At some point, we'll see a relationship like this as skeevy as if it were with a rich older man pressuring his 20-something girlfriend into condomless group sex, right? Eventually? Some day?

Also, the ex doesn't respect the LW, and I hope for his sake he moves on. Even if he gets the guy back, it won't work long term.

I hope we hear back from the LW in the future, saying they've found a partner who empowers them~ makes them feel safe, loved, and respected ~ and enjoys exploring sexual adventures consensually with no pressure. They're out there, LW! Move forward, your ex is an asshole and you deserve better!!

"He says...wearing condoms makes it difficult for him to maintain an erection and achieve an orgasm."

To pre-empt any tiresome claims, this is probably true: a lot of men do experience ED when condoms get involved (no matter what brand), and find that it simply ruins sex for them. This is all the more true once a man habituates to condomless sex: many find it physically difficult to go back, and would rather have no sex than grapple with a member that goes flaccid every time the rubber unrolls.

But NONE of that entitles him to drag you (the LW) into sexual scenes, habits, or health decisions with which you don't feel comfortable. He's in thrill-seeking mode -- maybe because the world is so fucked up right now, he sees no reason to bother with caution and prudence, maybe because he's not able to commit meaningfully.

Either way, that's usually a sign of a relationship that's not going to last (if you rekindle it). He'll be too checked-out. Time to move on.

LW’s ex wants a manic pixie dream guy.

All the best sex parties are international. They don't have a Michigan or heartlands theme! That was a joke. I hope that people can agree with Dan's advice and with the first sentence, at least, of @2 KindnessIsKey without denigrating international gay sex parties or seeking to deny their outrageous hotness.

The LW knows what the answer to this is. He says he feels his bf wants him 'to compromise his sexual health ... to make the relationship work'. Could he have said 'no' to the resumption of the relationship any more clearly? He describes his bf as in his 'late' 40s, while his 20s--middle or late--go unspecified. Again--running up the red flag. GROUP does not want to risk catching a STI through his partner's condom-less sex; he may not be so wild over the prospect of his bf fucking other guys anyway, rather than focusing on him; he isn't keen to group. Why should he do any of these things? I think Dan is right about the older man putting forward the younger forward as his sex 'avatar', ambassador, even plaything. The advice is right--but I hope this can be conveyed without any maligning of the older gay man, or moralised surprise at his continued experimentation in his late 40s (esp. with the wide availability of PrEP). I hope GROUP finds someone more suitable--and I hope his partner finds someone more suitable, too.

It seems likely that LW wrote this letter because he knows deep down inside that this isn't working, and wants confirmation that his instincts are right. LW - trust your instincts. You know what's best for you and sometimes letting go and moving on is what's best.

Frankly it sounds like you grew a lot more than your ex did during your separation. If anything, you outgrew him. Time to move on. You will find someone who is more compatible, more respectful, and who truly cares about your needs and desires.

Run away! If BF wants to endanger his own health, fine.

But not at the expense of his partner. Also, odds are bf will insist he can only get off, if you also do risky sex with strangers for his gratification.

The bf is a selfish prick, unlikely to keep your health, safety or emotional needs in mind.

You deserve better, and there's better out there for you, once you lose this guy.

This relationship is not a goer, LW. Safety First.
It’s the only body you’ve got and you are still young. You two are not suited, in this one important deal breaking area, if your health is a priority.
Wish him well, stop communicating, go thru your grief and then look elsewhere.

Yikes! My metaphorical dick was shriveling at the details of the risks this supposedly mature man is taking. Run away, GROUP, and take your sexual health with you!

What makes a gay sex party international? Enquiring minds want to know (and attend!).

(attend with condoms)

@10. delta. Well, I thought it was people of many different nationalities (like the dungeon I go to).

I was going to say that the older bf's idea of a happy sex life was much closer to my own than the lw's, until I remembered the barebacking (which I see as reckless, even puerile). (This is no reason, of course, to recommend anyone getting back with an ex and being coerced into stuff they don't want).

There are big weekend long events in a many "International" cities, like Chicago, Miami, Montreal, etc. Some are around Pride, others are more niche (Chicago has International Man of Leather every Memorial Day Weekend, for example). These events -- like gay cruises -- are notorious in the gay community for extremely wild partying, drug use, group sex, and all sorts of things that make Mother Pence clutch her pearls. You're either a fan or not. Clearly, this guy is not and his BF is. DTMFA

Let’s be incredibly generous and assume he’s telling the truth that he can’t get off while using condoms. That also means he can’t get off WITH YOU while using condoms, i.e. he’d expect you to have unprotected sex with him every time even if you were concerned about his STD status.

I don’t care how amazing he is; he’s not worth it.

"he enjoys the "KINK" of having sex without them, especially in a group setting...with people I would consider “high-risk”"

This is more than a kink. In our culture people who invite harm to themselves (or themselves) are called psychologically unhealthy, and considered to need help.

@3 Ytterby Be Mine
"a lot of men do experience ED when condoms get involved"

Good advice with them would be to first approach this as a quite possibly addressable ED issue. And not to simply at first, or even at last, be lazy and reckless.

@15: I mean, yes, but the ED is typically caused by a lack of pleasure, not by a lack of ability to maintain erection. Taking a blue pill to deal with the fact that you're not physically enjoying sex is, at the least, a can of worms.

One of the reasons that the man's pleasure tends to get prioritized in PIV and PIA sex is that if the penis doesn't get the stimulation its owner needs, it turns into an exercise in pushing rope. And if he's sleeping with someone who prefers PIV or PIA above all (as many do), no amount of compensating with oral sex is going to give the other person what they want, if what they want is a rock-hard penis (as many do).

We have to be honest about the fact that condoms suck, or else we're like the parents who, telling their kids of the evils of marijuana, lose all credibility and end up encouraging unsafe behavior. Condoms are also a great way to prevent most STDs, of course, but for many people, even the best brands have an unpleasant effect on the sexual act. We all choose our level of risk, from "married for 20 years but still using condoms because you never know when s/he might cheat" to the LW's ex.

We shouldn't be so quick to shame men who have a hard time with condoms -- since doing so is basically a textbook case of affirming stereotypical gender roles, thinly disguised as enlightened sex-positive criticism. We have the trope that it's all due to male selfishness, but most men are perfectly aware that truthfully saying "I can't stay hard when I use condoms" is going to be seen as pathetic by some, an act of subterfuge by others, and simply disappointing by others still.

@16 Men who have difficulty staying hard while wearing a condom should practice that very important skill rather than pretending to be helpless victims.

@16 Ytterby Be Mine
"ED is typically caused by a lack of pleasure, not by a lack of ability to maintain erection. Taking a blue pill..."

I certainly wasn't suggesting taking a pill to address the ED issue (I'm not a pharmaceutical-first guy). I was thinking more in terms of the advice Dan gives to guys who can't cum from PIV because of death-grip-syndrome; namely to retrain one's dick (by not letting oneself cum if one can't cum without a death drip).

In the condom-issue case specifically such a guy could take a break from wanking, and for a while from sex. Then perhaps the dick will be sufficiently retrained/incentivized by it's 'need' to cum to not freak out at a lack of condoms, because:

I think Dan also makes a valid point that it's not a lack of pleasure or stimulation, since rarely do people even know when the condom falls off or whatever. I infer from the opposite, premature ejaculation which by definition occurs in the first minute of insertion(1), that not long after insertion when everything is lubed up and no longer hypersensitized, Dan's point becomes the strongest, since how can the condom matter if one can't feel/know whether it's there or not (though maybe hypersensitized and if unlubed we can tell in the first minute).
Unless we're talking about a micropenis that just isn't getting any grip, I wonder if that issue of the first minute is likely a psychological one that can be addressed successfully.
Though I qualify all this by saying I've never had this issue.

And it might not even need to be non-physical; the most important factor in arousal is the brain. I personally dig imagining my swimmers doing their, er, job, and I just forget about that they can't because of the condom.

Next step maybe try sex therapy.
If all else fails they could find partners with whom to be fluid-bonded.

(1) "one minute after penetration" per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Premature_ejaculation

@13 oh! I’ve attended those in several countries! I always feel like I’m missing out and have led a very chaste life so I was assuming some secret something I didn’t know about. But I guess not! I always use condoms for fucking at such events (and they can be quite fun) but have noticed over the decades condom use has gotten rarer but still some who play safe.

Speaking for myself and my partner, we did have the experience of a condom breaking mid-coitus, and we noticed this had happened precisely because the feeling, for both of us, went from great to absofuckinglutely fantastic.

I wonder what flipped BF's switch at that age, but mainly because I can imagine assorted reasons going in various directions. I don't think it changes LW's moving forward alone, but it could affect how he does so.

@16 Could men who can't get erect wearing a condom please at least develop a cheerful relationship with internal condoms and have some on hand to offer their would-be bottoms to try with them? I'm a woman and find PIV sex plenty pleasurable with internal condoms, once I got over feeling awkward with them. A top/man who is enthusiastic/encouraging and skilled at using them would prevent the awkwardness, and at least if the condoms don't work for the bottom, the top with erection difficulty will show good faith effort to accommodate his issue without causing health risks.

Logistical note: unfortunately in the US you can't buy these retail any more, but you can get them free with a prescription, covered as an acceptable method of birth control under the ACA. Or you can buy them online directly from the company.

@3: I suspect that many people who think that condoms put a damper on their erections, just haven't found the right fit. Just as you can't buy any old suit off the rack at the clothing store, but have to choose the right size, so too with condoms. The memes that show health teachers stretching condoms over their arms or legs are giving a terrible message to the students. Condoms need to fit penises properly. If a condom is too big, it'll slide off; if it is too small, it will constrict and feel unpleasant. It may take some time and effort (and some money) to find the right fit. Of course, there are also those who have a personal bias against using them, but that is a different story.

(Bummer that condoms can't be tailored like a good suit...but I digress.)

The LW should find someone who is a better fit with his morals and desires.

Mr GROUP's excuses, in order: "He says most of his friends do not wear condoms and wearing condoms makes it difficult for him to maintain an erection and achieve an orgasm. He also says he enjoys the 'kink' of having sex without them, especially in a group setting." The first issue mentioned is not that he finds it difficult to stay hard and come with a condom on; it's that all his friends are jumping off a bridge and he wants to do it too. Therefore I have less sympathy for the second issue, which, sure, is a thing (for a small percentage of men in my experience), but if you value safety there are plenty of workarounds. Music @23 is correct that condoms are literally not one-size-fits-all, and Fred @22 suggests internal condoms. Mr GROUP's problem wouldn't matter if he is bottoming. There is Viagra if he is a top, and he can pull out and come on his partner's butts/chests/faces if he can't do it while wearing a condom. Mr GROUP sees this as a kink, as something fun, rather than a big risky no-no. He's told you who he is and what he values, GROUP. Run away before he passes something icky on to you.

Cocky @27, that's definitely in your mind, not in your dick. I wonder if hypnosis would help?

@28 BiDanDan
+1
I think hypnosis is a great thing to try first!

@22: I think more widespread use of internal condoms is a fine idea. How they affect the pleasure of both parties is unknown to me since I've never used one, but intuition suggests that they'll help the penetrator at least a little bit.

@23: That's a common response and no doubt has some merit, but "you just haven't found the right brand/size" only goes so far. Barriers of any kind intrinsically reduce sensation.

@24: "I have less sympathy for the second issue, which, sure, is a thing (for a small percentage of men in my experience)" -- There's a bit of a fallacy here, since men who have a hard time staying erect while wearing condoms are less likely to be represented in your sample set: I know more than one man who's sworn off casual sex for that exact reason. Now add in all the men you've turned down because they didn't want to use condoms, but were too embarrassed to admit the exact reason why.

@26: You've misread my post, I think -- I'd never claim that ED in general is caused by lack of pleasure, but ED that's specific to condom use? That's certainly caused by lack of pleasure at least some of the time. The guy that goes soft as he's trying to put it on, sure, that's psychological, but the guy who goes soft after 30 seconds of thrusting is obviously affected by the barrier.

For those arguing that condoms can't be an impediment to pleasurable sex -- in other words, that a man who has trouble using them needs to be "fixed" in some way (blue pills! hypnosis! changing his masturbation habits!) or is just a selfish manipulator -- do you feel the same way about women and dental dams? In other words, are women who find themselves unable to enjoy oral sex through a dental dam just "doing it wrong"?

@31 Ytterby Be Mine
"For those arguing that...a man who has trouble using them needs to be "fixed" in some way (blue pills! hypnosis! changing his masturbation habits!)"

Oh for pete's sake, stop being a lunatic putting words in the mouth of your straw man, no one fucking said 'needs to', and I don't appreciate you saying they did.

I simply said @18 that Dan's point was valid. As is trying stuff you (and cockyballsup) it appears are unwilling to consider it for some reason. That reason is probably the most interesting question before us right now. You tend to come off as a (I'll grant you quite articulate) Men's Rights Activist(1). Are you (and maybe cockyballsup) afraid to upset the fragile apple cart of any man's ability to get hard by countenancing the attempt to become more psycho-sexually healthy?

IWasSfR@20 told us that they and their partner noticed the difference. There are certainly all sorts of factors that could make noticing the difference more of less of a factor. Size of dick, size of condom, lubrication, arousal, etc. I just want guys to not be so lazy as to try nothing; why don't you? And it's not responsible to urge people to endanger themselves or others (particularly young people whose brains haven't fully formed so they have a poor understanding of risk).

(1) I imagine you making a good living in the Men's Rights Movement.

@25 You can practice sexualizing condoms so that they become increasingly a turn-on rather than a boner killer. You can do this totally solo. I know this firsthand, and many men I know have done the same for the sake of their own health/safety and the health/safety of others.

Just admit it - most men are dying to bareback and will use any flimsy excuse to avoid condoms. 99% of condom refusal can be explained by simple unwillingness to develop a level of comfort with them. Guys dig in their heels and wait for the sexual partner to give in. Frankly it disgusts me.

At the end of the day it doesn't really matter why someone wants to go condomless. If you want to bareback during casual sex then you need to accept that's going to be a deal breaker for a lot of people who value their health. I'd much rather deal with sex that didn't involve PIV than put myself at risk of stds.

I knew a woman who insisted on no condoms. And also had a series of kids by various guys that they ended up supporting.

@33: Whenever this topic (a man who reports trouble using condoms) comes up, the typical reaction is either to demonize him and men in general, as we see in post #34; to imply that he's dysfunctional or aberrant in some way; or to offer possible solutions while carefully avoiding any whiff of legitimizing the guy's experience. In other words, there are three options:

(a) He's a ("typical") shitty, self-centered man;
(b) He's defective in some way and therefore an exception to the rule (that "condoms work fine for normal/honest men"), or
(c) He's not doing it right (and needs to try this product/this technique/whatever).

Option (d) -- that condoms (and all barrier methods, like dental dams) are intrinsically and deeply flawed when it comes to having enjoyable sex, and a lousy solution to an even lousier problem; that the guy's experience is completely understandable, and isn't evidence of anything other than his humanity -- is rejected.

I lived through the rigid safe-sex thinking of the 1980s and 1990s: a time when safe-sex advocates, in an understandable effort to get everyone to be as safe as possible, intentionally overstated many risks -- i.e. the demonization of withdrawal (which, as recent research has revealed, is far more effective than people made it out to be), or the dishonesty about the real risks of oral sex (for HIV transmission, extremely low, but few would admit that until well into the late 1990s).

The agenda, in other words, was that anything that could in any way detract from safe sex at all times has to be reviled -- even if it's simply describing a normal human experience, like finding that barriers interfere with stimulation (again, how many people use dental dams, despite knowing HPV can cause oral cancer?). And isn't it wonderful that those values overlap so nicely with the "men are pigs" rhetoric that posters like #34 employ -- how perfectly that rhetoric plays into homophobia!

Finally, I'm amused by the way your "Are you afraid to upset the fragile apple cart?" comment affirms patriarchal tropes -- both by its mockery of weakness (fragility, fear) as something pejorative, and by its notion that failure to become erect is the collapse of a "fragile apple cart" rather than, at worst, a sexual dysfunction which, like dyspareunia or vaginismus, should never be discussed with even the faintest whiff of a sneer in one's voice.

I'm fine with encouraging men to try whatever might work. I'm fine with anyone insisting on condoms only: that's 100% their right, and they should be supported in that.

I'm not fine, though, with insinuations that condom-related ED is evidence that a man is "less than" in any way -- morally, physically, psychologically, whatever -- or is trying to scam his partner(s). That's a shitty thing to say, because there are legions of guys out there who legitimately have that issue. A lot of them were condom users in their 20s, got into a long-term fluid-bonded relationship that ended, and then find themselves unable to reliably perform with a condom in their 40s and 50s because of inevitable physical changes.

They deserve the same thing we should give anyone experiencing sexual difficulties: compassion and understanding, not barely-concealed hostility and distrust, or even the slightest insinuation that there's something "wrong" with them. Because there isn't, any more than there's something wrong with a woman who takes no pleasure from oral sex with a dental dam.

Hm, this comments section is generally not nice to the LW's ex. So, since I'm basically this guy -10 years, and minus any money in my bank account, I'll come to this guy's defense.

Yes, the guy claiming that he can't maintain an erection without a condom sounds like an excuse for him to have the bareback sex that he clearly wants. And I'll admit, the biggest deterrent to an erection is not being aroused by the situation, and using a condom is clearly leaving this guy unaroused. Regardless, it's sorta sad that he can't just state that he wants bareback sex because that's what he wants and likes. But then again, these comments show why he feels like he can't, because so many people think it's pathological for him to accept this level of STI risk in order to have the kind of sex that turns him on. We seek to empower women here to have the kind of sex they enjoy, and then turn around and tell the gay guy no, you aren't allowed to have an enjoyable sex life because of STI risk. Look, it's great that you can have a fulfilling sex life when you're buried to you eyeballs in condoms, but that doesn't work for everyone, and it's not pathological to seek sex that's fulfilling for you, even if it necessitates a high risk of getting STIs.

I sought out bareback sex before PrEP had hit it's stride (and I wouldn't have been able to afford to stay on it anyway), and I knew that meant I was likely to get HIV eventually. And I did get HIV, and the world didn't end for me. And I didn't give HIV to anyone else because 1) I was get tested regularly, so I found out about it not too long after getting infected, 2) I let guys I had sex with recently know I had gotten HIV so they could take PEP, or get tested again to make sure they hadn't been infected, and 3) I got on HIV medication quickly and I informed all of my subsequent sex partners of the situation. And because I knew the risks I was running by having bareback sex, I wasn't devastated by the news, and was able to quickly inform others keep them from getting HIV, too. And similarly, I inform the guys I have sex with when I get some other STI. And it's amazing how, when you get tested regularly, and promptly share news of infection with past sex partners, it really reduces the potential spread of STIs. So yes, it is possible to have responsible bareback sex. And I wish people who used condoms were just as responsible when it comes to sex.

If the LW's ex was a truly shitty, selfish person, as the comments are want to make him out, he would have just lied and cheated. At the end of the day, he's told this twenty-something kid what he wants and it's not what the kid wants. I wish more of my exes had been up front when we discussed what we really wanted. Would have made it nice and easy to say: "Thanks, but no thanks. Next?"

@39 Ytterby Be Mine
"your "Are you afraid to upset the fragile apple cart?" comment affirms patriarchal tropes"

I was accusing /you/ of taking that approach, so if you want that self-description it's yours, mate.

"mockery of weakness (fragility, fear) as something pejorative, and by its notion that failure to become erect is the collapse of a "fragile apple cart" rather than, at worst, a sexual dysfunction"

The saddest thing to me about the situation guys who can't maintain erections are in is that fear of it perpetuates it. This seems to me a psychological crisis of great urgency lest it snowball into insurmountability. What I tried to accuse you of was blocking attendance to this crisis, specifically because it should /not/ be regarded as a fragile apple cart one is not just powerless to change, but courts disaster to attempt to chance. Which is exactly what you do by:

"I'm not fine, though, with insinuations that condom-related ED is evidence that a man is "less than" in any way...psychologically"

They have a psychological issue. Face it so you can join us in letting them face it. No one but you said anything was "less than". It's just a problem to be solved. Stop recoiling from the identification of a problem to be solved by putting "less than" into the mouth of your straw man.

This MRA-ish defensiveness is not a good look, YBM. Men aren't an oppressed minority. Men don't need you to protect them from attending to crucial psychological issues because you think doing so might make them feel "less than". Unlike in past generations, men today can break through that fear to use therapeutic modalities to grow psychologically.

/Break/

The people in my experience who could most benefit from psychological help the most are the very ones least likely to accept it.

@42: "They have a psychological issue."

Some of them do. But some of them have a purely physical issue: not getting enough sexual stimulation through a barrier to remain erect. An erection requires more than just psychological stimulation to sustain, especially as men get older.

Is it that hard to acknowledge the truth posted by several posters in this thread -- that (when it comes to sexual pleasure) condoms are intrinsically flawed, and that they impair many men's sexual function and response -- as a starting point? Because framing it as a psychological issue, full stop, is just false.

People on SL, and (to be fair) throughout the Internet, often seem to be living out a fantasy that they're making policy through their posts: that the views they express have to be tailored as much to the political big picture they want to see, as the specific circumstances they're discussing.

So I think a lot of the resistance to acknowledging that condom-related ED -- and more generally, lack of pleasure in condomed sex -- is often a problem with condoms, NOT men, is a political stance that boils down to some combination of (1) safe sex at all times, and (2) if we legitimize this guy's experience in any way, we're giving a green light to all men who don't want to wear condoms, and harm will come to women.

As for what is or isn't a "good look", I don't particularly give a fuck. I simply have the radical belief that men's needs deserve no less care and concern than women's, and that we should take pains to be as sensitive to the way we talk about men's issues -- and the EXACT language we use to do so -- as we do women's issues.

I do this for a fundamentally pragmatic reason: I don't want to see Trump re-elected in 2020, and if I and my partner are as infuriated as we are by the self-caricature the Left has largely become, I can imagine the response it's getting elsewhere. If men don't feel like there's a truly welcoming place for them on that side of the aisle -- and many, many men don't -- it puts us that much closer to four more years of orange.

@43 Ytterby Be Mine
""They have a psychological issue." Some of them do."

And those are the ones my @42 talked about. (The "saddest...the...guys who[se]...fear of it perpetuates it...into insurmountability.")

"Because framing it as a psychological issue, full stop, is just false."

Of course. And my Comments prior to @42 made that point with more specificity than you have.

"hard to acknowledge the truth posted by several posters in this thread"

Again, I had already agreed with that truth. (But one of those posters clearly is severely messed up in the big head [and maybe the little head] on this...but go ahead and stand with him.)

So, you missed that my @42 focused instead of talking about the full scope of the issue since I'd already done so and don't make a practice of repeating myself. You act like the things I said upthread never occurred as though you had no memory; this is a willfully warped manner of discussion (maybe you should go ahead and join the right; you'd find them far more accepting of this kind of half-minded thinking).

@44: You claim to have meticulously differentiated in each of your posts between men whose ED is primarily psychological in origin, and men for whom lack of stimulation from the condomed sex act itself is the problem (and any psychological aspect is a sequela, not a cause).

I think, if you reread your posts with care, you will find that claim to be unsustainable.

And above all, you're missing MY point: when we talk to women about sexual difficulties, we take pains not to lead with the "fix" (unlike what most people have done in this thread). We know to validate their experience and feelings first and foremost, and to make it clear that there's nothing "wrong" with them and no blame OF ANY KIND attaches to them for what they're experiencing. This is pretty much the script for any such conversation.

We should do that with men too -- when talking to any man who experiences condom-related sexual dissatisfaction or ED, "condoms are the crux of the problem, and there's nothing wrong with you" could (and should) be the default first step, not an afterthought.

(Again, consider the absurdity of telling a woman who can't get off with dental dams that she's experiencing a dysfunction of any kind: of course you can't get off, you're getting tongued through an absurd piece of plastic, and that's the essence of the problem! Whether that problem can be worked around is another story, but we start by acknowledging that the fault doesn't lie with her in any way.)

But we don't do that because, as we've seen in this thread, the common assumption is that the guy is just running a scam and attempting to bareback anything that moves -- since (to bastardize Mozart) All Men Are Like That. So instead, we have to be "incredibly generous" (post #14) to even admit the possibility of a basic physiological truth experienced by shit-tons of men. And that's bullshit.

"absurd piece of plastic" - I meant latex, of course. (Or polyurethane.)

@45 Ytterby Be Mine
"You claim to have meticulously differentiated...between"

This is really driving me crazy. I didn't claim to have "meticulously differentiated...between" those things. Or anything! Discussion is time-consuming enough without you saying I said things I didn't say; I will not waste my very limited time addressing your imagination-generated straw man.

I grew bored with the futility of trying to respond to people putting words in my mouth decades ago(1). There's no keeping up, it takes orders of magnitude more time to disprove an invented claim than it takes to make the claim. And the more one tries the faster the straw men multiply. This really pushes a button of mine.

As the saying (apparently evolved over 3 centuries per https://quoteinvestigator.com/2014/07/13/truth/) goes 'A lie can travel halfway around the world before the truth can get its boots on.'

"MY point: when we talk to...we take pains...no blame OF ANY KIND"

That's just obvious. Blame is besides the point, it's just (quoting me @42) "a problem to be solved".

As for 'taking pains', here we're not all exactly talking /to/ the seeker of help (in this thread the person with the issue isn't even the LW, and who knows if the LW is reading this either), nor can every Commenter be expected to take the time to take pains, here on the bloody Internet. I'm often thinking of the LW, but often too we're just talking to each other about what could or should be done.

In other words, in paragraphs 3 through 5 your concerns would be of the effect upon a man of a conversation that he isn't even aware of. Surely a conversation /with/ someone would be quite different.

You'd be right at this point to raise the point that I haven't remained delicate towards a fellow Commenter (who I called @44 "messed up"). In fact I didn't say anything to them once they stated being absolutely closed off on the subject. And never would have said anything had your bringing other Commenters up tempted me. I admit I would be happy if they weren't following this now, since I did not want to be indelicate to them.

(1) In discussions with rightwingers; I learned a lot about their half-minded thinking, and now that I have, I have no motivation to anymore.

@47: "MY point: when we talk to...we take pains...no blame OF ANY KIND" - "That's just obvious."

Yes, but the effort still needs to be made, and people who DON'T make that effort -- or do worse than that -- should be called out. And if the effort consistently varies along gender lines, it should be called out too: men aren't more deserving of consideration, kindness, or the benefit of the doubt than women are, nor vice versa.

"In other words, in paragraphs 3 through 5 your concerns would be of the effect upon a man of a conversation that he isn't even aware of. Surely a conversation /with/ someone would be quite different."

Except that our posts are read not just by the LW, but by lots and lots of men (and women) with similar problems. And if half the commentariat claims men with condom-related ED are just bullshitting so they can bareback, and the other half quickly leaps to offering solutions whose #1 priority is "Get the condom back on that dick ASAP", it sends a message not to one person who isn't even reading, but to a lot of people who are.

I don't think the commenter to whom you refer is "messed up", if you mean the person I think you mean. Like millions of people -- men and women both! -- I think they've made a risk assessment and decided that having the sex life that works for them is, given the current medical and prophylactic options, worth it. It wouldn't be and historically hasn't been my choice, but it's not 1987 anymore, either, and having 100% safe sex all the time is no longer the only responsible choice.

BTW calling someone demeaning names -- "severely messed up in the big head" was your exact quote, not just "messed up" -- from behind the anonymous safety of a computer screen is "not a good look", doubly so in a space where we've all agreed to be essentially non-judgmental (or at least tolerant and understanding) about what goes on between consenting adults.

If your ego so easily gives vent to such things, and chooses nastiness over compassion, have you considered meditation? I hear it helps...

@47: Also:

"I haven't remained delicate towards a fellow Commenter (who I called @44 "messed up"). In fact I ... never would have said anything had your bringing other Commenters up tempted me ... I did not want to be indelicate to them."

You're basically saying (1) "this shitty thing I did is actually YOUR fault, not mine, because you tempted me", and (2) "I didn't mean to do the shitty thing I did" -- which is straight out of The Narcissist's Prayer:

"The Narcissist's Prayer

That didn't happen.
And if it did, it wasn't that bad.
And if it was, that's not a big deal.
And if it is, that's not my fault.
And if it was, I didn't mean it.
And if I did...you deserved it."

Between this and your pathologizing views on gay sex, I'd be careful in the future about throwing around accusations of being a closet right-winger, because right now you're drawing from a very red-state -- and orange-skinned -- playbook!

"Like millions of people -- men and women both! -- I think they've made a risk assessment and decided that having the sex life that works for them is, given the current medical and prophylactic options, worth it. It wouldn't be and historically hasn't been my choice, but it's not 1987 anymore, either, and having 100% safe sex all the time is no longer the only responsible choice."

I think people convince themselves that there are other responsible choices because they overestimate the efficacy of the current (and future) medical and prophylactic options. Yes, Truvada has been an incredible advance, but there have been confirmed failures with rare resistant strains of HIV. And if you're not concerned about that, our prospects against increasingly antibiotic-resistant gonorrhea aren't looking great at the moment. There's also the small issue of "this is exactly how AIDS turned into an epidemic in the first place," and it's more a matter of when, not if, another virus will come along.

@14 Finding condoms difficult/impossible to use during sex is in my experience very common ie. more often than not.

@16: No to most everything you said. The most commonly described scenario I've seen is the man going limp while he's trying to put the condom on, not losing an erection due to lack of sensation after putting on a condom and fucking for a bit.

That's not how Viagra works, though in fairness to you, it seems to be a near-universal misconception, with even some medical providers believing that it CAUSES erections rather than ALLOWING erections. It functions by increasing bioavailability of an intermediary hormone that functions to relax smooth muscle, which is necessary to allow blood flow into the spongy tissue of the corpora cavernosa, causing an erection; the nitric oxide release that actually prompts the muscle relaxation and therefore erection is unaffected, so without something like sexual stimulation to prompt an erection, one won't experience an erection, and the only effect on psychogenic erectile dysfunction would be a placebo effect, which has been demonstrated in lab studies.

While condoms DO decrease sensation some, this has nothing to do with men reporting condom-related erectile issues; physical sensitivity differences are the same for men who do and do not report problems (see this, for example - https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1743609515305324 ). Losing an erection as a result of wearing a condom is a psychosomatic response.

Psychosomatic problems are still REAL, and they also may be treatable (perhaps with a placebo, so maybe I should stop telling people about how Viagra actually works). You're decidedly not helping by spreading and reinforcing the belief "condoms suck," which may well be a major contributor (people believe they suck, prompting psychogenic ED, with the original belief reinforced every time one experiences condom-related psychogenic ED). So help spread the opposite belief, that condoms are great, which can be a self-fulfilling prophecy in the same way the "condoms suck" belief presently is.

Condoms really only suck for people who think they suck; that's a tautology, but the important thing is that the group "people who think condoms suck" is not all people, nor all men, nor all males, as you imply. I, for example, think condoms are great, as they allow me to not worry much about STIs and pregnancy with female partners.