I spent my lockdown time this week finally getting round to watching both seasons of Shrill, which... Yeah.

I'll personally disagree with Mr Savage's declaration of "verified", but FTWL...

"Ladies, if you’re listening, he’s single!" And he sure sounds like a prize! Lol.

Temporary tattoos as costumes for anonymity?

@"the wife of your weird caller"

Why did you two get, and why are you still, married?

Curious @4, green card?

Ms Fan @3 - That's the phrase that made me give up watching the Arthur Ashe Kids' Day programme the day before the US Open when the host ended his description of a nine-year-old rallying with Mr Djokovic with that feeble joke.

@5 BiDanFan
LOL.
I just couldn't manage to focus on her letter, I was too distracted by astonishment that they got/are married.

No wonder the store was all out of fake tattoos and the clerks giggled when I asked if they're getting more any time soon. They said I'm likely to have better luck finding toilet paper.

Saw a picture of your husband, Dan, in his nude underwear. Terry looks younger and fitter every time I catch a picture of him. This was in a queer newsletter I get thru email. Men’s bodies can sure scrub up well.

It was fun getting to hear the other side! I wish that could happen more often. Still doesn’t change the fact that these two should be divorced already.

Advocate for disabled folks writes in to scold Dan about use of ableist word "spaz" while dropping the word "dumb" multiple times as a synonym for stupid. How long does it take for a word's offensive original meaning to be forgotten and the new common usage accepted as non-offensive?

"...preacher Tony Spell didn’t just stand before his congregation on Sunday in defiance of the governor’s order to stay home: He leaped into the pews, paraded, hugged and laid hands on worshipers’ foreheads in prayer...Across Louisiana, the coronavirus has infected more than 3,500 people and led to 151 deaths as of Sunday"
https://enewspaper.latimes.com/infinity/article_share.aspx?guid=adf9ebcb-08ce-4e45-9875-b5ecac53d436

I have a relationship-advice-column-related COVID-19 hypothetical. (All ye who hate hypotheticals be forewarned, they aren't about practicality, they are the stuff of philosophical musing.)

I know that (AFAIK all) places people are ordered to shelter in place the orders say to social distance from everyone who they don't live with.

But as I understand it some married couples choose not to live together, so let's take that as an example. Let's say they're both at very high risk and need to shelter in place until a vaccine is available in 18 months (or until their gov't becomes as smart as South Korea's). Let's say they both live alone and are so extremely strictly sheltering they place absolutely zero others at risk. I understand that public policy needs to be generalized... OTOH this hypothetical, in which they would now be expected to social distance from each other for 18 months because they chose to live apart, seems too much to me. In this hypothetical I can't imagine them obeying it, and I can't imagine myself obeying it.

"Hubs actually managed to cheat in the only way he could (because we are non-monogamous/RA) which was by hiding it and being dishonest. He interpreted my hurt about the dishonesty as hurt about another woman."

Oh fuck this drives me batty.

I had a similar dynamic where I encouraged my (now ex) boyfriend to see other women.

Said boyfriend's best friend had been complaining to us about what a booze-sucking, drama-stirring, volatile piece of work his girlfriend had revealed herself to be over the course of the last couple of weeks. The latest news was that he dumped her when he discovered that she was underage. And that very night, guess who my delightful (now ex) boyfriend brought home?

And when I complained, he accused me of trying to "set him up" and not being cool with the idea of him seeing other women!

Yeah, bubba. /That's/ the issue. So glad you're my ex.

Curious @13, one of my partners is in a very high risk category and indeed, I may not see them for many many months. In your hypothetical, I think if both spouses shelter in place for three weeks and don't see another living soul, they have zero chance of being infected and can therefore move to sheltering together, again so long as they continue to have zero contact with anyone else, and not increase the risk. However, remember that they live apart for a reason. With my other partner, we agonised over which would be worse: not seeing each other at all or having to be in each other's space every day. I'm not saying the solution we came up with is ideal, but nothing about this situation is ideal, for anyone.

Curious @13: If your hypothetical non-cohabiting (and non-high risk) couple can get together without coming into close contact with other people (and promptly wash their hands!), then there's no material difference between a single household with multiple inhabitants and their dual household. Lots of co-parents are having to deal with this same issue. Think polycule!

@15 BiDanFan
"if both spouses shelter in place for three weeks and don't see another living soul, they have zero chance of being infected and can therefore move to sheltering together"

Ah yes the 3-week thing is the perfect solution.

"remember that they live apart for a reason"

It's not that I didn't think of this, it's that I think that they should then be able to shelter apart /together/, so to speak. By which I mean continuing to live separately but coming (and cumming) together (on the same schedule they previously enjoyed). By this I am imagining of course very very careful transportation from front door to front door solo via their own car.

If such a private car is at one's disposal, I don't see why that's not reasonable. I mean, I'm sheltering very strictly, but not so strictly that I don't occasionally (and with almost military discipline of precaution-taking) get in my car and drive to a park(1) or something, not getting out, just staying in the car; it would be no less cautious if the end of my drive were a partner's front door instead of my own (assuming that, like me, the partner were very disciplined about disinfecting surfaces including door knobs).

So unless there are circumstances in your real life complicating my simplistic scenario, I think I'd be sheltering in place both apart /and/ with that partner, even though it violates the necessarily broad public policy. I don't believe in following the letter of the law for virtually no reason; I really don't respect laws at all, I respect doing what's right.

(1) Parked next to one park last week I watched 6 young people playing frisbee; they were all so skilled I guessed they might not all live together, so I think this frisbee-playing was an infection vector.

@16 fubar
Yes, "no material difference" is exactly what I was trying to express while I was typing @17 as you were typing @16.

p.s. @16 fubar
Except in my hypothetical both are even high risk, but not so high they can't go from their door to their private car.

So, while as a matter of public policy Dan's repetition of "you should only be enjoying sex...with people you live with" might be a necessary message to the public given his stature as a public figure, I don't think it's always true.

“But anyone who's stupid enough to have sex with randos right now should know that eating ass is potentially riskier than other forms of sexual activity.”
Dan: Geeky comment here - my reading of the NYC doc isn’t that rimming is more dangerous than other sexual acts, just that it’s as dangerous as say, kissing or normal sex with lots of close contact touching. I’m assuming they put it in because someone could think “our heads are far away and we won’t touch otherwise, so rimming is probably fine.”
I haven’t read the letter since last week (I found it because of the podcast) so i May be wrong, but FYI as ppl listen to you (as they well should).

Curious: Ah yes, cars. Or possibly bicycles. Yes, if they can get to each other's place without coming into breathing distance with any other humans, then it seems they are not increasing risk by travelling to see each other and only each other. Complying with the spirit of the restriction, they might want to do one week on, one week off, rather than constant schlepping. Because they're still going to need to refuel those cars at some point, right?

Frisbee - as long as they were more than 6 feet apart I don't think they have broken any rules. Hope they scrubbed their hands afterwards!

@22 BiDanFan
Yes, refueling is a concern. I wore a glove when I touched the pump, so I think I'm good.

Frisbee: Maybe when thrown one of their hands had COVID on it; when the frisbee impacted the receiver's hand above eye level (which happened sometimes I noticed) maybe particles of COVID loosened by that impact fell on the receiver's face. I'm cool with talking at distance, but they were throwing around an infection vector. And it was plastic, not copper. (Tests show COVID lives on plastic 24 times as long as on copper, not that that would matter given the short time a frisbee spends in the air.)

Speaking of air, when one's exercising with an increased breath rate (er, not talking about frisbee now), I imagine one's risk from nearby viral loads increases.