DTMFA

Same girls that preserve their virginity this way also believe that swallowing semen makes their boobs swell up bigger.

Is it ok if my wife and I continue to have anal sex even though we aren't trying to preserve anyone's virginity? I mean, its ok to have it just because we like it right?

I'm reminded of a long-ago Doonesbury strip and two kids are in a sandbox at preschool. The young boy is explaining why he's going to get a wife someday - all the things they do for you and the little girl declares she's going to have one, too. This LW needs a wife. One like her BF has in her.

So the OP is now either a 44-year-old supporting a 42-y.o. deadbeat dad and his 12 y.o. Hopefully, her now 23-y.o. son is off on his own. Or she DTMFA'd him already and is in a much better situation now.

Gee, one partner earning money and paying the bills while the other partner stays home and looks after the kids.

Stop me if you've heard this one before.

Of course, Dan meant to mention that 'abstinence' is the only 100% effective way to prevent STIs and unwanted pregnancy.
Just ask the CDC.
A fact any enlightened sex ed curriculum will stress.

"they'll never figure out what brown can do for them." Hahahaha. What an ad campaign that would make. The Liquid Plumber Double Impact ads would possibly even have to take a back seat in "best double entendre commercial."

Good advice. Now I can apply that logic to ever potential safety dilemma I face. The only 100% effective way to prevent being killed in an auto-accident is to not drive, the only 100% effective way to not be killed by drowning is to not swim or take baths, and the only way to be 100% sure I'll never be electrocuted is to have my power turned off. Why not give people a chance to make smart decisions, even abstaining, by educating them instead of hoping and praying unwanted pregnancy and STI's just won't happen.

8
You're right, we left off the part about monogamy;
abstinence until in a LTR and monogamy therein and thereafter; as per the CDC.
thanks.

Here you go, Suzzanna...

https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/love-sex/monogamous-couples-at-same-risk-from-stis-as-people-in-open-relationships-a6704526.html

From the article:
Couples in a monogamous relationship are no safer from contracting sexually transmitted infections than individuals with multiple sexual partners, a new study claims.

The study, published in The Journal for Sexual Health, examined 556 participants over the age of 18. Of these, 351 were in a monogamous relationship and 205 were consensually non-monogamous (CNM) relationship.

Study leader Justin Lehmiller, director of the social psychology graduate programme at Ball State University, asked individuals whether they were faithful, whether they used condoms and how often they were tested for STIs.

The results indicated “the percentage of participants reporting previous STI diagnoses did not differ across relationship type.”

Mr Lehmiller suggested the similar levels were a result of infidelity.

I got botulism once, and since then, I've practiced abstinence from eating. Well, from eating spaetzel at hotel bars.

It might be interesting to have a study of people who jaywalk, vs people who cross in the crosswalk, with the light -- do jaywalkers pay more attention to traffic?

@12 this has been studied! I'm simplyfying a bit, but in general unsignalized pedestrian crosswalks give a false sense of security and are more dangerous.

But if there's a light.... might be more of a toss up.

Too easy. Did LW really need to ask Dan Savage what the solution was? Warrants? Kids he doesnt take care of? Irresponsibility in his 30s?

The one thing that, sadly in this economy, MIGHT have been understandable was lack of a full time job. Good jobs are hard to find, despite the "soaring economy" we keep hearing the media attest to Trump. Everyone can find a part time job to slowly starve to death and freeze while working. Working 39 hours a week at Safeway isn't a full time job, but it shows you are trying. If he is just sitting at home all day, not going to school and not doing something, of course dump him.

Also you want to have another baby? WTF? With this guy? That makes you almost as crazy and irresponsible as him. And your current kid isn't comfortable with additional children? This is a nightmare scenario. Mostly for you. More for your kid and his kid.

@13 TYVM!

Sporty @5: No, it's one partner working, paying the bills, AND doing all the housework while the other stays home and does nothing but hide from the cops. Why yes, I have heard this one before. It's a fixture on the daytime chat shows.

Welcome back (not), Commentor Commentatus, now called "Suzzana." Have you transitioned? Congratulations.

Dan @10: Another explanation may be STIs like herpes and genital warts that can remain symptomless for years and can be transmitted even with condom use. But yes. Monogamous people need to get off their smug horses regarding STIs.

Slomo @12: Well, there have been studies on bicycle riders who wear helmets and those who don't, and surprise, apparently cyclists who wear helmets do have more accidents. Probably because they indeed take more risks, thinking the helmet will protect them.

"keep the baby, if at all possible, BATW, and DTMF'ing freeloading, inconsiderate piece of shit"

I read this a few times, went back to the letter a few times, still I'm baffled...

So because this guy is lazy around the house, has no job (but does sit home with a toddler), has outstanding warrants, doesn't want more kids, and is selfish in his relationship, Dan is suggesting the LW dump the guy. Probably should- especially since the kid thing is a dealbreaker. It's a little weird since Dan usually suggests working on these problems when there are children involved ("breaking up the only home they've ever known" etc) but I think there is at least one glaring deal breaker here: she wants more kids, he doesn't. And the probs with money, plus no help around the house, plus expecting her to do everything alone after work while he goes out with friends, etc all add up to a DTMFA, so fine.

But is Dan suggesting she not just dump him, but dump him AND try to take custody of his child? WTF?

I love how the "warrants" bit is just glossed over. This man is a criminal. Okay, perhaps he's just a weed dealer, or other such victimless pursuit. Whatever he did, his lifestyle included fucking "crack whores" without a condom. Can she seriously not do any better than this loser??

EmmaLiz @18: "Dan usually suggests working on these problems when there are children involved"

Does he? The kids aren't theirs; one is his and one is hers. Is it standard advice to stay with an MF just because THEY have a kid? I guess he suggested trying to keep the 2-year-old because neither of its natural parents has any parenting skills whatsoever, assuming Warrant Boy isn't lying about the mother. It's rare that fathers are given custody; if he's the more suitable parent, Mom must be a mess indeed. That poor kid.

@19 ps, she should know that SHE is committing a crime by harbouring this guy.

EmmaLiz @18: considering the man in question, it seems like the only ethical alternative would be to hand the kid over to social services.

coolie @3: Uh, obviously not! Marital sex is for baby-making!

Anonymous tip to the police about a guy with a warrant living at such-and-such place might make all your dreams come true, LW. See about adopting the little one, maybe talk to a lawyer first, you know? But Mr. Lazy McWarrant will have the opportunity to be "jealous" from his jail cell.

LW gets a McEnroe Award. ("You canNOT be SERious!")

Mr Savage gets a Harding, S (I must save an award to name after Tonya, though it has yet to be bestowed) Award. ("I can get you any numbers you like.")

@4 I like your optimism. Probably misplaced. Even if she dumped him, she probably just hooked up with another loser who doesn't treat her right. If you find yourself dating disastrous people, time to DTMFA and GST (get some therapy).

@19 Having an outstanding warrant doesn't make someone a 'criminal', it means they're accused of a crime. And a lot of outstanding warrants (the majority, in some places) are in fact bench warrants for failing to appear for minor offenses, such as riding a bike on a sidewalk or littering.

Rhoanna @27: Both of which are crimes, yes? So why is he hiding from the police instead of appearing for these minor offenses? Surely his sugar mama would cover any fine, if a fine was the only issue. (She -shouldn't-, but based on the rest of what she puts up with, I'm sure she -would-.)

@6: Abstinence is sadly NOT 100% effective at preventing STI transmission and pregnancy, because sexual assault. Dying is the only 100% effective way to prevent most risks we face as a function of being living humans, and most people don't think perfect prevention is worth the cost.

Regarding warrants, it's possible he's a criminal, but I assumed it was something extremely minor like this as the LW didn't mention anything more. You get a speeding ticket or a ticket for no insurance or something, you can't afford to pay for it so you don't go to court, then a warrant is issued for your arrest. It's not important enough for the police to come out and get you, but if you get pulled over again and they run your license, you can go to jail over it. But it's a bigger problem for things like applying for some jobs or getting insurance as the warrant will show up if they do a background check. This is incredibly common among poorer people, and there is no such thing as harboring someone as a criminal for something like this. Also a warrant does not mean you are a wanted person or a convicted person so it wouldn't be harboring a criminal anyway. It means that you are supposed to appear in court on suspicion of something or to stand for a citation, not even that you have been charged with something, so even if it's more serious, she would not be in any trouble.

Again, I can't stress how common this is among people who are poor or chronically underemployed, etc- bureaucratic entanglements like this go on and on. So while it's possible it's something more serious, I did not even consider any other possibility.

Anybody else wanna see Terry in Saran wrap? That's a wedding I'd pay to go to.

Regarding the advice that she take the child, if she's in a position to be viewed as the only mother the child has ever known, then I don't see why it would make any difference to Dan's advice that she is not the biological mother. He usually advices that people work things out to preserve the only home a child has, etc. I'm not saying I agree with that, only that it's strange that Dan will advise working through cheating, bad sex, communication probs, etc, but not laziness/selfishness in this case. And this is a man with a two year old so unless he has a some well-paid set of skills (obviously not) then staying at home with his child might make more sense both financially and regarding lifestyle. The problem isn't that he's unemployed (at least not now), it's that he dumps everything on her in the evenings after she gets home from work, goes out with friends, doesn't do any chores/cooking, etc. This seems like something that is possible to work through if both parties are willing - at least theoretically. I'd probably DTMFA also, but I don't see why this is considered a bigger dealbreaker than sexless marriage, cheating, depression, any of the other situations we see pretty regularly. WHy is this guy acting this way now? Has he always acted this way? Is being a stay at home parent to a new child affecting him somehow? Lots of people have to learn to readjust to the lack of stimulation and structure, etc. The selfishness is a bigger problem- but have they communicated?

But in any case, I don't see where Dan or any of us get off advising someone to take a child away from someone else. Being unemployed or selfish and mismanaging money, etc- these are not reasons to take children from parents. Let's step back a bit. This is a stay at home dad who doesn't do his share of household chores and who takes his partner for granted. Sounds like an asshole, but I think it's a massive leap from there that he should lose custody of his child.

@28 BDF

This might be particular to the US or to poorer classes in the US- I've spent so much time working with people in both (and living in it myself when I was younger) that I forget sometimes what this all looks like to people who are less familiar.

Some people have warrants for minor offenses for years. It's sort of how if you don't pay your credit card bill, the interest can add up and what would've been a minor thing in the beginning becomes unmanageable.

First off, it might be more money than she is willing to pay now, as these fees can compound. The original issue might predate their relationship. We have no idea the details- very minor things can be extremely expensive. We also don't know what her finances are like. The fact that she works doesn't mean she might have disposable income for his bills. Second, in some cases, if you let this go on a bit, you can end up in a situation that if you go in to settle the thing, you risk being immediately arrested. I know several people who would set up payment plans, but they don't want to risk going to the court to arrange everything because the chance of being detained could cause them to lose their jobs or not have someone to watch their children for a few days. Finally, it could be something that is still minor in terms of real life but serious in terms of consequences such as a minor drug possession charge. Marijuana is still illegal here in many states, and this letter is old enough that it was illegal in almost all of them. Sometimes the number of convictions compound so that a handful of super minor things can land you weeks if not months in jail. You have to remember that the US has one of the highest incarceration rates in the world and that this disproportionately affects poor people.

None of this changes the fact that the guy is clearly selfish and has some major problems with life management and she might not want that in her own life- as I've said, I'd DTMFA as well. But the response to the warrants here is disproportionate. The problem with having warrants is that they make it hard for a person to get their lives back on track (the paperwork, expense) and that then it compounds as it starts to affect other aspects. I took it as an indication of how this guy doesn't have his life in order, not that he's some criminal.

Seriously, I just re-read the thread to see if I'm overreacting.

I mean, we have people here saying she should call the cops on the guy to get him arrested and then seek custody of his child. Because?

What is the horrible thing I'm missing here?

He's unemployed. Yes, but he also has a 2-year old, and surely we are all aware that childcare prevents a lot of people from working. You literally can't make enough money at unskilled work to pay for childcare, or it might be a choice. He had the child when he met her so I don't see how she can start holding this against him now.

He wants to spend time with his friends instead of her.

He dumps a second shift on her- she has to do the cooking and cleaning even though she's been at work all day and he's been home with the child.

He has outstanding warrants which we know nothing about but which are extremely common among poor people in the US and almost always for compounding minor offenses. Nonetheless, it would be a huge leap to guess that his warrants are something that could endanger a child such as violent crime etc given A) the LW did not mention any such thing in listing his problems and B) it's not serious enough for the cops to come get him.

Alright, so based on this, I see all sorts of reasons that this guy is a jerk and that she should dump him, but people are calling here for destroying this man's life- calling the police, calling child services, attempting to take his child from him, etc.

Wow. You all sound like the people in those videos calling the cops on kids with lemonade stands or families bbqing in the park.

Obviously they are incompatible. LW didn't really need Dan, she just needed to be told she wasn't bad for being angrey. Okay, whatever, she's not... but tyen again, maybe this 'looser' isn't the demon she portrays him as. In this whole list, the major problem is the going out evenings, and as a stay at home dad, depending on how often thus is going on. We all need a break sometime and being a full time parent isn't all roses and sunshine. But if it's more than half the time, using her money and dumping the chores on her? Dude, grow TF up.

For people in similar situations, I think maybe 1) you should be more respectful of your own children's needs (two years and she is just now worrying about her 13 yo?) and 2) if you are going to keep this thing going, there needs to be a talk - the person who stays at home has a job too. There are reasons to be unemployed, but if so, you need to work hard to NOT be a moocher, or eventually things will come to a head.

EmmaLiz @30: Thank you, I stand corrected. However, yes, projecting, I maintain that someone who hasn't sorted out their legal troubles, doesn't seem to be in any hurry to, can't get a job because he has outstanding warrants for whatever reason (or is using warrants for minor, easily addressed issues as an excuse to not get a job), doesn't even use his position as househusband to act like one by doing the larger share of housework and cooking (I'd be sympathetic if he were doing so), and hasn't sorted any of his shit out by age 30, is 100% bad news for this or any woman. Not to mention that both of them are setting terrible examples for their children. I'd say I hope she DTMFA'd and got some therapy to figure out why she allowed herself to be used like this, but if they're in the social class I agree they appear to be in, it's highly unlikely she could afford it. Shame.

Mizz Liz @34 - Very thorough and thoughtful. Be careful, though, not to go much farther, or you might run the risk of becoming Red Pilled. I know people who say that something quite like this started them off.

@Venn people who get brainwashed in all sorts of ways usually start out with real complaints that are ignored by whatever mainstream narrative is supposed to back up their lifestyles. But you know you are dealing with brainwashing if your alternative narrative a) promises you everything you want or tells you that you would have it if not for X group keeping you down, b) lacks any center that is concerned with the welfare of other people, c) is ideologically incoherent, d) conflicts with your own real life experience or that of others. As for myself, I'm pretty sure I could be susceptible to some form of brainwashing just like any other human but red pilling is not it. I know you were joking, but the saddest thing about reactionaries is that they often start off with an insight that could lead them to a broader and more accurate view of the world and their place in it, and instead they stumble upon something dumb, cruel and easy.

@BDF Yes he absolutely sounds like a shit partner, and a lazy/immature/selfish person. I'm pushing back because they do have a child (even though not her bio kid) who they both seem interested in, and it seems everyone (including Dan) just brushed off the possibility that he could grow the fuck up or that he's struggling with the new reality of parenthood. Whether or not she wants to invest herself in that- I'd say it looks like she's tried so why keep beating the dead horse. Take care of herself and stop enabling him. And yes about how she needs to work on herself- why has she entered into a relationship like this in the first place? She wants more babies in her life and she cares for the one he has like a mother, so while I'd personally break up with a guy like that, I wonder about advice here to repair their family (such as Phyzzi's good advice above). In any case, it's an extremely mundane problem- loads of marriages suffer from fights about doing chores and neglecting the relationship, often with one person being the responsible "adult in the room" and everyone else- children and partner alike- taking that person for granted. It's depressing and I don't think there's enough therapy to go around, but it's not something we throw people in jail for or use as a reason to take away their children.

Mizz Liz - Actually, that was a compromise post. The entirely joking one speculated about when you would be challenging Karen Straughan for the title of FeMRA in chief. I'll add that, for the dedicate Red Piller crowd, the image of forcing pills on people as if they were cats is a feature, not a bug.

You may end up making my Unicorn List - a small group of people on both sides that the other side insists does not exist. It would be quite interesting to see conflicting Unicorns in conversation.

@34 welcome to the twenty teens

All the adults in this letter are idiots. Feel desperately sorry for the poor toddler, who's biological parents are useless, and the teenage boy, who needs a father, and certainly isn't getting one in the useless BF. I wonder how it's all turned out, a decade later?