Okay, so before, al, when you had this super-high sex drive all the time, and the things were passing you by --look! a fallen tree!--and interrupting your thinking --Ooh, God, I want sex--how did you ever concentrate and get work done?
I think you're confusing having a high sex drive with being unusually scatterbrained. She's talking about thinking about sex in a boring meeting, or idly thinking about passing details out a taxi window. Those are both circumstances where you're not doing anything more important to be distracted from. If she were talking about "There I was, trying to remember whether to cut the red wire or the blue wire, but I couldn't think straight because I was overcome by an elaborate bondage fantasy about the guy from the bomb squad," that'd be different.
Your example is fair, LB. I don't think scatterbrained is exactly what I'm trying to describe however inarticulately. Being emotionally overcome by strong feelings isn't exactly the same thing as being scatter brained.
Again, I think you're getting the feel of what she's talking about wrong. Idly musing about sex in a manner that's somewhere between frequent and constant is reasonably familiar to me, and if Al is talking about something like the way my mind works, it's not 'being emotionally overcome by strong feelings.'
Look at her specific example -- looking at the guys in a meeting and deciding which one you'd fuck if you had to. That's not romance novel=worthy being swept away on a tide of passion, that's having your mind turn to sex as something of a default when you're not thinking about anything more urgent.
You don't actually need a strikingly high sex drive for thinking about sex to be a good survival technique in boring meetings. Both Mrs y and I do it and even in our heyday of youth I don't think we were particularly oversexed. It's pleasant, undemanding and easy to pick up and put down. Perfect meeting shit, in fact.
4: Sorry, I wasn't clear, LB. I take your point about the idle thinking about sex as being different from what I described, and it seems totally reasonable that I misunderstood her post.
What I was quibbling with was your use of the word 'scatterbrained' to describe the example of someone not being able defuse a bomb, because she's thinking about sex. So, Alameda is not scatterbrained. Alameda could (and I'm quite sure that this is so) defuse a bomb if necessary. However, I maintain that not being able to concentrate on defusing a bomb because of elaborate sex fantasies doe NOT equal "scatterbrained".
I would use scatterbrained to describe less intense distractions. That's all.
"There I was, trying to remember whether to cut the red wire or the blue wire, but I couldn't think straight because I was overcome by an elaborate bondage fantasy about the guy from the bomb squad,"
There's a pitch for TV series in there somewhere.
"She's a member of an elite SWAT hostage rescue team...but she keeps getting distracted thinking about sex! Hilarity ensues."
I'm following you now -- I actually read your comment, failed to make it make sense together, and figured you'd typoed 'fair' for 'unfair'.
I originally thought this was heebie.
No, you must be Don Francisco's sister.
I thought I was heebie, trumping stanley's overshare about his septum! BG: don't you sort of think about being on a beautiful beach on a deserted island, or have a fantasy house you wish you had, or imagine what you would do if you were a billionaire? (buy my mom this one big house in georgetown on P street with fan-topped windows!). particular fantasies that you can return to as needed, embellishing them with care until repetition renders them unsatisfactory? it's just like that, but about sex. it took me a long time to realize people were thinking about other things. don't you ever wonder what people would look like naked? notice hot people? right now I'm just all billionaire with superpowers, ho hum, and not enough of the elaborate SWAT team bondage fantasy, which sounds way better.
I'll take the counterpoint to the OP:
I have a baseline of sex frequency that I find ideal, and I'm willing to kick it up a notch more frequent to meet a partner. But beyond that, I really do not want to start having sex. Even though I'll eventually start enjoying it. And then I find it incredibly unpleasant to be pestered for sex, in those relationships where there's been a real mismatch of preferences. The possibility of pestering ends up making me cautious and defensive and always on guard, which is awful.
12: I have lots of fantasies about things like that, although most of my fantasies are tied to regrets about family. I'm also frequently scatterbrained, but I also experience very strong feelings sometimes which are quite different from feeling scatterbrained or the kind of idle dreaming that you described. And sometimes I have a kind of sexualized desire that may be about sex itself or may be about wanting vastly more in my life right now. These are incredibly powerful, and they do get in my way and make it harder to concentrate. I was probably projecting my feelings on to you. I find it problematic (sadly and ironically) in the same way that I find being in a funk problematic when I need to work in a sustained way.
Through a series of improbable events too lengthy to go into here, a woman is living with me this week. She sleeps in the bed with me, and last night after a bit of kissing, I became aroused. She gave me a handjob to calm me down and I came all over her pajamas and hair. After she cleaned up, she came back and asked if I'd get hard again if we kissed some more*. I reassured her that I was done for the night, so we made out some more, then went to sleep. Then I found 5 dollars.
*The woman in question is a 30yo virgin, on account of her Muslim beliefs, and the traditional mores of where she's from. She knows amazingly little concerning the ways of the flesh!
But in general if you have the opportunity to have sex with your partner and they want to I'm inclined to say go for it regardless since you'll probably discover more enthusiasm as you proceed
In response to this, and joining HG's counterpoint, sometimes you discover more enthusiasm and yet things don't quite reach... fulfilling... and you find yourself incredibly frustrated to be left hanging. Which having an extended history of was a big part of the reason you weren't in the mood to begin with.
13: pestering is a whole different thing. 'pestering' can only happen if there's been a previous request and a no, or even quite a few requests and no's. I'm not talking about 'pestering' but about just, one ask and one answer. "hey, do you wanna have sex?" "nah, I feel kind of shitty." or "hey, do you wanna have sex?" "OK!"
15. Geraldine Ferraro. This becomes more interesting...
18: Woops! I am a male.
15: lesbian love affair, geraldine ferraro yo!
I'm going to try to improve my meeting experience by adding wealth and power fantasies to the sex ones. It might be more difficult because of the powerlessness of being stuck in a meeting.
15 say what? That's not a TV pitch, it's an off-broadway play.
I think the range of of people's libidos is just pretty huge and there's no point getting het up about where you fall on the spectrum, just try to find a partner who's cool with where you are. I wonder if there's some serious attempt somewhere to quantify the range.
22: Wait... Of power, money, and sex, the one thing you don't have at meetings is power?
A couple weeks ago I had sex (not all intercourse) for three hours. Eventually I had to ask to stop -- actually more like ferally refuse to go further -- because it was all so high intensity. Plus it was 3 am, and I'm a morning person. The gentleman was very talented but if we had been to keep seeing each other we would have had to have a talk about pacing and overstimulation if he wanted me to last longer than three hours. I only had an orgasm once during that period (sometimes I don't have any). I was thinking about the "orgasms: how do they affect quality of sex for me?" question in connection to this experience. I don't know whether more orgasms would have made me able to go longer, but I suspect it would have been the opposite. And I did enjoy myself, even if I would have liked some gentler, more soothing intervals inserted to allow me to calm down occasionally before ramping up again. I want to be able to keep on for hour, and I think I really prefer that sort of intensity to lots of orgasms. For me, I think that a real facility with multiple partner-provided orgasms would be a misfortune, because it would likely tire me faster, and make me focused on the quick, immediate goal. I just like the other parts of sex better.
I remember they had one couple in allure or glamour or something back in the late '90s as part of an article on the variety of people's libidos (in these cases the couples were all matched quite well). one couple had sex 4 or 5 times a day, and they were dressed in the most stone temple pilots groupie way imaginable. like, 'this tongue piercing is really sensual.' I can remember thinking, 4 or 5 times a day?! christ when do you ever do anything? and also, I love cake, but it seemed as if it would be like eating cake all the time, for every meal, even though you felt sick and the confectioner's sugar was still gritty in your teeth from the last slice. oh god red velvet cake again please can I have some salad please. al's myspace:
mood: a mosquito, my libido.
but, you know, whatever.
I'm not sure if I'm just missing the joke here. My partner and I have been through various medical experiences that have left one or the other of us non-orgasmic, and sometimes non-sexual, for extended periods over the years. We've also had extended periods of both happy and unhappy marirage, and that doesn't correlate to orgasmicity at all. We've concluded that orgasm, like money, is something you're better off having than not having, but when it's not present, a happy marriage is possible, and rather more important.
I'm going to sleep now, but I do see that, as per mrs. johnson's comment above, I tend to rush to the end ordinarily, and the #slatepitch part of the experience has been learning to do other fun stuff more slowly rather than just racing to the finish lines and then saying "I'm done! no, I can make myself come one more time. no, OK, one more last." I have been thinking that maybe this would be the thrilling time in my life when I bought a vibrator, ever. really! what will happen if I can overcome these stupidly massive amounts of lyrica and topamax and then I taper off them? I will be superhuman!
An ex-girlfriend had a flatmate who insisted that she and her boyfriend had sex five or six times a day. When I laughed [perhaps a bit harsh, but fuck it] my ex assured me that she believed her.
However, we shared a flat together for a while [the two couples] and they were full of shit. Either that or sex lasted somewhere between 30 seconds and 1 minute for them, and they were able to have it remotely while in different rooms.
unimaginative: I always end up being judgy mcasshole in these threads, which is really not my intention. people who don't have orgasms can have wonderful marriages. I just only stopped having lots of orgasms all the time very recently so it is freaking me out. my pronouncements are better conceived as descriptions.
and they were able to have it remotely while in different rooms.
The real art is to achieve simultaneous orgasms while in different time zones.
My current relationship is satisfying, sexually and emotionally, except for my (our? the Universe's?) frustrating, sexually and emotionally, failure to bring my female partner to orgasm. She seems to be committed to the vintage Cosmo wisdom that most women rarely, or even never, come, and to be sort of quietist about the issue -- she says she rarely orgasms even from masturbation. I am pretty sure that pressing her to discuss this, or to "try" to orgasm, would be the wrong way to go about it, and that attentiveness, openness and "you don't have to do anything or fake anything for me, just relax" are the right way, but progress is slow.
The woman in question is a 30yo virgin,
So you don't think what you two just did counts as sex?
She gave me a handjob to calm me down
?
35: You probably shouldn't start going through fantasies looking for continuity errors. That
not as calming as a blow-job, but still pretty calming, you've got to admit, rob. versus making out with someone and having a raging hardon.
don't you ever wonder what people would look like naked?
All day long, every day, regardless of whether I'm attracted, indifferent, or repulsed by the person in front of me.
It has never been more appropriate to roll out my all-time favorite Lovelines quote!
Adam Corolla:
A teenage boy trying to get his girlfriend to orgasm is like a raccoon trying to get a candy bar out of a vending machine. He's up to his elbow, just swiping wildly around. Checking around back to see if there's another way in. Just clawing at the whole thing.
35: It might, or might not count. Don't really care, myself. I was using virgin in the sense in which it's understood by the general public.
34 -- do not minimize the problem. At least talk openly about it. Otherwise you may find yourself experiencing slow progress and a crippling sense of sex doom for the next 40 years.
33: Alexander Graham Bell--pioneering sexual hero
35: I'd call restricting 'virgin' to 'someone who's never had penetrative sex' rather than 'someone who's never been the direct cause of someone else's orgasm' a fairly conventional use of the word, wouldn't you? I mean, the situation sounds odd, but not non-consensual or inexplicable if the woman has religious/cultural beliefs leading her to stay virginal in the 'penetrative sex' sense, but not asexual.
I suspect that people who talk about having sex four or five times a day are thinking about that one weekend when they banged like crazed bunnies and anchoring on that as a default, their current more reasonable frequency of coitus being a deviation that will no doubt pass shortly.
"I have lots of fantasies about things like that, although most of my fantasies are tied to regrets about family."
Bostoniangirl - Please expand. This is mysterious and intriguing.
34, 42: What Halford said. Not so much out of any direct experience, but it sounds right in general. Also, vibrator. If you can talk about the issue, you can get her a (well-recommended) vibrator and see if that helps.
45: Even that seems crazy to me. I have a very high libido, and 3x in one day is my all-time record. It still wore me the hell out, and the poor girl was raw and in a bit of pain.
So you don't think what you two just did counts as sex?
And 45 also sounds right. It's easy to remember weekends with Buck when we'd just started going out (or staying in), and think of that as how often we'd naturally be having sex if we weren't busy, tired, and frequently chaperoned by the kids.
33: I wonder how many people have had sex at Four Corners.
Lord Sidcup, is the frustration shared by your partner? I can't tell from your description if she is down about the orgasm frequency or pretty resigned to it.
51: You should probably ask a person who sells turquoise accessories.
Clit Lit Prof
My grad school transcript lists courses with their number and a four-letter department abbreviation, so the entire thing is full of GERM and CLIT.
Too bad it wasn't HEAD and CLIT.
re: 45 and 48
My experience has been that in new relationships it is more of less the norm to spend a significant chunk of every waking hour you are together, fucking. Definitely more than three times a day, if it's the weekend and you are just lazing about having sex, eating, having sex again, eating, maybe have some more sex, go to the pub, come back, sex again, wake up in the middle of the night feeling horny, have sex again, etc.
But people in established relationships who have jobs? I find it hard to believe most* of the people claiming to be at it multiple times day, really are.
That said, while still in the early phases of one relationship, a girl I went out with described to me a semi-abusive relationship with an ex-partner as 'really sexual'.
'WTF, we've just had sex four times today, and three times yesterday'.
'Much more often than that', said she.
Which isn't necessarily good for the ego.
* no doubt there are exceptions.
time lords got moby!
Fruit lords prefer eggplant.
(What, we don't have anyone with a fruit name that I can think of. What do you mean I could skip the joke just this once?!)
53: Nah, I'll just spin it into an elaborate fantasy.
34, 42, 52: And what Blume said. Part of the point of talking about it is figuring out whether she's happy and satisfied the way things are, or frustrated but resigned. If she's actually happy and satisfied, then there's no reason to put pressure on her about it. If she's not, then that's different.
Further to 34, "I am not sexually satisfied because you are not having an orgasm" seems at first like a harsh conversation to have, but it's an honest one and a real emotion and something you need to express. Then having had the conversation you can figure out what to do about it, instead of just hoping that maybe you will sync into sexual compatibility.
(Fascinatingly, the net-nanny hasn't found this thread yet. I wonder when I'll get locked out.)
Fruit lords prefer flies like an eggplant.
"I am not sexually satisfied because you are not having an orgasm" seems at first like a harsh conversation to have, but it's an honest one and a real emotion and something you need to express.
But you also have to examine your own reasons that this is dissatisfying. If at some level it's because it strikes a blow to your ego, that is pretty tiresome for the non-haver of orgasms.
I am pretty sure that pressing her to discuss this, or to "try" to orgasm, would be the wrong way to go about it.
Good call. That's like telling a guy with ED to "try" to get it up. Adding in some extra performance anxiety doesn't help anyone.
How about, "I want you to have an orgasm because I'm a feminist"?
48: I had another male lover who once had 7 orgasms with me over the course of the night/next morning, even though he'd had two the previous day by masturbation, and we didn't actually stop because we'd tired each other out. He just had to meet a friend at 11 am. I don't remember how many were from intercourse. I think five, and the other two were mouth or hand. (I prefer that kind of marathon, when the refractory period/sleep provides little breaks, actually.) I really don't think we were together long enough in relaxed enough circumstances to get near to testing the limits of our capacity in this regard. That's a very high libido. It may be fair to call him sexually compulsive, though, so it's not like his sexuality is something to aspire to.
Yeah, I mean you need to figure out what to do about it. Maybe they really are sexually compatible, maybe not. Maybe the problem can be worked out, maybe not.
One person finding tiresome the thing that turns another person on is pretty much the definition of sexual incompatibility. Sometimes, people arent compatible. IMO thinking along the lines of who has the right to do what is totally counterproductive in this area. The only real question is can you have a genuinely mutually satisfying sex life, or not?
She seems happy with things as they are, and we have discussed, and do discuss this, from time to time, and she doesn't resist talking about it, but I don't want to give her the impression that she's doing anything wrong or not pleasing me by not orgasming while at the same time making clear that her sexual satisfaction is important to me.
How about, "I want you to have an orgasm because I'm a feminist"?
"And that's why you need to wear this cute little Vichy French Maid costume and let me occupy you, sweetheart."
69: Could it be that you're actually dissatisfied with something else, not specifically the lack of orgasms, like perhaps she's not as uninhibited in bed as you want her to be?
Ie, if she were a screaming banshee who always clearly let you know what she liked and didn't like, you could trust more soundly that she's having a great time, even though she's not orgasming?
I don't think you should tell a guy with ED to "try" and get it up. I do think it's totally legitimate -- actually really critically important -- to say "I am not satisfied because you are not getting it up, and we need to figure out what to do about this in the open instead of pretending there's not a problem.". In the long run that's actually the kinder course.
46: Oh, they're pretty boring and totally non-sexual. I'd rather not talk about them.
The only real question is can you have a genuinely mutually satisfying sex life, or not?
Well, but also, if not, it's important not to be hurtful in the process. Kicking someone to the curb explicitly for failure to orgasm has potential for being damaging.
But she is doing something wrong! I don't mean morally, but from the perspective of what works for you in your sex life. Pretending that she's not won't help anything.
There is a specific issue that I've run into, mildly, that I think is always going to be a trainwreck - "To be sexually satisfied, I need you to come while doing the specific things I like in the way I like them. It's not good enough that you enjoy sex and orgasm when we do some things that we both enjoy: I'll be frustrated if you don't both (a) do the things I like in the way I like them and (b) find them as exciting as I do." This is just doomed -- you can negotiate a certain amount of tradeoffs: "I'll do what you want, assuming you do what I like as well", but insisting that your partner line up with your tastes perfectly can't work.
If there's any chance Lord Sidcup is going down that road at all, I think he needs to work through it on his own.
75: Doing something wrong? Do you think she has control over it? If you can't be satisfied with what she has to offer, then by all means move on. But "I am moving on because of your sexual inadequacy" isn't kind.
77: It's not that I disagree that it'd be hurtful to be left explicitly for sexual incompatibility, but what's the less hurtful option? Left for no clear reason?
The least hurtful option is to become insanely jealous for no clear reason until she leaves you.
Do people typically give explicit reasons when they break up? I thought things like "It's not you, it's me" or "I just don't feel like this is working out," were sort of the standard. You wouldn't say, "Look, this isn't working because you really just aren't very bright," right?
I don't know the amount of control she has over it -- that's one of the things they should find out. But from the perspective of them having a mutually satisfying sex life, what she's doing is not working. Sometimes people really are sexually incompatible, and they should try to figure that out. Maybe the answer is "yeah, I'm just not going to orgasm, so if you can't handle that, then move on.". Which is fine. But which also needs to be explicit. Insisting that one party get over whatever their issue is isn't helpful.
Or change your diet until you become so flatulent that she can't be around you.
Something about the tone of 34 made me think of the relationship as long-term and quite serious: that ending it would be more like a divorce than like a boyfriend/girlfriend breakup. At which point I think people who aren't complete jerks do generally talk about what's gone wrong, don't they?
I'm still hoping to hear a response to 71, if SLS is still around.
But from the perspective of them having a mutually satisfying sex life, what she's doing is not working.
Shouldn't that be "what they're doing isn't working"?
Insisting that one party get over whatever their issue is isn't helpful.
Not what I said. But saying she's doing something wrong because you aren't satisfied is actually projecting your issue onto her.
I mean, it sounds like SLS wants to build and work on the relationship. If not and it's a totally short term thing, sure, getting out immediately without explaining why might be less hurtful.
85 -- sure. But it's not "projecting his issue on to her"; he's saying he has an issue with her response. Which is totally fine and normal. The "wrong" phrasing seems to have people hung up; what I mean is that he should feel totally free to say "I am not satisfied with our sex life, from my perspective. What we're doing isn't working for me.".
"Wrong" in the sense of "wrong for me" not objectively morally wrong.
She is generally enthusiastic and fun and seems to enjoy our sex life generally: initiating regularly, expressing preferences, etc. I think "not orgasming" is, in this context, something for "us" to address/live with/remedy in cooperation, not for me to dump her about. (That hadn't occurred to me.) I do not think my reaction is one of "you're not meeting my need for praise and compliments," but rather "I want to make you as happy and fulfilled as you make me." (Sickeningly sensitive, yes.)
I think "not orgasming" is, in this context, something for "us" to address/live with/remedy in cooperation, not for me to dump her about.
I think you've actually got a good handle on it, then, and were venting rather than needing advice?
If people are actually asking for real advice, I'd like to retract 82 but the rest of them are fine.
But it's not "projecting his issue on to her"; he's saying he has an issue with her response.
What I was taking issue with, at least, was the idea that one never need examine one's sexual preferences or desires. While I agree with not demonizing one's desires, I do think it's possible to go too far with "I want what I want" or "I can't help what turns me on."
88: Ok, that doesn't set me on edge the same way. In the long-term, serious relationship, this really does seem a more fraught discussion because presumably this is not a new state (if it is, then that's another story), and my feeling would be "If this was going to be a problem for you, you should have said so in the beginning before I become emotionally intimate with you.
89 last has me worried. She is where she is and you are where you are. If you feel her response isn't satisfying to you, that's fine, but if she's ok with where she is, projecting some kind of greater need onto her that you feel she should have for her own good (because you're super sensitive?) seems not OK.
I do not think my reaction is one of "you're not meeting my need for praise and compliments," but rather "I want to make you as happy and fulfilled as you make me."
Sounds like it's really a matter of trusting her when she says that you are making her as happy and fulfilled as she makes you. I've been on this side of the equation, so I get how easy it is to worry "Is it me? Could I do something better?" But if she says she's happy, all you can do is trust her.
Checking the acceptability of my thinking? Wasnt sure whether I was striking a proper balance between attentiveness to happiness equity and not demanding that her sexuality conform to my demands.
At some level, being unable to give your girlfriend and orgasm is going to be a blow to your ego.
You hear plenty of stories of people whose girlfriends aren't orgasmic, and they think they are fine with it, and then after the breakup the guy finds out the girl is now totally having lots of orgasms with her new guy. I recall someone here telling a story about an early girlfriend approaching them some time after they had broken up and saying "I thought I was having orgasms with you, but it turns out those weren't orgasms." Thinks like that have to hurt.
The problem is that she is not obligated to have orgasms, or to even work on having orgasms, just to soothe your ego. You may just have to get over yourself on this one.
If you ever do want to end your relationship over sexual incompatibility, don't worry. You don't have to say anything to her about why. Just buy and wear that T-shirt that says "I may not be Mr. Right but I'll fuck you til he gets here"
96 to 94/95. Don't want to be thought uncaring because silent or demanding.
Wasnt sure whether I was striking a proper balance between attentiveness to happiness equity and not demanding that her sexuality conform to my demands.
It sounds to me like you are striking a balance, and everyone else is pushing you one way or the other on this.
The problem is that she is not obligated to have orgasms, or to even work on having orgasms, just to soothe your ego. You may just have to get over yourself on this one.
It might not just be a matter of SLS's ego, you know.
@80
Do people typically give explicit reasons when they break up?
When breaking up with someone, you should provide an extensive and detailed list of their character flaws and unappealing features so that they can work on them and improve their chances for a successful relationship in the future.
Sure, they probably won't appreciate this at the time, but you can bask in the knowledge of the future happiness you're promoting.
everyone else is pushing you one way or the other on this.
I'm so chopped liver!
Actually, I feel a little better having read this thread.
What I'm trying to do is push back a bit on sentiments like 97 last. No, she's not "obligated" to do anything. But if you will have a miserable sex life because you can't take the fact that she never orgasms (whether for "ego" or other reasons) that's a totally understandable and fine feeling to have, may indicate that you're actually sexually incompatible, and is something that you should bring up and try to deal with instead of just sweeping under the rug.
105: That's good. It really is tricky -- not knowing either of you, I can imagine that (a) she's not enjoying your sex life as much as she could, and some more attention to her needs and support of her figuring out what they are and getting them met would make both of you much happier; (b) that she's happy with things as they are, and that if you could accept that and be happy with it everything would be fine, or (c) that you're fundamentally incompatible and won't ever be happy in this regard. But I can't see how to pin down which of those options is likeliest without being in the situation.
It sounds like you're being thoughtful about it.
I'm going to push back against sentiments like 108.last because I have no idea how any long-term interpersonal interaction continues without sweeping things under the rug. Openly discussing your feelings is really something for certain types of people and not a good general strategy.
Also, the idea that this is just "ego" is weird. Experiencing a partner's orgasm is awesome. Why shouldn't you get to hope for that as a part of your sex life?
It's been, what, 60 years since Kinsey and 50 years since the 60s and the idea becoming widespread that sexuality is OK and sexual satisfaction is part of healthy relationships? You'd think that by now there would be canned, rehearsable, fill-in-the-blanks scripts with decision trees and everything for the "I want to be with you but want something different from our sex life" talk to reduce all the awkwardness.
the idea becoming widespread that sexuality is OK and sexual satisfaction is part of healthy relationships?
I don't think this is the hang-up. The problem is that people are scared and vulnerable and take everything personally, when first opening up about sex.
And it's a relationship-high-stakes area that you don't necessarily have a lot of conscious control over, which is obviously going to be tense even without all the incredible amount of cultural weirdness and pressure around desirability/sluttiness/virility/whatever.
The problem is that people are scared and vulnerable and take everything personally, when first opening up about sex.
If it isn't personal at that stage, what's the point? "As long as we're here we might as well fuck, but please don't take it personally", doesn't seem to me like a recipe for a great relationship.
Not so much that the sex shouldn't be personal (I'd agree that generally, if it doesn't seem personal, you may be doing it wrong), but that it's hard to raise dissatisfactions or issues without it feeling as if you're making personal attacks on your partner.
I have certainly been in relationships in which I enjoyed what was usually non-orgasmic sex, but it was usually non-orgasmic because of something I didn't feel comfortable asking for, because of some obvious ego crisis on my partner's part or my own shyness and fear of rejection. But when I have been in an extended non-orgasmic relationship, it has been so stressful for both of us that it is difficult to overcome without resetting somehow. Mess with the schedule and procedure, don't drink, be on no time constraint, experiment aimlessly.
"Enjoyed" here being relative to not having sex at all. Also, she might have fetishes.
You should put Sherlock Holmes on the case.
116: It's also all too easy to slip into personal attacks. It's human to want someone to blame, especially if you are feeling a little defensive about your own role.
112: I have also been surprised by the slow progress on this front. A few weeks ago I was looking at a website of sex advice for young people that was all like, consent is sexy! Sober sex is great sex! Ask your partner for what you need! And I can't decide whether to be jealous of young people for getting all the good sex or angry that single people my age still get freaked out if a sober woman wants to have and enjoy sex.
Yeah, I do think the sense that it's unusual or unfeminine for a woman to be strongly sexually desirous (as opposed to either being capable of being pressured into sex or being willing to engage in sex out of affection for a desirous partner) is still out there, and really does mess with people's communication around sex.
116 is exactly what I was trying to say.
121: Also, as the mother of a couple of young people, link (if it's a site you'd recommend)?
It isn't just sex or women. In general I've noticed that drunk people, up to a certain drunk-level, are much more likely to enjoy anything at all.
97: it was knecht, I think.
Oh I can't imagine young people are getting all the good sex. One is, by virtue of being young, not as good at it. My sex life in my 20s was markedly less fun than my sex life in my 30s.
Dan Savage had a call recently from a woman asking what to do about a partner who refuses to wear condoms and he was, of course, like "Um, that's insane. Tell him to fuck off." I laughed, remembering that maybe 20% of my male sexual partners did not beg, whine, or trick me into having sex without condoms. I can't figure out what the fuck is wrong with these people, but it seems to have something to do with pretending you're not having sex, not really. Or maybe it makes them think the woman is dirty? It seems gay dudes do not experience condom fear on such a wide scale.
124: I forget the name, as I came across it in a roundabout way. It's a young woman, very charming, though perhaps a bit advanced for the sprogs. ("The best part about anal play is that everyone has a butt!")
Obviously, begging and whining are unseemly and trickery is evil, but it is absurd to attribute all desire for not wanting to wear a condom to "fear" of some sort or another.
128: It's often selfishness plus delusion of invincibility. A lot of people don't like the loss of sensation with a condom and will try to avoid it if possible. They don't think they're taking an insane risk for the same reason people playing the lottery don't think they're wasting their money.
I laughed, remembering that maybe 20% of my male sexual partners did not beg, whine, or trick me into having sex without condoms.
The world is a huge and varied place. Almost all the guys I've been with have been absolutely easy-going about wearing a condom.
I feel like maybe this is a generational thing? People of my exact age were too indoctrinated in AIDS fear from the moment of potential sexuality forward to be lax about condom use. But I'm at n=1 here in terms of a sample.
124: It's probably not the site you're asking about, but have you seen the Midwest Teen Sex Show? I plan on pointing my nephew and niece to it when the time comes unless there's something better out there.
130: I don't actually believe that the men who do this are all psychopaths who would prefer me to have an abortion so they can enjoy a few minutes of sex with slightly more sensation. I really do think there is something about condoms that creates shame, self-loathing, or fear in them. Single het women friends report similar experiences. If it were merely sensation, gay dudes would be negging and tricking each other into barebacking at similar rates.
I'm pretty sure there are other reasons why a guy might prefer to have sex sans condom. They make it less fun. Also, if you've been drinking, sometimes some guys end up losing an erection while putting it on. Plus it makes playing around, alternating between fucking and oral and fooling around more complicated.
I've also been with women who strongly dislike condoms and will very strongly object to using them. Still others who really don't want to be bothered with the interruption. And then those who absolutely insist on them.
122 That didn't ever seem to be something that people believed when I was in college and post college. Nor did women seem to have any trouble in expressing desire for sex, beyond the normal hangups and anxieties related to initiating things with someone they weren't in a relationship with.
On the no-orgasm gf, I had that experience once, complete with lots of enthusiasm on her part and assurances that it wasn't a problem. Then a couple months into the relationship her lack of orgasms problem disappeared.
98: there is a certain relief in someone's not being Mr. Right. It doesn't matter if you sleep with him "too soon" or any of that stuff which might lead to Mr. Right deciding that you're not The One. Right now after the longest period of celibacy in my post-teenage life Mr. Wrong would be just fine for a while.
I really do think there is something about condoms that creates shame, self-loathing, or fear in them.
Nonoxynol-9?
137: I am in the same boat, sister. Celibacy is extremely damaging to my mental health, but nothing has presented itself as an option that isn't depressing.
Single het women friends report similar experiences.
But not heebie or me or the other straight women I talk about these things with.
It seems gay dudes do not experience condom fear on such a wide scale.
It frustrates me when you universalize from your own experience. The fact that you and some straight women you know have experienced something doesn't mean that it's a gay vs. straight issue all around.
I've also been with women who strongly dislike condoms and will very strongly object to using them. Still others who really don't want to be bothered with the interruption.
Yes, this has happened more than once IME.
I find condoms physically uncomfortable, often to the point of losing my erection. I would rather have non-PIV sex.
Gay men my age or older, for the most part, were scared into being very diligent about condom use* but I think it's another story with younger gay men, who didn't spend much of their sexual awakening thinking they would definitely die horribly if they didn't use condoms. Apparently plenty of them think: well, the worst that happens is I have to take some pills. This is pretty much anecdata and half-remembered actual data.
*for people slightly older than me, by watching all their friends die. For people my age, by hearing a lot about it.
That is, I of course appreciate that people who engage in long-term relationships have different experiences from people who have casual sex with strangers. This seems obvious. I did not mean to include non-casual sex in my statement.
@133
That's my experience as well.
I'm sure someone, somewhere has done a study on how people who entered adolescence during the scariest period of the AIDS epidemic had their sexuality shaped by the experience.
It seems like as a group we should have some differences both from the wild & crazy pre-AIDS folks and the from the Millenials who came of age in a world where AIDS was still dangerous but more "under control*" than it was in the 80s.
Maybe I'm imagining things though.
*Under control in the MC population in North America, insert all blah blah privilege blah disclaimers here.
Heebie is single? Who knew?
No? But I was until I was 28?
People of my exact age were too indoctrinated in AIDS fear from the moment of potential sexuality forward to be lax about condom use.
Indeed. No glove, no love.
Yes, the world is a varied place. Not everyone has had the same difficulties I have had with casual sex, and I am jealous that casual sex with strangers has been so easy and respectful for other people. I am not sure why the response to me when I lament a frequent circumstance faced by me and several friends is to please not discuss it because obviously we are outliers from the normal experience of casual sex. Is there a normal experience? If yours went perfectly, why is that more "normal"? How do you know?
No? But I was until I was 28? 30
My experiences were similar to heebie's.
If it were merely sensation, gay dudes would be begging and tricking each other into barebacking at similar rates.
I bet they do, and we just don't have a good sample here. From what I've read, every single shitty thing straight men do to women, gay men do to each other, with about the same frequency.
the response . . . is to please not discuss it
Recounting different experiences = telling you not to discuss it?
Erkh, my extraordinarily fascinating and value-adding follow-up comment got eaten by the Lemonade Society's not-since-Mosaic internet speeds.
If it bears reconstructing: it's been interesting to watch AIDS culture age, not that I've done so in any rigorous way. I wonder if things like Jeffrey that felt super relevant at the time would be baffling to someone who wasn't a sexually active adult in the 90s, not to speak of Longtime Companion. On the other hand, The Normal Heart got kind of a big deal revival last season that felt uncomfortably vital. The only time I've cried at the theater, I think.
I can think of only one occasion of genuinely "casual" sex that I ever had that didn't involve a condom*; I was super drunk and was basically (willingly) bones-jumped by a girl who said she didn't want to use one. At the time I was like whoa whoa what are we doing here but obviously didn't stop it, and then the next morning ran out and got myself tested in like 85 different ways.
*Pace 85, that does not mean that the other ones went "perfectly."
No one is happier than I am to hear that other women are having or have exclusively had mutually pleasurable and respectful casual sex. It gives me hope. I don't know why it is offensive that this isn't true for me or my friends.
155: I am frustrating enough to make someone go anonymous to tell me so.
"On the no-orgasm gf, I had that experience once, complete with lots of enthusiasm on her part and assurances that it wasn't a problem. Then a couple months into the relationship her lack of orgasms problem disappeared." - teraz kurwa my
Disappeared because she started having them? Or disappeared as in the problem was no longer considered a "problem?"
sls wrote that his gf rarely has orgasms by herself. That is a crucial part that many of the responses in this thread seem to neglect.
I think 159 is an unfair characterization of Rosalyn's comment.
I find it puzzling/weird/interesting that the kind of people AWB is hooking up with, who are presumably the same kind of overeducated/UMC backgrounded urban twits that we all hooked up with in younger days, are now resistant to condom use. That's a change. I'd be very surprised if this was more true for straight than gay guys, however.
Also, I observed my first Grindr hookup over the weekend (no, not as a participant -- have I ever mentioned that I am totes straight, ladeez). It was a thing of wonder.
I mean, the guy I was hanging out with was like, um, I'd like to have sex now. And typed like three things on his phone and doop doop doop off to have sex!
I dislike condoms enough that most of the time I would choose "no sex" over "sex with a condom". My wife finds this incredibly frustrating (and selfish, and immature), because she went off the pill a few years ago and now insists that we use condoms as our primary BC. I wish I didn't feel that way, but I do. (And yes, it's entirely about the loss of sensation.) I'll usually agree to have sex when she wants to, but if I know I'll need to use a condom I'll very rarely initiate sex. It just generally doesn't seem worth it.
OT: This, from reporter Connie Shultz, is hilarious:
Dear Ms. Shultz,
We are doing an expose on journalists in the elite media who socialize with elected officials they are assigned to cover. We have found numerous photos of you with Sen. Sherrod Brown. In one of them, you appear to be hugging him.
Care to comment?
Shultz is married to Sherrod Brown.
(She very kindly didn't give up the reporter's name, figuring he's just a dumb kid.)
My wife finds this incredibly frustrating (and selfish, and immature), because she went off the pill a few years ago and now insists that we use condoms as our primary BC.
Thread meld... this is why she should start charting! So you know when you don't need a condom.
166: yes, she's done that. Irregular cycles make the periods when condomless sex is safe very few and far between.
People of my exact age were too indoctrinated in AIDS fear from the moment of potential sexuality forward to be lax about condom use. But I'm at n=1 here in terms of a sample.
Not your exact age, but n=2. (In fact, I've never intentionally had condomless sex, and only one instance of it happening unintentionally.)
Did you have sex unintentionally or just not use a condom unintentionally?
167: What's her objection to using a diaphragm?
167: That sucks. I always forget that lots of other people don't have the same kind of cycles I do. It makes my FAM enthusiasm annoying, I am sure.
My wife finds this incredibly frustrating (and selfish, and immature)
Frustrating is understandable. But if the tables were turned, I suspect she'd not find her inevitable lack of enthusiasm for greatly-reduced-sensation sex an expression of selfishness or immaturity.
169: The condom came off during.
167: What's her objection to using a diaphragm?
Or a copper IUD.
If your spouse doesn't find you selfish and immature, you should take comfort in either having great taste in mates or being alarmingly generous.
170: I don't really know--that's one method that I'm not sure she's ever really considered, that I recall. Her real objection is "why the hell don't you just get a vasectomy?!", which would indeed be one solution but isn't something I feel ready for.
I'll usually agree to have sex when she wants to, but if I know I'll need to use a condom I'll very rarely initiate sex. It just generally doesn't seem worth it.
Put your money where your mouth is; get snipped.
174: I really need to get a drug-eluting IUD and have known this for almost two years and still haven't made it happen because I'm lazy, I guess.
156.2 I'm not someone you should base anecdotes around, but growing up/coming out as a teen in the late '90s meant immersing myself in literature about the AIDS crisis and I think that might have changed how politicized I felt about things like sex compared to others my age. I mean, it's not as if I would have been normal otherwise.
My gyno wouldn't put me on an IUD b/c I haven't had kids yet. And she never saw my kittykat again. Actions have consequences, children!
I suspect that there is a significant population of guys who will gladly volunteer to use a condom if it seems likely their partner will insist but who will try for bareback if it seems like their partner would be OK with it. Not necessarily making a big fuss about it or doing anything sleazy but at least proceeding under the implied assumption of no condom until their partner raised the issue and then readily complying. I used to be in that category when I was young and invulnerable. And selfish and inconsiderate as well, now that I look back on it.
To 174 (which I've suggested), the answer is definitely "why the hell don't you just get a vasectomy?!"
I didn't mean to take this thread OT; was just pointing out that there are definitely some people (sample size=me) for whom not wanting to use condoms isn't about "pretending you're not having sex"* or "think the woman is dirty"* or "selfishness plus delusion of invincibility".
*I don't actually think I understand either of these, so I am probably misreading 128.
I observed my first Grindr hookup over the weekend
Details! How much did you get to see?
Wait. Some men wear condoms because they "think the woman is dirty" ??? This exists?
Not much. Actually I don't know for certain if sex was had, just that my friend was setting off for sex.
To 174 (which I've suggested), the answer is definitely "why the hell don't you just get a vasectomy?!"
If you are definitely done with having kids, then yeah, you should get snipped. Side effects of a vasectomy are way less than potential side effects of an IUD. If not (and this could include the possibility of wanting kids with a new partner if something were to happen to your current one), then IUD does seem like a better option.
...but isn't something I feel ready for.
For obvious reasons.
184: I read 128 to suggest some men won't wear condoms because they think doing so implies the woman is dirty. Which seems equally insane.
What makes you feel you aren't ready for a vasectomy? Presumably you and your wife have decided not to have kids, so 1) you're thinking you might leave her and have kids with someone else or 2) you somewhat understandably resent her and don't want to accommodate her or 3) something else I'm not thinking of.
Do you know that vasectomies are reversible?
If you are definitely done with having kids, then yeah, you should get snipped.
There lies the fault line, I think: I don't feel definitely done having kids, but she does.
Honestly if you're already married and not sleeping around and your wife isn't uber-fertile just go ahead and have sex without the condom. The risk of pregnancy isn't that high.
Never underestimate the male capacity for insanity when it comes to sex.
"some men won't wear condoms because they think doing so implies the woman is dirty. Which seems equally insane."
That is some walking-on-eggshells-inside-the-man's-own-head shit going on.
The risk of pregnancy isn't that high.
But is outweighed by the unpleasantness of getting an abortion. We can't all live in proximity to the Abortionplex, with its complimentary champagne and pedicures.
Never underestimate the male human capacity for insanity when it comes to sex.
180: Mine is not for birth control but to try to get my ridiculous uterine lining under control, so I don't think they'd care that I'm all nulliparous and shit. I do like your name!
Back to sls for a minute. Don't feel bad about your sexy times. I'm reminded of that Woody Allen joke "The only time my wife and I had a simultaneous orgasm was when the judge signed the divorce papers."
There lies the fault line, I think: I don't feel definitely done having kids, but she does.
Grover, I'm sorry. This sounds like a complicated mess.
My only point was that condoms suck. People who don't mind them are either insane or have penises that are different than mine.
Actually, I assume that what's really going on is a debate about having more kids, so the (they really are low) odds of pregnancy (I'm assuming you're pulling out and have self control here, dude, and that you have access to a morning after pill when you don't and your wife is fertile) are probably outweighed by the family crisis that would occur if there was a pregnancy and a split of views about keeping the baby.
Aren't they building, like, a couple dozen new Abortionplexes now that Obamacare has been passed?
...a split of views about keeping the baby.
My parents had split views about keeping a dog so they compromised and got a dog but he stayed outside when it wasn't below freezing.
With all these Abortionplexes, I'm nostalgic for the old drive in clinics.
The one who doesn't want it split gets to keep it, right?
That's why they're closing down the last mom and pop abortion stores in places like Mississippi. I heard that Abortionplex is going to partner with Wal-Mart. If you're lucky, your town will have a Wal-Mart with an Abortionplex AND a McDonald's!
My only point was that condoms suck. People who don't mind them are either insane or have penises that are different than mine.
Or both?
Seriously, mark me down as someone who doesn't mind them. Especially if the choice was between sex using a condom and no sex at all.
I'm assuming you're pulling out and have self control here, dude
Halford, due to his position in the entertainment industry, assumes that 99.9% of all ejaculations occur on faces.
As long as you don't get the cat.
I think people should help Grover out by offering insights on the pros and cons of various birth control options other than hormonal contraception and condoms.
209: Per 208, the odds of that happening are no more than 0.1%.
Pulling out is about as effective as condoms.
Another vote for the awesomeness of IUDs here.
I feel for Lady Sidcup. Being endlessly badgered about that shit is the worst.
Also, the idea that this is just "ego" is weird. Experiencing a partner's orgasm is awesome. Why shouldn't you get to hope for that as a part of your sex life?
Because if it's just not going to happen, or happen only very rarely, for your partner then you are making her feel shitty.
215.2 -- Maybe you are, maybe you aren't. But it's a real problem for you, too, and making you feel shitty, not just her. And pretending that it's not doesn't help anything. You might just not be compatible.
It's at least n=3 for coming of age with AIDS leading to extreme sexual caution; a couple of my partners in my 20s didn't want to have intercourse even with a condom until we'd been monogamous long enough for the blood tests to be meaningful. Herd immunity starts here, yo. Also, foreplay, dayamn.
Thorn, getting an IUD for uterine lining control was *wonderful* for me, I get back several good days a month, between `not anemic' and `not bleeding so hard I don't want to leave the building'. Would be worth it even if I weren't PIV-having-monogamous, which would make it worth it in itself.
canned, rehearsable, fill-in-the-blanks scripts with decision trees and everything -- "People are complicated!"
clew, I know it would be great for me and yet I still don't do it. I'm hoping early fall, but that's what I said about the last time I had enough of a flexible schedule to make doctor's appointments.
165: I saw Schultz and Brown co-give a commencement address. It was fabulous and adorable. (And she's a way better speaker!)
216: It does seem like an area where the guy could profitably do some introspection on why an orgasmic partner is necessary for him. If it's concern for her enjoyment, that seems like being non-pressuringly supportive should be sufficient. If it's direct sexual pleasure, i.e. seeing her get off is what gets him off, then that might be a real incompatibility. If being able to cause her to have an orgasm is something that makes him feel better about himself -- more virile or something -- that seems as though it might be possible to save the relationship by talking himself out of the need to support his self-image with her orgasms.
Not saying that this is what's going on for Sidcup or anyone else particular, but I think it's plausible that the last is an element at least sometimes.
184: I was complimented a few times by different women for not jumping up and running to the shower immediately after so I'd bet the message "dirty" was (is?) being transmitted fairly often.
And yeah, sometimes medical stuff got in the way of sex and it didn't create disaster for the partnership. Not every moment is a peak.
makes him feel better about himself -- more virile or something --
Or, just watching and participating in your partner's orgasms is a lovely piece of sex. Make's him feel good in the sense of knowing that she's getting the same value from sex that he is, and that he's being generous and taking care of her body.
The self-image and ego arguments are the least generous explanations, I think.
I am completely in sympathy with requiring the lineaments of gratified desire. OTOH, Screaming, if your sweetie initiates sex and indicates her preferences and, mm, doesn't seem to be Mr. Ed-ing you about them, and looks happy afterwards, you are gratifying her. Go you!
My pleasure is my power to please my lover;
My power is my pleasure in that power.
(E. R. Eddison quoting ??)
225: Sure. That's why it's the motivation that I suggested that it might be appropriate for a man in this position to think about, and try and walk away from if it's part of what's going on in his head. The possibly laudable motivations, there's no reason to talk oneself out of.
I don't think this is the hang-up. The problem is that people are scared and vulnerable and take everything personally, when first opening up about sex.
To 113 et al.: Sure, it's hard to talk about, and Screaming Lord Sidcup is apparently doing fairly well at that already. I'm just saying that having a general, more-or-less-universal, stock script for it might make it easier. (I'm sure advice columnists have offered scripts for many different situations, but (a) something generalizable would be handy, rather than just ad hoc advice for a thousand different kinks or hangups, (b) I'm imagining something universal enough that the familiarity would be comforting, and (c) even if exactly what I'm imagining already exists and I'm somehow the only person oblivious to it, I'm not going to try to find it right now, while at work.)
194: I agree with you that it's really irrational, but it doesn't seem implausible. People in general are weird about sex, of course, and it doesn't take too many assumptions different the UMC-modern-liberal-First World conventional wisdom to read an insult into "so, how do I know this won't make a baby or give me an STD?"
200
My only point was that condoms suck. People who don't mind them are either insane or have penises that are different than mine.
Phimosis, for example, has often been discussed here, and would easily result in the latter category.
Even as the laudable motivations are the ones that mean they are sexually incompatible. (I am keeping in mind that SLS wasn't sounding nearly so extreme as that.)
180: Lame gynecologist. Get a new one. I don't think gynecologists like diaphragms, because they're not that reliable. I love my copper IUD and am nulliparous. I don't know whether people who stop the pill can't stand the Mirena. It's a much lower dose of hormones.
Make's him feel good in the sense of knowing that she's getting the same value from sex that he is, and that he's being generous and taking care of her body.
I think the sticking point here is the assumption/belief that she's not getting the same value from sex that he is if she doesn't orgasm. That's where being able to trust what she says about the experience is crucial. I don't think the ego and self-image arguments are intended as ungenerous (or at least not entirely so). It is possible to be hung up on your partner's orgasm for ego/self-image reasons and not be an ass. Wanting confirmation that you did a good enough job is an ego thing. Doesn't make you and asshole at all. But it does have something to do with ego/self-image/fear-of-failure.
||
Very vaguely on-topic:
My parents have convinced me to install "Words with Friends" on my phone. The trouble with playing with your parents is you feel awkward about playing words like "milty".
|>
181: That goes both ways. I've had a number of women ask to not use a condom, with varying levels of insistence. That's happened even with people I just met.
Having unprotected sex with a total stranger seems like a terrible idea to me. Maybe that's a generational thing, per 133? All of the women who insisted were younger than me.
229: Again, right. The non-laudable (although as Di says, not necessarily contemptible) motivations for being invested in her level of orgasmocity (that's a word, right?) might be getting in the way of determining that maybe they aren't incompatible at all.
If he's got a fundamental sexual need to make her come, and she can't do it enough to satisfy him, then it sucks to be the two of them, but they should go find other people. He's not doing anything wrong, nothing he can change, probably, but they're not going to make each other happy.
If he cares deeply about her sexual pleasure out of caring for her, rather than because it's something he needs to be sexually satisfied, then he should be able to satisfy himself by being as supportive of and invested in her pleasure as he can be without pressuring her, and let the results be what they may.
But for that subset of men who feel as if they need a very orgasmic partner to feel good about themselves, getting past that need, if possible, might make them compatible with a less orgasmic partner without making her miserable. To the extent that's recognizable to a man in that position, it might be something to work on.
232: Oh lord. My mother did this. Also, she calls if I don't take my turn fast enough.
232:
Milty: like, resembling, or full of milt
Milt: the sperm-containing fluid of a male fish.
Suddenly Uncle Milty seems like a very different TV personality.
I found WwF surprisingly stressful. Something about the combination of an indefinite time to make a move, and the sudden challenges from friends.
You've heard nothing at all of the rumors about Uncle Milty?
Counter to the more common scenario, my orgasmocity (nice word, LB) is lower than that of my female partner and she sometimes feels like a failure when I don't come. I've told her it's fine, I have a lot of fun anyway, but she isn't convinced.
Oh, absolutely. If I'm sounding like I'm condemning men with ego invested in their partner's orgasms, I'd probably feel that way if I were in the same position, and would have to work to get over it.
235 to 233.
Side effects of a vasectomy are way less than potential side effects of an IUD.
If we're comparing potential side effects, this is not a true statement.
233 astounds me. I certainly prefer the velvet hammer of the unwrapped man*, but Χesus, the risks!
* Rewritten for NetNanny.
HEAVENS, I NEED TO FAN MYSELF NOW.
Orgasmo City: the happiest place in the world.
I actually have had the same experiences as AWB. Guys who refused to wear condoms or were surprised when I bring up putting one on. Or who said they don't have any (on one occasion, pulled one out after I said we weren't going any further). You're out looking for casual sex! Why would you not think you need some?
As for the SLS issue, I'm kind of on the gf's side. I'm reliable but not from PIV and my bf is kind of insulted. I mean I'm willing to put in some work but I feel like it's going to be 'put this here, and that...right...nope, a little...yep...okay...nope...okay, let's start over' which is not my favourite. I think it's insulting his manhood somewhat; which isn't really my problem. It's the way I've always been. Probably it's not going to change at this point.
'Moleskin dibble' would be more accurate, but only appealing to other gardeners.
245.2: This sounds like Golda Meir's gripe from 76.
Golda Meir's gripe from '73 was more about Syrians and Egyptians.
I know I'm late to the party, but I have a theory about the condom shame/fear theory. My experience has been not that guys refuse to wear a condom during casual sex, but that they wanted to stop using condoms like REALLY EARLY in the relationship. Like they were okay using a condom the first time, but as soon as we get to time #2, they expect me to already be on the pill and be willing to bareback it with them. Which is completely insane. Then they are whining and wheedling and pulling the "i'll pull out before I come, I SWEAR" and I am like DUDE. COME ON.
My theory is that using a condom is shame/fear inducing for a lot of men of my generation because to use a condom, especially when you might know that the woman is on the pill (as most of my peers are) is to acknowledge that you are putting yourself at risk for disease, which makes them think the whole "women are dirty" thing. And also worry that they themselves might be carrying an STI. Which they desperately don't want to think about. So they would rather pretend that the only worry in the world is about getting pregnant and they can fix that somehow either b/c the woman is on hormonal contraception or because they're going to "pull out," and using condoms is a bonerkiller because they want to remain blissfully unaware of the dangers associated with sex and pretend that the woman they're fucking is a perfect virgin.
Martha orgasms fairly reliably, but (1) definitely wants to get off and is at least moderately dissatisfied whenever she doesn't, and (2) only wants to get off from P-I-V sex. Manual stimulation is okay, but P must be I-V. Doing things. Stopping the P-action very quickly drops her O-meter all the way back down to zero.
This can be quite stressful, when she's taking a while to climax and I'm feeling like I... might not take as long.
Extended fooling around before P enters V help any?
Having unprotected sex with a total stranger seems like a terrible idea to me. Maybe that's a generational thing, per 133? All of the women who insisted were younger than me.
Maybe there's another game afoot.
Today, I had drunk sex with a girl that I barely know. I didn't have a condom and was nervous about getting her pregnant, but she assured me that I could pull out. Right when I was about to pull out, she wrapped her legs around me and yelled, "BE MY BABY'S DADDY!" I couldn't get out in time.
251: That's my preference, to give myself a head start on the main event, but Martha usually wants just to get right to it.
(This is a minor gripe, really. As I said, things usually work out.)
offering insights on the pros and cons of various birth control options
For us the tag team play of her getting ablation and me getting a vasectomy is the greatest thing ever. No periods! No birth control! All of the flavor, none of the calories!
Maybe that last one's a stretch.
I'm sure everything related to sex happens at least some times, I'd bet stories like that say more about the various fears of young men than the actual risks they face.
The reason why I have at times insisted on condoms has never had anything to do with fear of AIDS bur rather pregnancy. (Somehow 'Don't worry, I'm totally pro-choice and have no interest in having a kid now' isn't 100% reassuring). AIDS just isn't that high a risk if you look at the stats for random twenty or thirty or forty something straight UMC (ish) women in the US and Europe.
Re: lack of orgasms - she started having them. First once in a while, then almost all the time and often multiple ones. The only problem was that she really disliked having non PIV ones. A problem when other issues came up a number of years later.
Memo to women with a partner with that sort of problem. Insisting that you don't want any intimacy whatsoever, even cuddling or stuff, unless your partner can guarantee everything works properly and getting angry at getting a hug in bed if it doesn't lead to PIV, is not going to be helpful.
256: Ouch. That sounds unpleasant as anything.
256.1 -- as I pointed out upthread, pulling out is almost as effective purely at preventing pregnancy as is condom use. Obviously combining the two is more effective still, and neither is as good as the pill or an IUD.
"Re: orgasms - she started having them. First once in a while, then almost all the time and often multiple ones."
C'mon, is this a humblebrag or WHAT!
There are more STDs out there than AIDS, FWIW. Even if the details of what you're doing make AIDS unlikely, there are plenty of other things worth avoiding.
Right -- the reason to use condoms is disease prevention generally, not just HIV.
Also, lower dry cleaning costs for those in a big hurry.
That moment when your gf is faking an orgasm and you realize it. Discuss.
124: Definitely check out scarleteen.com
I'm in the same position as SLS's partner--I very rarely orgasm, even when solo, due primarily to mental hang-ups dating back to adolescent sexual abuse. My spouse is supportive, but we also rarely have sex. Not really sure what to do about it, frankly.
Everyone using 'orgasm' as a verb is banned.
266 -- sorry to hear that. Good luck in working it out with your spouse; my only advice is to try (it's difficult) to discuss things honestly without freaking out.
267: Indeed, rather than saying that one has "orgasmed," it is more proper to say that one "took a come." (Or two, as the case may be.)
I've skimmed the thread pretty quickly, so this may have been addressed, but on the phenomenon of men resisting condom use (in a casual sexual relationship), I see that the possibility that the man may think the woman is dirty was considered, but I have sometimes thought the man felt that I thought *he* was dirty. As in, possibly infected with something.
That is, in fact, true: he may be, for all I know. I try in those circumstances to be sure to explain that we never know whether one or the other of us -- both of us, each of us! me too! -- might have picked something up from a previous partner. Y'see.
Resistance to condom use because it impedes the man's performance is a separate issue, tougher to deal with.
Somewhat counterintuitively, I've found American men most willing to wrap it up and Australians least willing, with Europeans in the middle, but more towards the Australian side.
I always said that my job was butchering wild primates just to avoid that issue and link condom use to something non-sexual.
170: What's her objection to using a diaphragm?
I've been curious about this for a while now: diaphragms used to be the second most popular form of birth control -- the go-to choice once partners were sure that they were infection-free -- and one scarcely hears a word about them now. I gather there's a higher possibility of misuse, slippage, mis-sizing and so on, but once one becomes familiar with the ways of the thing, they seem fine if an IUD is not desired.
A bit further to 271, I've been trying to find any commonalities among the men I've dated who were resistant to condom use. There weren't many.
Men who were at least 5 years younger, so of a different generation, didn't grow up with the AIDS scare, and figured (I'm guessing) that everybody they might encounter is most likely clean and clear.
And men who just hadn't had a lot of partners, and suffered from a failure of imagination regarding the possibilities from past partners, both his and hers.
Both cases resolve to a failure of imagination about past partners, actually. It seems to me.
Category 3 is of course men who have trouble maintaining an erection while wearing a condom. A whole 'nother story. There's no answer to that other than for both partners to be thoroughly tested first, as far as I know.
parsimon:
It could be sex-ed? We were taught diaphragms weren't all that reliable without spermicide, which seems like kind of a messy hassle. There's also been a big uptick in IUDs (which I have), so maybe they're eating into the diaphragm market. They might still be used by women who don't want hormones and are in a LT relationship and don't want an IUD, but my guess is there are fewer of those women then back when IUDs caused PID.
With sex, I think part of the issue is that there's such a variety of time, energy expenditure, and intensity in various sessions (units?). A 5 minute quickie is very different from an hour plus long session with lots of foreplay and/or variety of positions. I am on the high libido side of things, and I orgasm fairly easily (as long as were oversharing), but sometimes I prefer for sex to be quick and not to orgasm because it's too much work or intensity. I still like the activity and the bonding with my partner, and it's never a situation where I feel like I'm doing it to simply please my partner and certainly never coerced. Quick and perfunctory sex can be like masturbating for tension relief: doesn't replace the longer more intense sessions, but is necessary in its own right as its own thing (at least for me). As for number of times a day, I imagine that depends a lot more on the man and his refractory period. (Also, what counts as sex? 5 handjobs a day would probably take considerably less time than 5 PIV-intercourse sessions.)
Man, has this been a depressing thread.
274 -- I think diaphragms are pretty ineffective; less effective than either condoms or withrawal. The sponge was way worse. IUDS are much better.
Oh, on the gf who doesn't orgasm, I'm actually a little bit with Halford (and Dan Savage) on this one. There's absolutely nothing wrong with not orgasming or wanting to, but if it's really important to Lord Sidcup, then it's important to him. No sense in shaming him out of wanting a partner who orgasms any more than shaming her into feeling inadequate for not being able to orgasm, much like any other sexual preference. It could mean in the long run they're not compatible, or this could not be that important to him. (It's hard for her to be GGG unless she gets really good at faking.)
It's also possible that she could orgasm and would want to, and then the question is, how to get her to orgasm or at least try to orgasm without giving her a complex or shaming her. I think the trick would be to get her to orgasm regularly on her own and then go from there. If she doesn't already have one, she should get a vibrator. She could start solo when no one is around, and then eventually the vibrator could be introduced into foreplay and sex. I agree that if she feels any performance anxiety, it's just going to make the problem worse, but orgasms can be something that once your body knows it knows how to do, it can do them much more easily.
277: You could cheer yourself by writing a post on politics or ecology or the likely results of the combination of the two.
277: Man, has this been a depressing thread.
Why, babe?
280: I wish I had time to write posts any more, but I barely have time even to comment these days.
281: The amount of sexual dissatisfaction/dysfunction floating around in it.
276: my guess is there are fewer of those women then back when IUDs caused PID
True. Certainly in the 80s, and I think into the 90s, IUDs had risks. They don't have many now? I think I see an ad on TV for .. Mirena? .. that lists a whole host of risks.
I think the messiness of using spermicide in a diaphragm has a lot to do with the resistance now. Ew!! For with it's worth, partners can make that sexy.
282.1: It was more of a suggestion that other things are even more depressing.
parsimon,
They redesigned them and made it so they don't give you PIV or increase risk of STDs or infections to the same degree (read something about it in great detail once, too lazy to look it up so I can sound smart on the topic though:) Mirena has a lot of risks because it's hormonal, so it would come with the same disclaimers bc pills do about stroke and blood clots and heart attacks etc. The copper one is basically only a problem if you have a copper allergy, which I don't think is that common. The other risks generally have to do with implantation and it being done poorly, but that's not the fault of the IUD itself.
This thread's just not doing it for Apo, don't shame him about it. I spent 40 minutes reading through it (including following links) and didn't feel a thrill, sometimes you just read a thread for fun without an ultimate goal.
282.2: Oh, the post was an invitation to talk about dysfunction/dissatisfaction, wasn't it? I'm surprised by the number of commenters coming out of the woodwork on the subject. Alameida didn't actually put this on twitter with a hashtag, did she?
278: Less effective than withdrawal might be putting it a little strongly.
I actually found the thread about annoying noises more depressing than this one. Never had I suspected there are people who are actually LESS able to sleep with white noise drowning out the random noises of the night. Maybe I've ruined somebody's sleep patterns with my selfish fan whir.
the messiness of using spermicide in a diaphragm
A fair number of women are also allergic to spermicide. Probably not the funnest place for itching and irritation.
I know we've talked about this before, but the "effectiveness" numbers for condoms vs. other forms of birth control never measure exactly what you think they are. A "failure" with condoms, when considering "typical" use, is that you usually use condoms but decide not to one time. If you're actually using condoms reliably, they compare much better to other methods. Failures of the condom themselves are a lot more rare than failure to use one at all when nominally relying on them.
293: Yeah, it does rather fly in the face of every single thing one was taught about safe sex growing up in the late Eighties / early Nineties.
On the other hand, it validates a whole bunch of what appeared on the surface to be stupid decisions I made in my twenties. So, a conundrum.
297: Well, let's be clear: the link in 212 is about avoiding pregnancy, not about safe sex, where that means avoiding infection. Obviously. I don't see any conundrum. Stupid decisions were made. Oops bad.
Otherwise, what Nathan said, not just for condoms, but also for diaphragm use. I'm a little freaked out that Halford is harping on this "pulling out is better than everything" other than hormones and IUDs.
Would it help if they called it Fabian Birth Control instead of withdrawal?
PULLING OUT IS BETTER THAN EVERYTHING, EVERYTHING EXCEPT NO SEX AT ALL OF COURSE
I believe I meant to post that under a particular pseudonym.
Effectiveness rates are based on a measure of 'this many couples using this method got pregnant in one year', right? With no information about how many times they had sex? Is the reliability then based on the sample size being representative of a general population? I have so many sex stats questions
Plus, I'm freaked out by how many people apparently have never been tested for HIV.
Here you go, Parsi. According to the FDA, condoms are about 97% effective at preventing pregnancy over the course of a year when used perfectly (i.e., without forgetting to use them, as NW mentions above) and withdrawal/pulling out is 96% effective. 81% (withdrawal) vs. 86% (condoms)for the FDA when "typical" use (i.e., normal amount of failure rate) is built in. Diaphragms are at 94% for perfect use, or 80% for imperfect, so are clearly worse.
This study comes up with slightly different numbers and addresses the condom/withdrawal issue in a lot more detail, concluding that withdrawal is almost/roughly as effective as a birth control method as is condom use. Obviously withdrawal can also be combined with other methods and that is a lot more effective.
Anecdata, but withdrawal has performed quite poorly as a birth control method over my many years. Condoms, OTOH, have never let me down.
Condoms, OTOH, have never let me down.
If it's been more than four hours it might be time to see a doctor or buy a bigger size.
Comment 8: "I tried to pull it out, but it's just so damn long."
I tried to pull out but the back seat of a Prius is so small.
Ok, I used withdrawal as my primary form of birth control for about 2 years of regular sex in a monogamous relationship. There was never an accident, and I never had a pregnancy scare. I am allergic to spermicide and react poorly to hormones, and my partner couldn't orgasm with condoms. I actually did research and picked the method after reading the research and realizing they are about equally as effective as condoms and more so than other barrier methods. Because withdrawal is so stigmatized though, I lied about it my friends and my gynecologist, since most people are uninformed and assume only ignorant Christian fundamentalists/Catholics use it, and I wanted to spare myself the annoying lectures.
309: You might want to be aware that leaving an email address can spoil your attempts at anonymity since it shows up when the mouse hovers over the "Posted by:" link. Perhaps one of the blog owners can remove it for you.
Why, essear, I don't know what you're talking about.
Cleanup needed on aisle 272 as well.
That thin layer of anonymity fails again. It's a good thing someone was here to fix things afterwards.
Ah, interesting, never noticed that. Thanks for the heads up. Luckily it's not really anything I'm embarrassed about :)
If you people would just use protection in the first place you wouldn't need to be withdrawing your email addresses.
James B. Shearer is not permitted to comment on Alameida's posts at any time, nor is there any conceivable way he could regain the privilege, as he knows perfectly well. I will keep erasing them in this fashion briefly because I wish to preserve numerical continuity, but if he is unable to self-censor I may have to ban his IP from the blog altogether because I am not awake during the time most commenting takes place and will soon lose patience with this extraordinarily fatuous rudeness.
315
Well yes, but then I would have to admit beforehand that I was planning on over-commenting on a blog late at night. My mother taught me good girls don't do that.
James B. Shearer is not permitted to comment on Alameida's posts at any time, nor is there any conceivable way he could regain the privilege, as he knows perfectly well. I will keep erasing them in this fashion briefly because I wish to preserve numerical continuity, but if he is unable to self-censor I may have to ban his IP from the blog altogether because I am not awake during the time most commenting takes place and will soon lose patience with this extraordinarily fatuous rudeness.
James B. Shearer is not permitted to comment on Alameida's posts at any time, nor is there any conceivable way he could regain the privilege, as he knows perfectly well. I will keep erasing them in this fashion briefly because I wish to preserve numerical continuity, but if he is unable to self-censor I may have to ban his IP from the blog altogether because I am not awake during the time most commenting takes place and will soon lose patience with this extraordinarily fatuous rudeness.
James B. Shearer is not permitted to comment on Alameida's posts at any time, nor is there any conceivable way he could regain the privilege, as he knows perfectly well. I will keep erasing them in this fashion briefly because I wish to preserve numerical continuity, but if he is unable to self-censor I may have to ban his IP from the blog altogether because I am not awake during the time most commenting takes place and will soon lose patience with this extraordinarily idiotic rudeness.
316 - well, yeah, sometimes women do prefer to get sterilised* but given that it's a more complex procedure, generally my feeling is that the woman has already shouldered most of the contraception and conception burden, and it's the man's fucking turn now.
* e.g. when faced with someone like Grover. Or my friend who thinks she would find her husband less attractive if she knew he couldn't give her another baby.
I'm wondering what to do - have had a mirena for 5 years in September and hated having it put it in so much that I told C then he needed a vasectomy. He hasn't, and after the crappy first month, having the mirena has been so easy that I'm kind of tempted to have another one but the thought of having it removed already scares me, let alone having another one put in.
And it's all moot anyway, he's depressed and hasn't wanted to have sex for months. I'm going a bit bonkers.
diaphragms used to be the second most popular form of birth control
Mrs y used a diaphragm for years when we first got together, but she wouldn't dream of not using spermicide with it. Even at that date, when they were the quasi-default option, nobody used them without. AND YES, there was a spermicide she was allergic to and it was twenty kinds of horrible. She got a different one soon enough, but it was a huge hassle and very distressing at the time.
Also, while diaphragms have a lot of functional advantages over condoms, they make impromptu sex even less feasible.
So... yes and no.
322: I don't know how you feel about hormonal birth control (Mirena has it, yeah?), but I really like the birth control implant. I found it mildly painful when they inserted it (but surely better than an IUD!) and then a bit of an annoyance as it healed (it's creepy to have something under your skin, it really is). Since, I've had a bit of disruption with my cycle but it seems to be evening out now, with fewer cramps than before. Other than that, no real side effects, and a better transition than to the Pill.
Years ago I commented using another presidential pseudonym about using withdrawal as a method of birth control with my then boyfriend. Parsimon lectured me in that thread and predicted I would be pregnant within a few years. Still never been pregnant!
OTOH, I share the Al/AWB experience of having been hassled enough about condom use, and in my case it's really degraded my own boundaries about it. I don't have a visceral sense of my own right to insist on it, and I've given in many times over the years. Obviously, in an intellectual sense I know I have a right to insist on anything I like.
I also believe that for many men it drastically reduces sensation. IME men with smaller penises often complain more; I imagine they feel less squeezing and pressure from the vaginal walls and so need more of the soft fluid feeling to achieve orgasm. Some guys just won't be able even to maintain an erection with one on.
I don't mean this to be victim blamey, but I think there are selection biases that determine the kinds of experiences you have, and if het/bi women become friends with people who have similar characteristics, resulting in similar selection biases, then you get clusters of het/bi women whose experiences seem alien to the others.
Years ago I commented using another presidential pseudonym about using withdrawal as a method of birth control with my then boyfriend. Parsimon lectured me in that thread and predicted I would be pregnant within a few years. Still never been pregnant!
OTOH, I share the Al/AWB experience of having been hassled enough about condom use, and in my case it's really degraded my own boundaries about it. I don't have a visceral sense of my own right to insist on it, and I've given in many times over the years. Obviously, in an intellectual sense I know I have a right to insist on anything I like.
I also believe that for many men it drastically reduces sensation. IME men with smaller penises often complain more; I imagine they feel less squeezing and pressure from the vaginal walls and so need more of the soft fluid feeling to achieve orgasm. Some guys just won't be able even to maintain an erection with one on.
I don't mean this to be victim blamey, but I think there are selection biases that determine the kinds of experiences you have, and if het/bi women become friends with people who have similar characteristics, resulting in similar selection biases, then you get clusters of het/bi women whose experiences seem alien to the others.
Boy, Shearer can be an ass (and is really racist) but I had forgotten how obnoxious and privileged I find the Shearer comment-deleting. Ach, well, my problem to solve.
After the singularity, robots solve everything.
329: You don't have to wait for the robots, to solve everything.
Huh. Do I want to know why it's supposed to be "obnoxious and privileged" to delete the comments of someone as obnoxious and privileged as Shearer? Hmmmm... no. I guess I don't.
I think 'privileged' is the right word, but not obnoxious. The people who keep the blog running by putting up posts have the privilege of doing what they find necessary to make it an emotionally tolerable process. For Al, that means not listening to Shearer on her posts. It's not about fair, or free speech, or anything, it's about it being her turf, and therefore her call.
330: I'd either never heard of the fellow or more likely heard of him in some context and forgotten. But lawyer turned mathematical pioneer--a worthy model for the Unfoggedtariat.
In fact there should be a Unsung Heroes of the Unfoggedtariat series. In the French division, I also nominate Boris Vian:
On the morning of 23 June 1959, Boris Vian was at the Cinema Marbeuf for the screening of the film version of I Spit on Your Graves. He had already fought with the producers over their interpretation of his work, and he publicly denounced the film, stating that he wished to have his name removed from the credits. A few minutes after the film began, he reportedly blurted out: "These guys are supposed to be American? My ass!" He then collapsed into his seat and died from sudden cardiac death en route to the hospital.
"privileged"?
who is behaving in a privileged way? there would be no need for ostentatious deletion if he had the common sense and courtesy to comment in a different thread on this very same blog. I'm surprised, sifu; I'm very fond of you. why would you say something so unpleasant?
I'll admit I was incredulous about withdrawal, but if responsible studies say it works, fair enough, nice to know. That being said, though, the caveats to it seem rather big.
From the first link in 304:
Pullin' out. (96% effective when used perfectly / 81% effective when used imperfectly) I'm shocked it's this high. For all the hype about how pregnancy can happen accidentally even before ejaculation, as long as a guy's got supreme pullin' out discipline, it's only ONE percent less effective than condoms.
"As long as a guy's got supreme pullin' out discipline." I'll bet a lot of adults don't have that, let alone teens. And while, sure, if that's the agreed-upon plan the man should really try to follow it, that's a lot of blind trust to place in someone unless you already know them very well.
Put it another way: it's nice to know that withdrawal has been unfairly denigrated for the purpose of preventing pregnancy. However, I don't see anything saying it's effective at preventing disease transmission, and it's the hardest kind to verify the use of in advance, so it still shouldn't be recommended to kids or people with new partners.
Yeah, I just can't get over the amount of trust in the man's competence/self-awareness, let alone goodwill, you'd need to use withdrawal for casual sex.
I'll bet a lot of adults don't have that, let alone teens.
It also raises felicific issues in which the woman is significantly disadvantaged in some cases.
That is an entirely new word to me. Neat.
333. Painleve was a very good mathematican who became Prime Minister; I nominate Grigori Perelman for the Russian edition. Gaston Julia was another very good mathematician who lost his nose in WWI. Paul Levy was a mathematician who produced brilliant work in midlife, a hopeful figure for the middle-aged everywhere.
And it's all moot anyway, he's depressed and hasn't wanted to have sex for months. I'm going a bit bonkers.
Ack - everything okay, Asilon? Obviously not, but everything somewhat okay?
338 Probably invented by Bentham. I doubt he had this conversation in mind.
341: But in reading that article, the condom question would be a good application. "My hedons are more important than your dolors."
That'd make a great bumpersticker. You'd need to cut people off a lot, though.
335,
Exactly. It's not a birth control method that should be widely used, and is definitely not great for many people. In the specific cases where it could be used though, it isn't all that less effective then many more reputable methods. In terms of pre-ejaculate, the likelihood of containing sperm is extremely low. The problem is generally if the man ejaculates and then has sex again, leftover sperm mixes with the pre-ejaculate and could get a woman pregnant.
Right. The withdrawal conversation came up here w/r/t a (presumably at least 30s) long time married couple where the guy was so unhappy wearing a condom he didn't want to have sex, but also didn't want a vasectomy. In that situation you might as well use withdrawal and it's a little silly to insist in condoms -- the added pain in the ass factor if condoms is clearly not worth it. Obviously that says nothing about whether withdrawal is a good idea for teens or for casual sex partners where there's not a decent amount of trust already.
||
Somebody at Kids Exchange International ("Home of the Nation's Largest Consignment Event!") should have consulted me before they chose their URL.
|>
Also, before they chose the font and spacing for their sign.
343: You'd need to cut people off a lot, though.
Jeez, we just had the circumcision debate!
And it's not like the name itself isn't a bit ambiguous (yes, I know they knew that).
Home of the Nation's Largest Consignment Event
"There's never a fee unless we get money for your kid!"
Would it possibly be a better solution for Al to get one of those filters where she doesn't have to read him? I seriously don't get him on a lot of stuff but he comments in good faith/is not the ToS. Deleting all of one person's comments on selected threads feels not really in line with (ok, my perception of) the tone of this place, though I'm a relative newcomer so, y'know, have some salt. I do feel like I'm missing parts of the conversation.
After that terrible people thread last week in which the article about marauding late-thirtysomething women was discussed, I had a girls' night with two mid- to late-thirtysomething women, both mothers, who both admitted that they were using withdrawal as their birth control method. Just like in the article! Except that no one shamed anyone else about it.
325: Parsimon lectured me in that thread and predicted I would be pregnant within a few years.
Ouch. I have no memory of that. Sorry about that -- how rude of me. I can only guess that I was alarmed on your behalf.
'Sokay. The apology is appreciated!
340 - somewhat okay is a good description. I've stopped wanting to kill him since he got some anti-depressants (I don't think I'm very supportive, which probably doesn't help!), but I seem to have developed the libido, and frustration, of a 14 year old boy.
355: I'm sorry, asilon. I've had to live through a little of that sort of thing in the last year, and the difficult parts are difficult.
I was, though, musing last night on the reasons for my strong feelings against the withdrawal method and in favor of condoms (until such time as both parties have been tested for all STDs, whereupon another birth control method should be used, I feel): it's anecdotal, in the way of these things.
A high school friend who pretty much used withdrawal was looking at her third abortion by the time she was 27 -- fortunately, she got married a year or so later, and they began having kids. I, in my mid-twenties, dated a guy, and upstanding, educated man, grad student in the German Dept., for about 8 months who turned out to have herpes -- fortunately, I hadn't contracted anything, but man, was I pissed off at him for failing to disclose. At least 4 of my college friends got pregnant at some point during college -- fortunately, abortion was available and accessible. Lastly, my brother is HIV+ -- though that has nothing to do with birth control.
Anyway, anecdata are worth everything or nothing. In my own case, the lesson is kind of staring me in the face.
351, 358: Not that I have any objection to either of you saying what you like about it, but I don't believe that there's much point to discussing this. The blog is an arbitrarily (albeit minimally) governed dictatorship (or whatever you call it when it's a junta rather than a single dictator), and decisions of anyone with keys to the blog are going to stand.
I very much agree with 327 and 351. Obviously, deleters gonna delete, but (sorry, LB!) I'm still going to note my discomfort with it.
359: So, what, nobody's ever changed their mind after having a discussion?
For example! I used to be totally on-board with disemvowelment, but discussions I've read of it elsewhere have convinced me that it's actually a really horrible idea. And so I'm on board with 327/351/360.
(Ma/rk L/iberman's habit at L/ang/uage Lo/g of responding to comments via edits, rather than discrete comments, similarly bugs me.)
Let me put it another way -- it's Al's decision, and I don't believe anyone else with keys is going to step in. I'm certainly not. So any persuasion on that front should be directed specifically to her, if you want it to have any chance of being effective. My guess is that there's not much likelihood of flex on this one, but again, up to her.
Yeah, but I figured I'd say it. Saying it is a thing that is done here.
I guess I'll chime in with 360, as well. I know we don't own the microphone here, but just giving Al something like that thing Tweety has that hides all of Bob's posts just for Tweety without deleting them for everyone else seems like a better solution.
(It wasn't much meant as persuasion.)
responding to comments via edits, rather than discrete comments, similarly bugs me
This one annoys me a lot as well. I think it looks reasonable to academics, maybe? That's who I've noticed responding that way. And it doesn't seem actually wrong to me, I just get really confused and irritated.
What's responding to comments via edits? You mean by using strikeouts on the original comment, and substituting other words? That doesn't seem quite like what's meant.
368: It's appending the response at the bottom of the specific comment that's being responded to. I dislike it 'cause it's a gratuitous display of authority and sends the message that the poster doesn't consider him- or herself part of the blog community.
Ah. Thanks. I'm not sure I've seen that.
Agreed. People who respond to selected comments by editing the OP are more culpable IMO, as they send the message that these are the comments worthy of your attention, and you're not fit to judge for yourself. Doesn't happen here, obvs, but commoner than it should be.
I used to be totally on-board with disemvowelment, but discussions I've read of it elsewhere have convinced me that it's actually a really horrible idea.
What convinced you? I haven't thought about it much, but disemvowelment has always seemed like a reasonable tactic when used judiciously.
372: I don't know what Josh meant, but I sure spend a lot of time looking at disemvoweled comments because my brain insists on deciphering them.
||
And speaking of comments, why does the act of commenting here appear to disable the back button in Chrome under Win7, but not in other browsers/OSs?
|>
374: Probably because of a "Report Form Data" thing. That is, if you comment here and hit "back," it is looking back and what you typed in the comment box.
372: People pointed out that it's far more invasive and prone to abuse than other moderation tactics. It screams "look at me! I've moderated something here!" in a way that other methods don't.
I'm a fan of Pauly Shoring, but that might not be a generalizable method.
375. Do you think so? Uniquely on this site and under that combination of browser/OS? How would that work?
I think that's the point. When someone's at the point when deleting their comments would be justified, deleting or banning often turns into a war: "Look, you wanted to forbid me from posting in your thread, but I (changed my IP address/posted when you weren't around to delete/did something else clever). As long as my comment is visible, I win, you lose." And if you hit someone who likes that kind of thing, they can be very very persistent.
Disemvoweling, on the other hand, seems in practice not to elicit that kind of persistent response, possibly because people do feel silly having posted something that has obviously been the subject of 'disciplinary' moderation, particularly given that the original meaning is available to anyone interested so they can tell if the comment was in any sense worth posting, or if it was just pissiness.
I wouldn't disemvowel other than as an alternative to deleting, but I don't think there's anything wrong with it.
379: I really have no idea except that on some computers I get "Report Form Data, Yes/No" if I hit "Back" after commenting.
My position is surely not shocking, but just figured I'd go on record as supportive of Al's decision, rather than merely support her by email with all the lurkers. If I understand correctly, this is Al's response to what she feels was abusive conduct directed at her in the past. Given that understanding, she has three choices: (1) post personal stuff and subject herself to abuse; (2) post personal stuff and protect herself from abuse by locking the door to someone she feels has been abusive to her; or (3) not post personal stuff. I personally have a strong, selfish preference for (2) over (3). And who the hell am I or anyone else to pressure Al to go with (1)?
If we really want Al (or any of the front-pagers, really) to post shit, we have to respect their boundaries for what makes this a safe space for them to post shit. Guests in someone else's home, and so forth.
376: It screams "I mock thee, publicly! Verily I do!" which is a little different from simply deleting comments.
I thought disemvoweling had more or less gone out of style. I saw it on Obsidian Wings (which I haven't looked at in ages) and Making Light. The moderation on the latter is heavy-handed, and congratulates itself on that.
As long as my comment is visible, I win, you lose.
I'm just an unfrozen caveman lawyer commenter who has never had his own blog, but it is painfully obvious that regardless of what happened to blow that particular fuse in a commenter's brain, after it is blown the question isn't about free speech. It's about keeping a functioning environment for discussion. Anyway, I endorse 332.
I've heard the theory in 380.2, but is there any evidence that it's effective, especially against would-be persistent trolls?
380: Except that disemvowelment doesn't, in practice, get used as an alternative to deleting comments wholesale; it gets used as a finer editing tool, and by its nature encourages use that way. (Which makes sense, if you think about its origins.) But that kind of fine-grained editing for content (rather than deleting outright) is IME a shitty way to moderate. It's way too easy for a mod to get personally invested in editing.
And I've seen plenty of people get disemvoweled over and over and over again, so I don't think I agree that it avoids the problem of persistence.
Well, I've literally never seen a disemvoweling battle, and I've seen a bunch of deletion battles. It makes sense to me.
387: It's also visibly fairer. If you've deleted a comment, maybe it was just because you're afraid of the superior logic and devastating rhetoric of the commenter. If it's disemvoweled, anyone who cares can see what the comment was worth.
It screams "I mock thee, publicly! Verily I do!" which is a little different from simply deleting comments.
Yup. In exactly that nerdy tone of voice.
It's also visibly fairer. If you've deleted a comment, maybe it was just because you're afraid of the superior logic and devastating rhetoric of the commenter. If it's disemvoweled, anyone who cares can see what the comment was worth.
I would say that if you've gotten to the point where this is relevant, you're already fucked. The way to be seen as a fair-minded mod is to be a fair-minded mod; and even when you end up in deletion wars, it pretty quickly becomes obvious who's being reasonable and who isn't.
For the record, I think it's really jerky of Shearer to keep commenting on alameida's posts when he's been asked not to. I also have a kneejerk "that's not playing nice!" response to alameida's text substitutions, but it's a good reminder to me that every time she's had to do that it's because he's chosen to be deliberately hurtful, which is much worse. There would be a very easy way not to have to have this problem, and I think Shearer is clearly the one who's not willing to make that happen.
(Not wanting that to sound sanctimonious or imply that all others are implicitly saying they support him in email or anything like that. But for me, I go through a string of emotions when I see one of the comment substitutions and that's where I end up.)
390 is about what I was going to say -- I appreciate dismvoweling because I want to know what was cut (if I have any investment in the commenting community). Sometimes someone can rephrase a real objection and get around tone and it's all a learning experience. Sometimes I realize I disagree with the blog and leave. Sometimes the whole blog explodes and dies. Voice, choice, exit, demolitions, hey.
Also, "I mock thee, publicly!" --- wait, who here is against that? Pauly Shoring is great.
392: I don't think so, particularly when you've got a site with people who aren't perfectly homogenous in their views. Think Crooked Timber, where they do disemvowel. They've got plenty of commenters who'd be willing to presume bad faith in deletion, which is harder when the comment reads "Yr ll ppyhds!"
Oh, and back to the really important stuff: I was under the impression that pulling out wasn't any fun for the guy, either, to the point that retraction vs. condom would be something of a wash. Obviously a matter of personal preference, but is it a rare one? Dependent on taste in pr0n? So useful to have all y'all to ask.
I was under the impression that pulling out wasn't any fun for the guy
Yeah, it's a bit anticlimactic.
400: And a comment which would be totally destroyed by disemvoweling.
I imagine pulling out would be most reliable if you did it porn movie style: withdraw well in advance and the masturbate until you ejaculate on some part of your partners body. But that seems like it would be really weird to do in real life. Your partner would be like "I'm waiting" and you'd be like "Just smile and look pretty, I'll be done in a second." Its weird enough when they do it in porn.
I suppose there might be ways of making it more fun.
Yeah, there are. Or is that just me?
||
Just how morbid is it reasonable to be, given all of the important people in my life who've died recently? Plus all of the other crazy trauma, a bunch of which I haven't even mentioned here?
I haven't been feeling actively suicidal, but I do think a lot about my own death and funeral and legacy and stuff. It's all well and good to say "live for today" and never think about that kind of thing, but that's just not realistic for me. And it's kind of crazy how much gets left unsaid, not just between close relatives, but even fairly casual friends. I want people to know that I really treasure their help and love and friendship now, and after I'm gone.
I've been trying to let people know that, as much as seems reasonable. I don't want to be some weirdo walking around talking about how much I loved you and how you should remember that after I'm dead. That would be creepy.
Sigh. It's too hot. Even today.
||>
Natilo, that sounds like a very reasonable response to grief and trauma, not in itself a sign that something deeper is wrong.
That's what I hope.
Things that made me happy recently:
1. Seeing three teenagers playing in the huge downpour I got caught in on my way to my friend's memorial last Friday.
2. Two Somali kids, 8 or 9 year old brother and sister, who were each getting a new bike at Target.
3. Younger friend I hired to work on the school newspaper as a cub reporter telling me about her high-powered legal career.
Or is that just me?
We'd need to run some controlled experiments, but I'm not sure I can pull off the trans-Atlantic ejaculation any longer. Man, I miss being 19.
FWIW, I treasure your presence here, Nat. Treasure the whole lot of you, really. (Perhaps in varying degrees, sure.) Thanks for the reminder to remember that
There's really no good way to handle comment moderation at all. Or, to say the same thing more positively, the best option depends on the people and blog involved. 371, for example, seemed ambiguous. If "editing the OP" merely means posting updates, then that sounds harmless to me if used properly, for actual corrections and updates as facts develop and such. But if used to argue with a commenter, it sounds so dumb I almost can't imagine it. What a mess that would cause, even if the blogger is actually correct, which seems unlikely if they're dumb enough to do that.
And then there's "editing the OP" while not making it clear that it had been edited, which wouldn't lead to the same problem as mentioned in 372, but seems even worse than arguing with a commenter in the OP. Orwellian.
406: Glad to hear it's not quite as bad as 404 made it sound. As sad as circumstances have been for you lately, this doesn't sound to me like the sign of anything even worse. (But then, what do I know, etc.) Good luck.
Telling people you value them isn't creepy, Natilo. Also, very sorry that you've had a traumatic year. Also, I value your posts and hope to read them for a long time to come.
It doesn't always work to not plan for our mortality. I have neighbor/friends dealing with that right now -- wondering when to have the discussion about when/whether to resuscitate. It's obvious that the issue could come up any minute, but they don't want to have the hard talk while the family is stressed by the illness in question. Er, everyone here has a living will, medical power of attorney as appropriate, etc etc?
Some moderation tactics should scream "Look at me! I've moderated something here!" Al's approach to Shearer seems perfectly suitable to me -- kills two birds with one stone, both deleting trollery and posting a reminder -- and nicer at any rate than just banning his IP altogether (which I have to admit I would've done a long time ago in her circumstances... although for me it would no doubt be more on account of his openly and unrepentantly racist views, which by the way a site sends a certain kind of message by tolerating).
404: Mostly echoing what others have said: it's not very extraordinarily morbid to do some thinking about death. Most people do it, I'd wager, more than they talk openly about. Certainly I've done it, even in the happiest of times, and it's natural for it to come to mind more in the presence of grief and the loss of close friends.
Telling people you value them isn't creepy, Natilo. Also, very sorry that you've had a traumatic year. Also, I value your posts and hope to read them for a long time to come.
This, big time. Though I completely sympathize with worrying that expressing one's sincere feelings of closeness and affection might weird people out; I struggle with that particular anxiety, myself.
I do hope things start to turn around for you, Nat; it's been heartbreaking hearing about the stuff going on in your life of late.
Nat, after a death in my close family this spring, I spent some time being mad about mortality and knowing that we were all going to die and being scared of it. I was mad, too, and wanted my innocence and ability to disregard death to come back. Of course you're hurting and aware. I'm so sorry and wish you comfort.
There's really no good way to handle comment moderation at all.
Unfogged, in my opinion, has perfected the art of comment moderation. Even more than the genuine brilliance of the front page posters and the cleverness of the commenters, astute comment moderation defines the genius that is Unfogged.*
alameida has chosen to import one of Crooked Timber's moderation methods here, and while the CT methods are very good, they are inferior (from my perspective) to those of Unfogged. I understand that these things are necessarily a matter of taste, and by stating my own taste, I'm not attempting to identify a universal standard.
openly and unrepentantly racist views, which by the way a site sends a certain kind of message by tolerating
I just love me some meta threads!* For my part, I am okay with the tolerance of racism and sexism here, but I freely acknowledge that my attitude on this is colored by my ignorance and my privilege.
I'm a middle-aged white guy who can be offended by the Bell Curve stuff without being personally offended by it. And it interests me to know how these people think. And Steve Sailer's site (for example) is a cesspool that I've got no desire to wade in. So I find it useful to get a taste of it here.
A woman or a minority member isn't going to have any use for this, given that they experience it all the time. I understand that.
*I am being serious and entirely unironic.
Aw, shucks. Our comment moderation certainly produces its fair share of trainwrecks, but I do think there's something right about how we run this place generally; it's stayed alive and interesting longer than most online communities do.
Probably the unseen presence of Ogged (PBUH) watching over us.
416.latter: Yeah, we have had lively disagreements about sexism here, but most of them don't run so far right on the continuum that we have regular commenters who would actually profess to believe that women, say, are inherently stupider than men or secretly wish to be raped.
Shearer's views on race inhabit a part of that continuum that's tantamount to being just that primitive. It is of course not a very personal issue to most other Caucasians, and frankly I have a thick enough skin (and view Shearer in a comical enough light) that I don't even think about it that often. When one does think about it, however, it's actually a bit creepy, and I have a feeling that most bloggers do not really sense that tolerating such openly toxic people sends a tacit message to potential non-white commenters that the site's proprietors may not necessarily "have their backs," as it were*. TBH I think that's potentially a part of why the 'Tariat is as mostly-white as it is.
[* Of course, on better acquaintance with the front-page posters here, one of course knows that this is not really the dynamic. Unfogged's front-pagers and most of its regulars are lovely people, or I wouldn't come here. But if I didn't know them as well, I would certainly find it off-putting.]
but most of them don't run so far right on the continuum that we have regular commenters who would actually profess to believe that women, say, are inherently stupider than men
I think Shearer qualifies on this front as well. In the whole Larry Summers mealymouthed kind of way, but that's pretty much where he is on race too.
And you think the non-banning of Shearer might have created a hostile environment for non-white commenters? Man, I hope you're wrong about that -- I'm going to have to think about it.
I am okay with the tolerance of racism and sexism here
I'll nitpick you word choice, perhaps, but generally agree with the sentiment -- and I have only 2/3 the privilege you have. I'm not entirely sure "tolerated" is the right word for how racism and sexism are treated here. I mean, it's not like that stuff is quietly ignored. It gets called out regularly, and dissected. There is some value in that dissection, I think.
419: I'm not sure, myself. Certainly I've seen far worse places for it; Shearer at least is one guy here, where in a different setting he'd more likely represent a salient. (I spent some time on the Brainstorm comments threads in the wake of the Naomi Schafer Riley controversy; very illuminating.)
420: There's genuine value in dissecting the subtler forms of avoidance and blindness and unthinking privilege, I think. I'm not convinced of such value with respect to cruder prejudice; the cost of spending one's time engaging such people, or being seen to indulge them, can outweigh the benefits.
420 posted before I read 418. 421.2 is well-taken.
420 posted before I read 418. 421.2 is well-taken.
So well-taken, I felt it bore repeating.
Through a series of improbable events too lengthy to go into here, a woman is living with me this week.
I guess we've moved on from this by now, but surely I'm not the only one who wants more details about the story behind 15.
Oops. Didn't mean to distract from 418/21, which are worth mulling over.
The moderation on the latter is heavy-handed, and congratulates itself on that.
It has been rather a while since I looked at Making Light (cough Racefail cough), but I have the impression that many of the discussions there not about exhuming the rot of old fandom resentments were about comment moderation and the failure of certain participants to "get" that making fun of C/or/y D/octo/ro/w was worse than murder.
I am being serious and entirely unironic.
Politicalfootball is banned.
"the non-banning of Shearer might have created a hostile environment for non-white commenters? "
hoho, JBS got banned? great it's not just me and ToS then, i hope LC and BMcM will get banned too so that it's fair
all others are all the same monotonous UMC/MC whites, repeating or flattering each other, whom to ban else, nobody
any kind of moderation is off-putting, those moderating people could have been great censors in nazi germany or soviet russia
418: and view Shearer in a comical enough light
This is really the key for me. I rarely read Shearer's comments in any case.
But do you think that unfogged would be a more inviting place for non-white commenters if Shearer were gone? I wouldn't have thought so. Rather, as much as I hate to say this, unfogged is just awash with white privilege, conscious or unconscious, whether Shearer is here or not. That's how it seems to me, anyway. That might be just because there are so few non-white people here.
Perhaps I should say that it's awash with UMC privilege, which is, sadly, almost the same thing?
Never forget that the blog was founded by a Mexican, Parsi.
404: My caveats about thinking about death, loss, the meaning of life, and all that are: Don't do it while navigating busy streets, chopping veggies, or cleaning guns. Otherwise, have at it. Things will become clearer if you chew on them some.
IMX the depth of the sadness doesn't lessen, it just hits less frequently. It's two days to the DE's birthday, the second one since she died. I know I'm going to get hit hard again Saturday, but this time I know I'll get through it.
432: I never forget ogged, are you kidding? Maybe ogged would have banned Shearer. I'm just not sure it would help.
432: Who wasn't averse to passing himself off as white.
419.2: I am white, but there are definitely times I haven't said something in a thread because I didn't want to have to hear Shearer's response about my kid or whatever.
435: Passing himself off?
Uh-oh. This is best left alone.
Maybe ogged would have banned Shearer.
That would never have happened even if ogged had reigned for a hundred kazillion years. It's hard to think of anything less in character. Putting on makeup and heels to perform a heavily Russian-accented version of "I Enjoy Being a Girl" in a drag show, mmmmaybe. But it's close.
hi natilo, we love you and would all miss you--of course you feel sad with so much death going on around you, I think it's normal.
402: dude, what? that shit is fun in real life, all day long. if you're going to practice withdrawal as birth control you might as well enjoy it. and even if not...however, when come gets in your eye it stings so fucking bad. so maybe just close them at the last minute.
re: shearer. even if castock isn't right that tolerating shearer's presence is keeping minorities away from the blog, it seems likely that the guest posts could be. what would we think of a site with guest posts by steve sailer? I've always held back on that because I think if I'm not contributing enough to keep the blog going day-by-day I shouldn't have much say in what appears on the front page, but it's iffy.
and finally, this moderation seems like the most minimal step for me to take--I'm just reminding him to comment in other threads rather than mine, he's perfectly capable of doing it. stripping his comments out of my visual stream but leaving them in the thread would be unsatisfactory because people respond to him and then I'd either find out what he said or wonder. I just don't want him to talk about it. there's the whole rest of the blog to talk on. he shouldn't have twisted that knife so far in my guts he snapped the handle off the blade that one time if he wanted to be my pal.
430: But do you think that unfogged would be a more inviting place for non-white commenters if Shearer were gone?
Yeah, maybe not. It could indeed be giving him too much credit as a factor. But if it's noticeable by a relatively insensitive bastard like myself, I'm assuming it's noticeable to others. The lurkers have provided me no support in e-mail about this, I'm just spitballing; perhaps some of them would care to comment here.
Perhaps I should say that it's awash with UMC privilege
I think it would be good if unfogged attracted a more diverse crowd, and it's good when people point out the ways in which the commentariat tends to be homogenous (and, parsimon, there was a recent thread in I really appreciated you commenting on the amount of energy people we spending talking about the top 20%, and I meant to thank you at the time and didn't, so thanks.)
On the other hand, one of the strengths and joys of unfogged is the way in which it's cultivated a community, and references to, "the hivemind" are a compliment. There's a pretty clear set of cultural reference points that help map that community and that's a weakness but it's also a strength.
It's always hard to keep a sense of being a tightly-knit group without becoming insular, and I don't have any particular advice but I think it's worth saying, from time to time, that I like the community here, and think it's a credit to the various people who have shaped the blog.
439.3 is a good point, I was forgetting about the guest posts.
I got banned months ago, and I don't seem to realize that it was a permanent ban. Therefore, when I show up yet again, I am still banned.
439L it seems likely that the guest posts could be
True. I cringe a bit at those.
wicky wicky scratch wicky wicky wicky scratch
bring that beat back!
and references to, "the hivemind" are a compliment
Is "hivemind" specific to the Mineshaft? I use it for addressing questions to my Facebook friends. Many of whom are not on Unfogged.
Apologies for "L" typo in 444.
Castock, thanks for bringing this up. If there are lurkers out there thinking along the same lines, please speak up. This place is way too caucasian. (We may be too deep into the thread for lurkers to be following by now.)
Lurkers are thrown by numbers over 412.
Is "hivemind" specific to the Mineshaft?
Not in my idiolect. In an internet cutlure context, I first remember reading about it here:
http://www.kk.org/outofcontrol/ch2-b.html
446: Lifehacker uses the term. I've seen it other places too.
There are millions of Google hits for "hive mind" and "hivemind".
It looks like the term was first coined by one H.J. Wadey in a book about beekeeping in the mid-40's, and had spread to science fiction by 1957.
Is "hivemind" specific to the Mineshaft?
As several people have pointed out, no it isn't. But my point stands anyway, I think.
124: I can't say enough about the value of watching TV with your kids for teachable moment opportunities. Degrassi has pretty much guided the curriculum in my household. The fact that we've had real talks about stuff that even now I can't imagine discussing with my mom makes me really happy.
I can't say enough about the value of watching how carefully you can dump the bathroom trash can into the garbage bag given how kids often forget exactly where the TP goes after use.
Into the toilet of course. The more the better!
457: So . . . we're all a bunch of self-righteous intolerant hypocrites who love to wallow in icky nasty sex talk, and . . . what exactly is it that keeps you coming back?
458: It's a valiant but doomed attempt to return "Mongolian idiot" to common usage.
460: is mine. Do feel free to tsk, tsk, not that I'll give the slightest damn.
460 is understandable, but I'm not sure it's OK, even here.
463: Yeah, I'd say it merits at least a tsk or two. I'm sure her trollish tendencies have nothing to do with her national origin or ethnic heritage.
Look, here's what I like about unfogged: the folks here are willing to consider the merits of just about any argument you wish to put forward so long as you present it in a thoughtful, respectful manner, with bonus points for being clever or witty. We can pick nits with the best of 'em, and nobody can split hairs as finely as the unfoggetariat. Along with this comes a spirit of irreverence, and a lot of tongue-in-cheek comments that would be offensive had they been intended to be taken literally, but which are wonderful when read in the spirit in which they were intended. All of this only works if you assume that the other commenters are acting in good faith in the same sort of spirit until proven otherwise, and so there is very little tolerance for personal antagonism or ad hominem attacks. But other than that, anything goes.
Anyway, that's what keeps me coming back. I can't imagine why people who don't enjoy that sort of thing would be drawn here. If this sort of environment is not for you, then it's not for you. The internet is wide, and there are niches to suit any taste imaginable. Go find people whose company you enjoy, and enjoy yourself.
Perhaps I should say that it's awash with UMC privilege
It certainly does help for participation in threads to be in the position of sitting in front of a computer all day.
425: Four weeks ago we met at a BBQ given by a mutual friend, and spent nearly the entire time talking to each other. At midnight I received an email from her asking me out (she'd got it from another mutual friend). We went out to a bar and watched Germany lose to Italy. Two days later it was at her place, watching DVDs and having long, pleasant chats in between. Eventually the making out started, albeit with very slow progressions from one base to the next. Before we knew it, it was dark (which in northern Europe in the summer means it's very late indeed), so she invited me to stay the night, but no sex, ok? Sure, no problem. We spooned and talked about nothing in particular, and would drift off to sleep, to be awoken here and there by the thunderstorm, mumble reassuring nonsense to each other and drift back to sleep again. When Sunday morning came, we were kissing with morning breath, feeling as though we'd known each other for a year. She told me that she had never been with a man before, and would not until she was married. I stared at the ceiling for a while, and told her that that's going to make things quite impossible between us, and in any case I'm not looking for anything long term right now. She left, and I heard her crying from the other room. There was a long, difficult goodbye, and I left her place in a daze. We didn't talk for a few days after that, but then she came by my office to try to sort out what happened. We agreed then that we really enjoy each other's company, and would spend the remaining time together, with no expectations and no strings attached, until she goes home, a far-away land in the vicinity of Narnia for a month.
She'd been spending the weekends at my place, but this week she started subletting her own place, so that's why she moved in with me for a bit. Ramadan started today, and I ate my breakfast in front of her and felt a bit guilty.
Ramadan started today, and I ate my breakfast in front of her and felt a bit guilty.
I have been reassured several times by those observing Ramadan that guilt is exactly wrong. You are giving her an opportunity to reinforce her religious practice.
It certainly does help for participation in threads to be in the position of sitting in front of a computer all day.
Technology is going to make this interesting. Now that texting is big, many people with non-desk jobs are chatting with their friends all day in any spare seconds they have. I expect it will only get easier to participate in broader discussions as time goes on; consider when something like Google Glass is cheap and the kid working the register at McDonalds is live-commenting her entire workday.
466: Wow, roller-coaster. Enjoy this month!
468: On really hot Friday evenings, I put on some nice shorts and a light shirt. Then I go stand outside the synagogue where the men wear big black hats and coats go.
I was going to stand on the sidewalk outside the Baptists' church drinking beer but it turns out that, by a strict interpretation of the law, you can't drink on the sidewalk.
Ramadan! Ramadan!
Lots of praying and no breakfast!
Ramadan! It's just like a mini-mall.
thanks, I was here first, actually, so I think I'll just stoke the raging fires of my personal antagonism so as to fuel ad hominem attacks. and as long as they're well banked, I can now direct the heat at a large, baffling and painful selection of people who have sided with james b. shearer over me in the question, "should james b. shearer be allowed to post comments on my threads after I asked him not to do so, very politely and repeatedly, starting in october?" this may have happened because of a mysterious comment moderating program distributed only to some members of the unfoggedtariat: people like sifu, smearcase, PGD, oudemia, and halford, who appear to have been given a program in which a simulated shearer is not a racist, sexist, pitiless and mordant bastard like the one me and di kotimy, thorn, lord castock, moby, and L. know.
I'm interested to learn more about the shearerAI they know and (apparently) love, and its properties. what sorts of humor, personal insights and high-quality writing does the shearerAI bring to this parallel unfogged, such that one would reflexively side with it over me on the question of whether I could make the most minimal restriction on the shearerAI's commenting ability--that it not post on the 1 post out of 20 that I write.
tia knows the real shearer but cracked me the hell up in 438.
the rest of y'all motherfuckers enlighten me. are you confused about free speech like 14-year-old libertarians? this is very unlike all of you, in various unlike ways. seriously, what the hell? there was no point in bringing it up but to convince me, as LB noted. so get out there and make with the jazz hands. convince.
It's just like a mini-mall.
Now that takes me back...
so get out there and make with the jazz hands
In fact, everyone should make with the jazz hands. Jazz hands just make you feel better. Heck, I'm making with the jazz hands right now.
478: Thanks for that delineation of who's on whose side. That will surely be helpful going forward.
If this is the designated thread for getting all meta about Unfogged, I'll just note that in my illustrious career of wasting time on the internet I've found this place to be fairly unique as online spaces go.
Part of that is that the active commenters all sort-of know each other (if only in the fake cyber-friend sense), so discussions can be less guarded than usual.
That moderation is more or less arbitrary and there is no actual "policy" is also probably part of it.
As far as being too homogeneous, that's probably true but at the same time I don't think it's automatically a bad thing that certain venues attract certain types of people (procrastinators, lawyers and academics in the case of Unfogged, it seems). It would be nice to have more diversity, but not at the cost of altering the basic tone of the place.
To give an example of what I mean by unique, I can contrast Unfogged with some of the larger feminist websites that I sometimes lurk in. There have been what seemed to me like very valuable discussions here of pretty sensitive topics (e.g. sexual assault, among others) that I think would have been practically impossible at those other sites despite their orientation.
Not sure that I'm going anywhere with this except yay Unfogged.
re: 481
I've picked up a guitar and started playing I Got Rhythm, does that count?
I FEEL EXCLUDED.
thanks, I was here first, actually, so I think I'll just stoke the raging fires of my personal antagonism so as to fuel ad hominem attacks.
Just to clear up any misunderstanding, nothing in 464, and especially not 464.last, was directed at you, alameida. Rather, it was directed in particular at the erstwhile commenter that was the target of 460, and more broadly at trolls in general and all those who show up with the primary goal of antagonizing others. I haven't been a regular enough commenter lately to know all the ins-n-outs of what's gone down between you and Shearer, but if you feel that Shearer fits in that category and banning him from your threads is the right thing to do, then have at it.
484: Yes! Yes, that counts!
We're one step closer to the Unfogged music video that will inevitably happen.
For the record, I don't dance or sing near any recording device. With the advent of the smart phone, this means I don't dance or sing.
488: That's okay. All you have to do is move your lips and be really, really, really ridiculously good-looking.
Lip paralysis is a terrible condition. Even being ridiculously goodlooking doesn't make up for the food all over your shirt.
On the other hand, the lip-paralyzed aren't tempted to gauche facial expression like, say, smiling. Your affliction is indeed tragic, Moby, but if you find a way to sell your secret to the fashion industry you will be worth a mint.
Currently, the skin is peeling off my back, if the fashion industry wants to get some shots of that.
493: When I was ~12 or so my friend and I thought it would be fun to moon people from the pool we were in. I rapidly tired of it but he did not and was rewarded with a horrible sunburn that left his ass peeling great sheets of skin lid some kind of butt-lizard.
Butt-lizards have the worst breath.
I can already tell that 494 is going to be one of those things that I sporadically remember and chucklet at for the next few days.
'chucklet', btw, is an obscure middle English verb that means 'to throw poo'.
494: Were the people you were mooning inside a tanning bed? Magical miniature gnomes stuck inside one of those UV disenfectant things? Granted that the ass normally doesn't get much sun, I still find it hard to imagine leaving one's ass hanging out for so long just to moon someone that it gets a memorably bad sunburn. (I have a weird imagination.)
Mooning one person doesn't leave your ass out for long enough to burn, but sometimes you just have to moon everybody.
'Mama always told me not to moon into the eyes of the sun; but mama, that's where the fun is."
I would be happy to appear in the Unfogged music video through my proxy. Rory just finished up a two-week songwriting and recording camp. For a bunch of kids (10-14 years old or so), I was really impressed. Also, moderately bemused by the deeply serious angsty seriousness of lyrics written by said age group. But mostly impressed.
464 is just about the nicest thing anyone has ever said about unfogged. Gosh.
I think Shearer should be banned. I think initially people ignored him, once they stopped doing that, Unfogged's preferred way of dealing with problem commenters failed.
Shearer is despicable. I've said before I think he might discourage black people from commenting, whether that's likely to've been an issue in practice, see it as a thought experiment. He shouldn't be welcome here.
482: I didn't put a gun to nobody's head and say "sign your name to a comment saying you're on team shearer." I would have though that was stupid as hell.
505,506: that's more like it. I have never started a ban shearer campaign, though I've considered it. it would require a lot of quote mining.
Belatedly, thanks to everyone for saying comforting and nice things above. I feel like I've been on a bit of an upswing, recently, actually. I hope that can continue. It would sure be nice.
I support alameida. I think her requests to Shearer were very reasonable, as were the requests of many other people to read. I don't remember anyone bothering to request anything of ToS, because what would be the point, really?
I don't really miss the rightists who used to hang out here, some years ago. Mostly, their overall effect was just to make Unfogged too similar to other boards. I'm sure they're much happier out on the farm, where they can run around and play happily.
503: Going by my own totally made-up-on-the-spot rules, I think it might be cheating to sign up non-commenting offspring. (Of course, they could start commenting here... but then that sounds a little like recommending that you introduce your daughter to crack.) However, perhaps an exception could be made if her jazz-hands are top notch.
493: We are about due for a new exfoliation craze, aren't we?
