the inference he's in a headspace something like this. The clear presumption for any date would be that there's going to be wriggle-room, room for negotiation, in his monogamy.

Further, there are people who are monogam-ish and looking for fuckbuddies on dating sites. Will they risk exposing themselves as not fully monogamous to their casual acquaintances and straighter-edge friends who suppose they are a more traditional couple? They will not, in many cases; these people put 'monogamous' (they sometimes put 'straight' when they are not 100% straight) and message others where the options are a little more varied. People getting messages from these types will naturally suppose they're not quite as monogamous as they billed themselves.


Venn @ 16
I don’t recall massive YGGing though may be wrong. It would be interesting to reread that thread in case SOMEONE ELSE would like to dig in and do the research.
What I do remember is BDF telling us she kept her legs tightly crossed as she read it. Possibly another indication that bi folks may indeed have a broader perspective on genders and relationships, as claimed in yesterday’s daily letter.


@23/CalliopeMuse: I understand that jellyfish find you to be a generous lover, but crustaceans find you to be shellfish.


Re: RTFP, I agree it's a good idea to be proactive about establishing compatibility, and that given that RTFP ALSO went on dates with someone whose profile had disqualifying/incompatible preferences listed, without raising the issue immediately, there's no guarantee that he wasn't doing the same (I'm not even sure if it's more likely that he thought the stated preferences didn't matter or if he didn't read the profile, since I understand both are common).

Still, I'd suggest a different strategy: bring up non-monogamy as it comes up in conversation instead of hiding it. What did you do last weekend? Mention the date you went on with someone else. What are you into? Mention camping with one of your long-term casual boyfriends. Or whatever is actually relevant to your situation. If you're actually/practically non-monogamous, then there are opportunities to mention that fact or its consequences in regular conversation, instead of obfuscating it, as most people who are dating multiple people do consciously or subconsciously because of our norm of monogamy. People don't want to scare off potential partners by bringing up other people with whom they're involved or might be/wish to be involved, but that's actually an excellent sorting hat for you, since people who are cool with non-monogamy shouldn't be put off by you mentioning evidence of your non-monogamy, and people who are into it will be even more interested.

@6: THAT'S the reason? Not the dozens to hundreds of hours spent reading through profiles and messaging people per actual date, nor the constant stream of scam messages or abusive messages (for women, at any rate), nor the e-mail spam from the site itself (plus anyone to whom they sell your info), nor the unrestricted harvesting and exploitation of every bit of information you give them? Online dating is a misery engine, like anything capitalism absorbs, so I'm with you on staying away, but there are so many reasons I think anyone should find more concerning! :-P

Re: monogamy, it's mostly a myth and/or ideograph per common use of the term. The strict technical definition is mating with one partner for life, which a minority of humans do. The common-use definition of only having one sex partner at a time runs into Zeno's Paradox, in that we can continually subdivide the time frame that constitues "at the same time" into shorter intervals to make anything except routine sexual encounters with multiple partners together count as "monogamous," and the actual interval is entirely subjective (for example, many peope who describe themselves as monogamous date - and fuck - multiple people over a given period of days/weeks/months until they decide to date one person exclusively). In practice, "monogamy" is really more of a description of a particular kind of emotional bonding strategy (inflected with a reciprocal desire to control a partner's behavior to some degree) and/or a social norm used for moral judgement (most of which exist to reinforce certain power structures - our particular monogamous norm in Anglophone countries is derived from a strategy by the early Christian/Caltholic church to establish and maintain power by setting itself up as an arbiter of sexual morality, per sin, and thus a coercive authority premised on the promise of eternal bliss or eternal misery after death, and reinforced by the capitalist desire for labor exploitation, which benefits from a norm of unpaid labor to reproduce, rear, and maintain the health of the labor force within the structure of the nuclear family and household) than a description of actual sexual practice. I'm not convinced it's any more useful, nor less harmful, than the cultural myth of virginity, which is part of the same sexual morality ideology, or heterosexuality (as a pervasive norm, and ditto on the sexual morality count).


@17/Harriet: The issue wasn't the prospective father(s) of her children, rather that a lifetime commitment to her would involve a complex web of poly relationships with everyone living in a communal setting. Few people, even poly people, could want such an arrangement, and in my view, that warranted more disclosure before meeting. Not necessarily in her profile, but during pre-date messaging. Moreover, that she wants this arrangement without even disclosing that she is poly before the date struck me unbelievably odd.


"This is embarrassing, especially since oral sex—giving and receiving—has always been my favorite"
Good news, you can still receive oral sex even if all parties involved don't want bloody ejaculate in anybody's mouth! Unless precum is also bloody, which I think you would have mentioned.
Even better news: giving oral sex is unaffected by your particular ejaculate makeup!


Harriet @27, yes, this. If I had clearly put non-monogamous in my profile, and a monogamous-identified man messaged me, I'd assume he was looking for a fling and would bail when he found someone who was relationship material. If he seemed interesting enough, I'd be fine with that. So I don't think RTFP did anything wrong here.

John @30 re Griz @6, and I would have guessed Griz doesn't use dating sites because she has no interest in dating.


Didn't we have a bloody ejaculate question before, or is my brain just defensively confabulating that this stuff is old hat?


Mx Wanna - I recall having an exchange with Ms Rand, and there were at least one or two others who seemed to be too close to YGG for comfort. Besides, "depressingly high" is a bit of a Humpty Dumpty term, as it depends on how much YGG would be required to depress one.


This is not the pre- xmas thread I needed. Nothing here to get my avoid my family and their fucked up ways/ yes me included/ teeth into.
Yet I see essays written by some of you.


LW1; a worry for sure so have yourself checked out further as suggested by Dan’s expert.
Should be no issues re having PiV, because women and blood are old buddies. Re oral, as Fan above suggested, don’t come in the recipients mouth. You couldn’t work this out for yourself?
LW2; I’m with Dan and others who say the both of you didn’t read the fine print and both of you are to blame. Him throwing a wobbly on a second date is much more concerning.
Being a drama queen so early on is never a good sign.


Yes LW2, you had read the fine print so it was incumbent on you, once he first made contact, to question why. Did he not see your non/mon status? Then he’d reply.. oh, Missed that.. and it would have all been over after two or three messages.
LW1, getting old/er is not pretty for most of us. Knees start to go, some even need hip and knee replacements. Memory can become very confronting. Bit by bit the body and mind go.
Acceptance is best.


@14 Sublime - not sure I get the difference between non-monogamous and “highly” non-monogamous. Isn’t that like being a little bit pregnant?


@39/Beedeetee: Only if you see no difference between (i) occasional outside relationship sex, (ii) one stable outside, but distinctly secondary partner, (iii) multiple co-equal poly partners, (iv) numerous sex partners in a complex web of poly relationships, (v) regular gangbangs with rotating cast of sex partners . . .

These are only a few examples, and while all represent non-monogamy these all do not represent the same thing. That is obviously true, because unlike saying, "I am pregnant," which only has one singular meaning, saying, "I want a non-monogamous relationship," requires a lot of discussion because it can mean so many different things.


@40 Sublime Thanks for the clarification. Well, sure, it makes sense if you view monogamy as the norm and define other types of relationships in terms of how much or how little they look like that norm.

Running with your analogy, “I’m pregnant” can mean a lot of different things too: “I’m going to be a mother,” “I’m planning on giving a child up for adoption,” “I want/need an abortion,” “I’m a surrogate,” “I’m freaked out and I have no idea what I’m going to do,” etc. “I’m pregnant” only has a singular meaning here if you’ve already decided that there’s one right answer.


Mtn @34: We did, it was from a sex worker who was alarmed to see a condom full of blood and a guy who seemed unperturbed. I'm not going to google it.

Beedeetee @39, agree. Non-monogamous to me could mean a solid primary relationship with the option to occasionally bang others with permission from one's partner. Highly non-monogamous suggests that someone would not be happy without several concurrent partners at any time. And you're being silly when you claim that "I'm pregnant" could have multiple meanings. It means that currently there is a foetus in one's womb. To a monogamous person, any degree of non-monogamy would be a dealbreaker, but to a non-monogamous person, Sublime's date's ideal setup could either be a dream or a nightmare.


Gonna agree with BDF that:

1.) a person who's monogamous in their serious relationships could quite plausibly also be interested in a casual, short-term, or FWB relationship with a poly person. "Not Mr/Ms Right, but Mr/Ms Right Now," yanno? LW would be perfectly justified in assuming that.

2.) Bringing up other people on a first date is generally bad form. No one wants to hear you go on about your mom, your best friend, your husband, your new guru, your kid, or any other person not at the date. So no, you would definitely not be awkwardly name-dropping your S/O into the conversation.


@31. Sublime. I would think that your date didn't suppose monogamous persons only meet up with a 'lifetime of commitment' as their endgame--? So, in her mind, even someone decidedly monogamous e.g. because the nature of their kink was very psychologically exposing for them and steered them towards an intimate form of monogamy, might sometimes be looking for a fling. (This is perhaps the same as Traffic and Bi's view).

@36. Lava. Yes, but maybe a meaty 'psychosexual meltdowns, blowouts and debacles at Christmas' number is on the way.


Ms Muse - You think about this sort of thing; would you accept the proposition that there is a significant difference between being "closeted" and being "a closet case"? I may elaborate later; I don't want to start with a leading question.


@BDF I’ve never dismissed or insulted you in a comment. It’s unfortunate you chose not to extend the same courtesy. And your description of non-monogamy is very mononormative.


@46, I’m sorry you find BDF’s description of your pregnancy definition as “silly” to be dismissive, but I have to concur. Pregnancy is a zero/one state and “I’m pregnant” has only one meaning. It is silly to think you can change the definition of commonly understood words. As you point out, there are many possibilities of the meaning of the pregnancy, and this is where your analogy holds. Nonmonogamy has many forms as pregnancy has many possible outcomes so we can’t assume what kind of relationships a “nonmonogamous” person might prefer. I also can’t credit your objection that we are defining “nonmonogamy” by monogamous standards. Of course we are; the very fact that we are calling it “non” something means we are referencing the something. Now if you want to talk poly, we can discuss without referencing “mono.” Poly can be many things.


A request to Dan: could you please write a book (or encourage someone else to do so) on aging and sexuality? I am picturing something like “what every old boy/girl should know about his/her changing body,” similar to those tactful books about puberty. So often in the letters like LW1 we see someone with a basic question about something different happening as they get older. This question is prompted by a conversation with my brother awhile back, when he told me he didn’t think he needed a colonoscopy because he had his prostate checked and it was ok. I was aghast, like, um, you know those are two different parts, don’t you? Same general direction but your colon is not your prostate. 60 years old and he had no idea. Sheesh. I have a feeling that such ignorance is frightfully common, especially among men.
If these things already exist, or if there is an online resource (something like Scarleteen for the kids?) that fits this description, please pass along the recommendation.
Apologies for the binary gendering but I think these resources might be best divided m/f and nonbinary persons might choose to read both, or whichever is most anatomically relevant.


Harriet @44: Nope, I'm gonna disagree here. The reason was that RTFP did disclose her non-monogamous nature in her profile and a monogamous man messaged her anyway, meaning that an assumption on her part that he might be OK with a short-term fling with a non-monogamous person was reasonable. But Sublime's date did not disclose that she was non-monogamous, meaning she didn't have any reasonable grounds to believe a self-identified monogamous person might be OK with her relationship preference.

Venn @45, as a gay man, do you find the term "closet case" offensive?

Beeteedee @46, I didn't intend to insult you when I described your comment as silly. For an example of someone being called out for making a silly comment, accepting it was silly and moving on, see:
In other words, if you find any of my comments silly, you are welcome to say so, and I won't take it as a personal affront.
I'm not sure what you mean by "I find your description of nonmonogamy mononormative," but since we're discussing monogamous people's reactions to non-monogamous people, I don't see how it's possible to keep monogamy out of the conversation.


vennominon @45 Hmm, I'd have to have a good think about that one. I could see there being a difference. Perhaps a "closet case," in addition to denying their identity to other people, is somewhat in denial with themselves? Whereas someone "in the closet" could be confident in who they are but doesn't share that information?


John Horstman @30 In biology, the definition of monogamy is a bonded pair who are exclusive for a given period of time, whether that be one breeding season or a lifetime, so by this definition a human couple who is only together for a limited amount of time but remains monogamous while together fulfills the requirements. There is also a growing distinction between social monogamy and sexual monogamy, to which I have spoken before, social monogamy being a bonded pair who cooperate as a couple to nest and raise young and do other animal couple things, sexually monogamous being a pair who only ever mate with each other while they're together. Social monogamy is rare overall but common in birds (up to 90% of bird species are socially monogamous for at least one breeding season at a time), but sexual monogamy is so rare is barely exists (black vultures, beavers, owl monkeys, California mice, bald eagles, Malagasy giant rats, and albatrosses are the only examples I know of). Extra-pair copulation is pretty common, even among species that mate for life (are socially monogamous until one dies).


auntie grizelda @2 If you still have such painful symptoms during menstruation and you are open to hormonal medication, I recommend looking into extended-cycle birth control pills whether you have sex or not. That's what I'm on and it's great -- you only get your period every three months instead of every month (and a few people, like me, stop getting it altogether). When on the pill, there's no medical reason you need to get your period every month -- it's not a real period anyway because no egg is released and there isn't really any significant buildup of the uterine lining, as my doctor has explained. The only reason typical birth control regimens make you bleed every month is to reassure you that you're not pregnant. I switched to the extended cycle pill a couple of years ago because, even when on the pill, getting my period triggers a mental health meltdown, and having that happen 4 times a year instead of 12 times a year is incredibly helpful. I don't know if with symptoms as severe as yours you would gain the other benefits of hormonal birth control, like less bleeding and fewer physical symptoms, but even if you still have all the same symptoms (if you don't get side effects from the medication) I think only getting your period 4 times a year would be better, no?

Here's a Mayo Clinic page about extended cycle pills:

The one I'm on has a lower dose of estrogen than most birth control pills because it's combined with another hormone, if too much estrogen is something you're concerned about. It also uses a low-dose estrogen instead of placebo pills to reduce symptoms. Here's an NCBI article that goes through the whole history of the development of the extended-cycle pill: and here's an article from the University of Michigan detailing risks, benefits, and contraindications of the specific type I take:

This is all, of course, predicated upon you being willing to go on hormonal treatment. I totally get if that's not an option for you, but I just want to give you the information in case you think it's worth a shot.


Squidgie @47 My objection was to defining/describing non-monogamy in degrees based on difference from monogamy. In other words, calling a hierarchical relationship with partners who have causal sex outside the primary relationship as merely “monogamous,” but someone who has multiple committed partnerships involving cohabiting as “highly non-monogamous.” They’re both just non-monogamous. Why use monogamy as the stick against which all other relationship models are measured?


BDF @49 - see my response above at 53 for what I mean by mononormative. If it’s still not clear, you can google mononormativity. For the rest of your comment, I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you did not intend to be patronizing.


I get what you mean SA.
Oh, bit of a thin skin @46. You ain’t seen nothing yet. This lot of misfits can let fly. You patronise SA about his comment and get your non gender knickers in a knot about ‘silly’?
You one of those snowflakes college kids so so so sensitive. Won’t last long here. Might be Christmas but these fuckers here will crucify youse if they choose. Heartless bunch of ratbags, lot of ‘em.


See the difference? Now you can say you were insulted.


You know the saying Fan, @49. To assume makes an ass out of somebody. See what I mean about memory, LW1. Completely went out of my head.
The man didn’t read her profile Fan, obviously. And I’d say re dating sites it’s best not to assume anything. If she’d used her words and asked if he’d seen her non/ mon status, it would have been over in five, no letter to Dan and we wouldn’t be stuck, xmas week, with such a dumb arse question.


Just to be clear @46, I’m one of the biggest ratbags here. Then you probably already know that.


Egg Portfolio, Mr D, @58? That’s a good one. I’ll pay that.


Ms Fan/Ms Muse - I see "closeted" as close(r) to neutral. Those of us who come out were essentially almost all closeted at some point. To be a closet case implies dedication and effort expended in maintaining a straight persona, often inflicting harm on others. I'd call the term not so much offensive as derisive, and would use it myself to carry an intended and deserved pejorative.

For instance, if there were hard evidence of his harbouring SS interests instead of just the way some people think his voice sounds, I'd consider it appropriate to call Dr Bachmann a closet case, though I'd still disagree with those calling him anti-gay slurs. The same might apply to certain evangelical or conservative figures who do great harm to same-sexers. Perhaps it's more usual for the damage to be on a personal level. The title character of Mr Rodi's second novel (he followed F-blank-blank H-blank-blank with Closet Case) acts quite reprehensibly in maintaining the myth of being straight, and only comes out when he's being chased by an acquaintance with a spear who thinks he's stolen his girlfriend.

For anyone interested in the world of comics, as I've mentioned before, Mr Rodi broke formula with his third novel, What They Did to Princess Paragon, which seems to have been perhaps two decades before its time. The novel looks at what happens when a leading comics author with a new contract decides to make a venerable heroine who's drifted into relative obscurity a lesbian, along with the author's encounters with True Believers of various striping.


My comment to SA was intended with a bit of humor. If it came off as patronizing, I apologize.

This was supposed to be a little diversion during a hellish day and a half of travel, but I see I’ve riled the regulars. Happy holidays, all, and good night.


@30 John Horstmann and @33 BiDanFan re my comment @6: You're both right.
@52 CalliopeMuse: Thank you for the helpful suggestions. I am indeed on prescription hormonal meds==Progesterone and Estradiol. My gynecologist says that for me, this is as good as it gets. At least periods aren't the Overlook Hotel-grotesque nightmares they used to be. And they're no longer monthly anymore, so at last, Griz's so-called "biological clock" is winding down to a blessed end. Red wine helps.


Okay, so who's game for this week's Lucky @69 Award? Tick...tick...tick...tick...


Right now I am SOOOO glad I don't know beedeetee in real life. How can somebody possibly that tedious in just a few lines.

Also, where's the logic in this line of reasoning (paraphrasing liberally)?

bdt: There's no such thing as being very non-monogamous. It's binary, like being pregnant.

[SA explains different types of non-monogamous people with and without primary partners and differing numbers of partners that anybody interested in communicating facts would recognize as being more and less non-monogamous, a term that by definitiin is based on being diferent from monogamous because that's what the "non-" does to words.]

bdt: Pregnancy isn't binary because people can have differing plans for child-rearing and this proves that, umm, unlike pregnancy, non-monogamous is binary because... Umm ... reasons?

Clearly, I have much to learn from this person.


LG @56, Insulted, yes, but what you said about bdt rings very true.


Calliope @52: "The only reason typical birth control regimens make you bleed every month is to reassure you that you're not pregnant." I always wondered why they couldn't be engineered to make you bleed for an hour.

Beeteedee @54, and I'll assume that you in turn did not mean to be patronising with your suggestion that I google mononormativity. Happy holidays.

Lava @55, you rock. \m/

Dadddy @58, I disagree with you. I had plenty of "monogamous" relationships, where neither of us was dating anyone else, that I considered short-term flings, and am currently in two multiple-year, very committed non-monogamous relationships. If you're defining "serious" as "how much would it hurt if you broke up," monogamous relationships are not inherently more serious than non-monogamous ones. Though I won't dispute an assertion that monogamous breakups may well be lonelier than non-monogamous ones, because one can seek both sympathy and sex from one's other partners.

Venn @61, thank you. Hunter, a gay man has spoken, please stop calling LWs closet cases. If you're not mocking them, "I wonder if he/she is secretly gay" might work as wording. Though would remain off the mark in the vast majority of your situations.

Beeteedee @62, what's the difference between "intended with a bit of humour" and "silly"? I don't see one.

Hunter @63: As in, "he is a closeted"? Why are you looking for a noun when "he is in the closet" works just fine?


As the seagulls said in ‘Finding Nemo’ MineMineMineMineMineMineMine!


Mr Hunter/Ms Fan - That's kind of Ms Fan, but then Mr Ricardo might contradict me. It seems likely that most of us with standing would see a higher level of dedication to a deliberate lie in a "case". When Mr Hunter in last column's comments observed that closet cases "deserve our respect and affection" (or vice versa), I thought that that's just what most of them had probably forfeited, having done harm that outweighed most of the compassion their situations deserved.

In the film Get Real (about a sixth-form MM affair), Steven is clearly closeted but not a closet case; the female friend he takes to functions is his confidante (and he hers about her escapades with her driving instructor), he just goes with the heteronormative flow and doesn't try to embellish, and all he wants when he finds himself being kissed by another female friend to whom he's been compassionate about her bad relationship is to defuse the situation with as little hurt as possible. It's harder to declare on John, who has a lot less SS experience and more to lose as the school's Head Boy, but his maintaining a public relationship with a girl he's clearly deceiving once he's started seeing Steven and his hitting Steven at the crisis moment after Steven has just come out seem to mark him as at least a potential closet case, which is probably about the most I'd want to say in that direction about a schoolboy.


@69 LavaGirl: YoursYoursYoursYoursYoursYoursYours! WA-HOOOO!!!! Congrats on scoring your richly deserved Lucky @69 Award! Savor the glorious decadence. :)

It's a big night for Griz--the world premiere of Sea Symphony, performed live. CDs will be made. I'm walking in a swoon. More later.


@71 griz
Congrats! I look forward to swimming in your symphony.


auntie grizelda @71 I'm quite obsessed with the sea -- do tell me more about this "Sea Symphony."


Grizelda.. big big night for you. Let us know how it goes. Big hugs and good luck.


Hope the symphony was a smashing success, Auntie Griz! And congrats on the well earned lucky number, LavaGirl.


Venn @70, thank you. A "case," or indeed looking for a noun to pigeonhole a person, does feel dismissive, either rightly so (when someone is in fact intentionally deceiving someone for the purpose of fitting in) or unjustifiably. I agree, when someone is "a case" (defined for the purposes of this discussion as an intentional deceiver), they don't deserve sympathy and affection; on the flip side, when someone is genuinely confused or conflicted, they do deserve sympathy and affection and don't deserve the epithet "closet case." Good summing up.


Hunter @77, some of these words are not like the others. Can you find them? Answers: "black" and "gay". You don't say someone is "a black" or "a gay"; those are adjectives. I don't think you do get it, but we'll see if you stop playing the closet case card after some actual LGBT people (not LGBTs; see what I did there?) have objected to it.


Nope. Trolls gonna troll.


It can't be very nice on a cold winter day to be under a bridge.


@72 curious2: When I can add the recording to my website, jump in--the water's fine. :)
@73 CalliopeMuse: It is the musical retelling of my father's story about how he met my mother under unusual circumstances during his enlistment as a U.S. Navy sailor during the Korean War: a severe storm at sea brought the two of them together. :)
@74 LavaGirl: It was truly a magic night. I hope to have CD recordings ready by New Year's.:)
@75 BiDan Fan: Many thanks. While I can finally produce decent mp3 sound recordings vis my iMac from Finale and Logic, there is NOTHING like a live, fully orchestrated performance! :)

Merry Christmas, and Happy Hanukkah, Boxing Day, Kwanzaa, (your favorite holiday celebration and /or religious tradition here) etc., to one and all. :)


@49. Bi. I don't really understand why Sublime's date cracked open that she lived in a non-conventional household and had a serious aspiration to raise a child in a poly commune-like situation on their first date. She couldn't have talked about ... like, jazz and traveling and what they majored in at college? Maybe they hit it off peculiarly well and it all came out...

@58. Dadddy. A monogamous person in a relationship where there are incompatibilities can get to a tipping point and throw it all up, move on. If you're in a number of committed relationships, you're more inclined to accept that your needs won't be met with one person in one area of your life and suppose you will get that lack (for shared activities, communication, domesticity etc.) filled with someone else--allowing you to stay in a partially satisfactory relationship.


Harriet @83, what, you're arguing that Sublime's date should have waited even longer to disclose that her relationship style is completely incompatible with most of the population's? What? Don't we in Savageland accept that dealbreakers should be disclosed as early as possible? She disclosed this nearly an hour into the date, meaning that they already touched on jazz, travelling and what they majored in at college. She then got a sense that she liked him enough to investigate compatibility on the relationship front, and brought up the topic by asking him what he was looking for. When do you think she should have initiated that talk -- date four? Five? After they'd had sex? I don't understand your reasoning here.

FWIW, I agree with you regarding poly relationships. If your monogamous partner isn't meeting all of your needs, you have to end the relationship. If your polyamorous partner isn't meeting all of your needs, you have the option of staying with them while also finding someone else who will fill in the missing pieces of the puzzle. Don't know how that relates to Dadddy's "inherently more serious" assertion, but it means that poly relationships can be more sustainable over the long term. Again, "can be." Everything depends not only on the relationship structure, but more importantly on its participants.


CalliopeMuse @52 - as someone who has been on the pill since 1989 (with short breaks to have kids), I get irritated when I hear someone say my periods aren't "real."

Everyone who gets periods has their own experience of them, varying in pain, volume, duration, length of cycle, etc. My pill-produced periods are real in that blood gets on my clothes, sheets & couch if I'm not careful, and its arrival each month reassures me I'm not pregnant.


Good to hear Grizelda. You Star composer you.
May your Xmas be a kind one and same for all you SavageLove mob. Have a good one.


Looking for my Xmas carols CDs. I’m sure I’ve got a Michael B, the smooth singer and a Bobby Dylan one. Unusual, Bobby going xmas.
John Lennon has the best Xmas song ever.
‘They say this is Christmas
And what have you done
Another year older
A new one just begun.’
He was a legend, hail John Lennon, and Yoko, his muse and a creative force on her own.


@86 & @87 LavaGirl: Wishing you and your family a Merry Christmas and all the very best in 2020 and beyond, too! Big hugs, positrons, and VW beeps from my beloved Love Beetle and me! I hope to have CDs out soon. :)


@87 LavaGirl: I LOVE John Lennon's Christmas song! Among my favorite CDs is the one of the Vince Guaraldi Trio (A Charlie Brown Christmas, from the 1965 animated TV special).


Yes my fave too is that Lennon Xmas song. And I too own that Guaraldi CD. And every year I enjoy Sandler's Hanukkah Song.

Happy Holidays to all!

While raised RC, I resonate most with the Solstice. We're now 2 days from the day with the least, on our way to the day with the most, light.

Not only is that most real to me, as I understand it northern Hemisphere Winter Solstice celebrations over a week following the Solstice date back many thousands of years BC. So little light and so much cold outside, a perfect time to take a break to experience warm relations inside with loved ones. As I understand it the birth of Jesus was months from now, but Christianity strategically chose to celebrate it now to usurp the prevailing traditions.

As a cultural Christian, I love the Germanic trappings of Christmas like the tree. And Santa is cool. Most of all I like how happy kids get and how much goodwill there is this time of year.


Lucky, I found a CD I have, mixture of Bing/ Frank and Perry Como. I’ll chuck the Michael bubble one..and Bobby later, when too drunk/ stoned to be shocked.
Thanks Grizelda. Somber mood here this Xmas, fires have taken lives and so many homes.
I’ve got champagne and authentic stollen, set to go.


@91 LavaGirl: I am so sorry to learn about the ongoing devastation of the fires in Australia where you are! Hopefully you can have restorative rainfall to extinguish the fires soon and that they do not spread. I send heartfelt condolences, hugs, positrons, and VW beeps.


Happy holidays to all of you around the Savage globe. I have a leftfield favourite Christmas song, "Welcome Christmas" from the original Grinch cartoon. Always chokes me up, thinking of those joyful Whos so happy even without their presents, and the beatific look on the Grinch's face when he groks it. Wishing you all moments of such happiness over the coming days.


"those joyful Whos so happy even without their presents"

Aww, that's sooooo sweet!


Mr Curious - We could have an interesting conversation about real versus enforced goodwill. Perhaps the bigger topic, though, would be Santa Culture. Now I'll grant that I've long considered Santa to be a sort of sugar-coated version of Big Brother, but I do seriously think I could take the brief and make a tolerable argument that defeating Santa Culture might be a more significant triumph than beating any of the other -isms of the right wing. That's a rare one for me, as I generally abstain from economics beyond suggesting that some one or other of Mr Savage's solutions only seems viable for the top 7%.


@95 vennominon
"I've long considered Santa to be a sort of sugar-coated version of Big Brother....I do seriously think I could take the brief and make a tolerable argument that defeating Santa Culture might be a more significant triumph than beating any of the other -isms of the right wing."

I like how happy it makes kids to believe their wishes will come true, and to imagine they're in a world where everyone loves them (How bad is that? They'll learn the truth soon enough, can't we let little kids have a little joy first?)

I do loathe materialism and consumerism (which Americans were indoctrinated into 110 years ago with the help of Freud's nephew). Are we on the same page, or are you going off on something else when you say...

"Big Brother"? (How? Because in order to reward goodness Santa is imagined to know who is naughty? C'mon man, it's not easy for parents to raise good people, isn't calling that Big Brother a bit much? Is [I'm guessing here] your issue that you think gay kids are given the message they'll only get coal because they aren't straight?)

"Santa Culture"?
What's that?

"real versus enforced goodwill"?
When two strangers connect on the street with a smile during the holidays when usually one or both wouldn't, how is that bad? Isn't it a plus even if it took external motivation for

"the Grinch’s small heart [to grow] three sizes that day"?

Maybe a little practice will leave them better for it once the holidays pass?

But maybe you're imagining a gay man visiting family full of gay-hating bigots, who pretend love but really hate them. In that scenario, yes maybe it would be better to not subject themselves to that. In other words yes that "enforced" could be bad. And I can relate, my family has turned into a trainwreck.


Grizelda, that Dylan Xmas album is good.. musicians of excellence. Bobby gives it a good try. Another Legend.


How the Griz...


....stole the Christmas....



hee hee hee hee


You deserve it, Grizelda. You into mountain men? So proud of you having your work played. And admire such an achievement too.
Xmas day just on finished here.. and it’s been raining since last night on and off. Best Xmas present ever.


Glad to shelve the Xmas carols for another yr. all that santa/ lord talk was doing my head in.
First CD I’ve put in is Dylan, when his voice wasn’t like gravel. He taught me a lot about men, men a little older than me. Men I was with, at the time and knew nothing about the rules. Bobby didn’t pull any punches talking to his women. Ouch. Then beautiful romantic songs as well.
He was a honey as a young man, though better when he was with the Wilbury’s. He’d put some meat on. Love you Bobby.


To come up with something kind, I shall hope that everyone who ends this year closeted and not liking it will find at the end of next year that there is no benefit either personal or professional in remaining so, and that one can shed the closet however one likes. It won't universally come true, of course, but it makes a nice wish.


So, @95 you write "Mr. Curious - We could have an interesting conversation about" something, and then use several cryptic phrases.

Normally, I just let your crypticness flow by, but since you addressed me, I went so far @96 as to hypothesize what you might've meant.

But so far you have neither delivered your offered "interesting conversation", nor explained your cryptic phrases.

Are you trying to teach me not to bother?


@101 LavaGirl: Thank you--I hope to have a CD of 12/20/19 for you soon.
Mountain men? I'm not sure about that---but every so often winning $100 is nice.
I'm so glad to hear that you now have rainfall in your part of the world! I hope that is the end of the wildfires and you can enjoy your summer and the holidays. What a blessing, indeed.


Hunter @103, you really can't hear that saying "A gay walked down the street" or "A black walked down the street" reveals the speaker to be an ignorant bigot? All I can do is shake my head.

    Please wait...

    Comments are closed.

    Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.

    Add a comment

    By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.