Not to publish at all. The fact that the asker wasn't one of the participants is part of the reason I think this.
Yeah. I think that post shouldn't have gone up at all -- privacy concerns forbade a full version of the facts, and the conversation was distorted in a really freaky way by the incompleteness of it all. The 'fantasy sex' reaction to the story was very off, in retrospect.
This is actually a version of the other dramatic and unpublished post -- maybe a rule that if the juicy part of the story isn't the asker's own secret, that before publishing, you need to ask whether it's okay if the post ends up on the front page of the Times. If not, don't go there.
And, for that reason, the previous recent unpublished post would be okay?
I'd say post and then unpublish, ad hoc. Fast rules should always be avoided. Did the asker benefit from the asking?
Better not to publish than to publish and take down.
3: Well, no. The conclusion last time was that it wasn't okay with the asker for him to have publicized other people's secrets, which is why it was unpublished. That question probably should have been asked on the front end.
So what's your list of person's who have your unstated consent to wake you to sex? I assume Scarlett Johanson, Angelina Jolie and Fontana Labs make everybody's list.
3: Oh, the recent one. Yeah, sure. That seems like a totally different issue, and one that's at the whim of the bloggers.
The one I totally missed, you jerks.
As far as the recent one: I'd appreciate it if you got my permission before publishing any more details of my torrid affair, thanks.
What the hell happened? I hate this place.
don't be so shy, people. Any Jeffrey Sachs fans? Humanitarianism is sexy!
10: Nothing in terms of factual revelations since your last comment. It was a true story from will's professional life, and ogged (possibly will too) got jumpy about maybe people involved in real life seeing it.
I don't remember exactly when your last comment was, but the end of the thread was mostly me being cranky about sexual assault, and other people trying to continue talking about the situation as described.
Post then unpublish, and release it later on the Unfogged: Director's Cut DVD.
I'm trying to think what the "previously redacted post" would be, and realize that there could've been one redacted that I didn't see -- what with it being all redacted and all -- but as for the previously redacted one in which I was involved, well, I like the post-then-unpublished approach, because the advice contained therein was critical to me doing the right thing.
12: Ah, so now Will just has to tell us what the upshot was. Will?
The main lesson I learned from the redacted thread is that I should thank the gods daily that I am not a lawyer, and thank them hourly that I am not a divorce lawyer.
15: I was thinking about your post. Did you really get any useful advice, though? I remember people telling you not to spill, and then you spilled and everything else came out, and then everyone told you that what you had done was right. But if I remember the sequence of events right, you got more post-facto support than you got good advice.
(And really, your thread was sui generis -- when it started, there wasn't any way to tell what a big public deal it was.)
"Publish and be damned," to quote the Peer.
The way I remember the thread referred to in 15, he got advice to not spill, then more facts came out, the advice changed to spill, and the rest followed.
This is why I hate being in radically different timezone than the rest of you lot - coming in right after the post that's just too exciting to keep up has finally been deleted is soooooo frustrating . . .
Ad hoc all the way. I think it's best to not think of Unfogged as having any institutional principles, just to be useful for and excellent to each other. Concerns of privacy, kindness, and entertainment come naturally, but some sort of journalistic obligation to not disappearing truth down the memory hole would be a bit much.
SEK's event was the single most awesome thing on the Internet that I have ever been remotely involved in. All due caveats for pain to the people involved, but still.
And all this time I thought the Ask The Mineshafts were all invented, like letters to advice columns. Now I don't know what to think. Were they really real? or is Ogged just taking the pretense of reality one step further? You know it's really hard being paranoid.
LB, I think Walt has it right. Looking at the transcripit, when Di Kotomy, B., and soubzriquet shifted to the "you must tell her" line, I immediately picked up the phone, lest I chicken out.
There was an interesting question that was posed in that thread**, iirc, about what men think when they're having sex and they go limp when they shouldn't. Are they blaming the woman? Themselves? The universe?
**NOT BY ME.
probably blaming their own stupidity for not getting viagra.
I certainly blame myself. But I don't see it as that big of a deal in the grand scheme of things, or the end of the sex act.
22:I think it's best to not think of Unfogged as having any institutional principles, just to be useful for and excellent to each other.
And here I was about to suggest adopting Senate rule XIX.2 almost verbatim:
NoSenatorcommenter in debate shall, directly or indirectly, by any form of words impute to anotherSenatorcommenter or to otherSenatorscommenters any conduct or motive unworthy or unbecoming aSenatorcommenter.
25: And for what foul reason would you want to revisit that question?
28: happily, there is no such behavior.
25: Yeah, that was an interesting question.
On the general issue of posting then unpublishing, hate to say it, I tend to go with Cala's "Better not to publish than to publish and take down."
Mostly because an ad-hoc approach can easily lead to people having second thoughts every other week (a rash of them, even), then the blog administrators are in much more of a moderating position with respect to the reasonableness of the second thoughts ... slippery slope. It wouldn't be a great idea to see threads containing content generated with the back thought: After all, it can always be taken down.
That's an extreme scenario, of course, but to my own surprise, I'm coming down on the side of self-censorship.
Not self-censorship, parsley mon. Good judgment.
Perhaps when the mid-coital man goes limp, he is merely protecting the sanctity of off-blog emanations?
It is self-censorship to not immediately say anything that pops into your head to the widest possible audience. To be truly honest in our communications, this is the standard to which we must adhere.
30: True enough. Both for Unfogged commenters and US Senators.
Fuck you, Sifu, and the horse you rode in on.
There, that's the way!
I had a terrific shit earlier. I wish I had pictures.
Fucking A! Blog Commenting Tourette's rules the Unfogged scene!
Not self-censorship, parsley mon. Good judgment.
Same thing, same thing.
27 is exactly right, though I'd say "take responsibility for" over "blame". Men in this position should take it as an opportunity to take up rugmunching with abandon.
I found myself there several times during my separation. "This might be touch and go," I explained to a woman who picked me up the week after my wife and I split for good. A fun time was had by all.
The last explanation should be that the woman is doing it wrong or unattractive. A poorly administered BJ can detumesce a fellow, but even then, it's because he's not fully present.
The asshole of a lifetime! In Long Beach, California!
"Wrongshore: steering the conversation back to ED since 2007."
27 is exactly right, though I'd say "take responsibility for" over "blame".
No, I blame myself for not doing enough cardiovascular exercise.
Men in this position should take it as an opportunity to take up rugmunching with abandon.
Indeed.
Men in this position should blame Cryptic Ned for not doing enough cardio-vascular exercise. Better?
I had a huge hard-on the whole time watching Fern Gully.
That huge hard-on you were so selfishly keeping to yourself might have belonged to someone in the midst of coitus, who could have used it.
Yeah, I'd figure that sort of thing would have to be chalked up to physiological things that just happen, rather than blaming it on insufficient attractiveness or manliness. And letting it get in the way of an otherwise enjoyable encounter seems closed-minded.
Or maybe we could just recognize that erections, like so many other things about sex, aren't under one's conscious control, so blame isn't an issue.
27 is exactly right, though I'd say "take responsibility for" over "blame". Men in this position should take it as an opportunity to take up rugmunching with abandon.
I found myself there several times during my separation. "This might be touch and go," I explained to a woman who picked me up the week after my wife and I split for good. A fun time was had by all.
The last explanation should be that the woman is doing it wrong or unattractive. A poorly administered BJ can detumesce a fellow, but even then, it's because he's not fully present.
This made me laugh out loud. I'm so easy.
Evidently the person to blame is Sifu, erection-collector.
50: I didn't realize it was there until almost the end of the popcorn.
Or maybe we could just recognize that erections, like so many other things about sex, aren't under one's conscious control, so blame isn't an issue.
In my humble opinion, this is yet another reason why women in their late 30s and older are superior to women in their 20s. Older women understand that these things happen sometimes and that it isnt their fault.
Or, so I am told.
Crap. While I was writing my humorless comment, the thread had to go and get funny. Assholes.
52, I think the question was about what people find themselves thinking even though they know it's not rational to think so.
25: The song following the text of the amorous Greek covers this topic.
Anyway, most of us just blame God, for giving us such massive cocks that it takes an unfeasible amount of blood flow to stiffen them fully.
Or maybe we could just recognize that erections ... aren't under one's conscious control.
Indeed, the reverse is conventionally the case.
63: consciousness is under the control of erections?
59: "Thank god, now maybe he'll focus on me. Oh. No, apparently now I have to reassure him that I don't mind. Jesus christ, I wonder what's on television."
15: Presumably SEK did the opposite of what the Mineshaft advised. Or perhaps he freely chose to ruin his life.
A poorly administered BJ can detumesce a fellow
Or, you know, one that leaves visible wounds.
67: In cases of outright drainage, it's OK to direct blame.
68: or if the disappearance of the erection results not from a lack of tumescence, but from the disappearance of the cock itself.
"Thank god, now maybe he'll focus on me. Oh. No, apparently now I have to reassure him that I don't mind. Jesus christ, I wonder what's on television."
Thesis: thinking and sex do not go well together.
69: Again, a gentleman should take responsibility. "Silly me! I should not have left it in the popcorn bin at that movie theater playing Fern Gully!"
68/69: I was thinking about unintentional damage (can happen), but I guess those ones too.
65: I think we were talking about instances in which the people were happier with the erection than without.
66: Apparently the latter. And then, the hurricane. NOLA can't catch a break.
74: Oh, so we're back in the realm of male fantasy.
the people were happier with the erection than without.
For instance, say you're at a boring film, and you've just finished your popcorn. Aren't you more likely to enjoy yourself if you've got something to fiddle with?
Being a boy means never having to say "I have nothing to fiddle with."
Worst BJ ever: a fast car drives of the road straight into a tree. The driver and the passenger are both dead, with the driver's severed penis in the passenger's mouth.
They were both probably better off that way, since they avoided the recriminations, gossip, and cruel jokes.
A good friend of mine heard about this from a well-known trauma surgeon whom I've also met.
78: I hear girls have things to fiddle with as well.
If the movie's that bad, you just leave and go buy some new shoes.
78: For pleasure, sure, but not in the same idle "where are my keys" way that works in every situation.
...with the driver's severed penis in the passenger's mouth.
See Garp, World According to for the alternate outcome to this scenario.
82: who needs some cheap-ass cardboard box to keep your popcorn in, if you're a girl?
84: oh, there they are! Boy, that was uncomfortable.
I think we were talking about instances in which the people were happier with the erection than without.
Oh, so we're back in the realm of male fantasy.
BitchPhD: objectively pro-flaccidity. Explains a lot.
I'd just like to say that it'd be a damn shame if the phrase "HOO-HAH ON MY WOOZLE" were lost in the mists of the unpublished past. Consider this my attempt to ensure it lives on.
Josh, you are entirely correct. All-caps doesn't happen often around here. So shouty, so gleeful. You can feel the grin.
I count myself doubly unfortunate for having missed Will's revelation (divorce lawyer is one of those jobs that I would love to experience vicariously), and for coming late to the fascinating topic of spontaneous detumescence.
Strangely, the latter happened to me Saturday night, perhaps at about the time you guys were talking about this. We slept on it and all was well next morning.