Thank you, Lord, I owe you two.
Do you ever.
Safety pin that rubber to your pocket lining.
Safety pin that rubber your cock to your pocket lining.
Don't you have more than one pocket? Right is for wallet- they both end in T! Left for contraception- I think there's some cultural guideline that says so.
While this is awkward, it doesn't beat forgetting to bring a condom and having to make a trip to the 7-11 mid-date for "cigarettes", all the while doing your best to make sure she doesn't come into the store with you.
Is there a chance she actually did see it but didn't bring it up because she didn't want to embarrass you?
Is there a chance she actually did see it but didn't bring it up because she didn't want to embarrass you?
or maybe she was distracted because she'd also dropped her condom. regardless, congratulations to ogged for accomplishing something that none of us thought possible. is this the same lifeguard that thought you were someone else?
If Ogged did not exist, it would be necessary to invent Him.
Some more recent and functional mixes (included but not limited to tracks stolen from some other previous Unfogged mixes) can be found here.
This story ends before getting to the only parts I can imagine caring about. Hint: I don't care about stories in which the condom goes back into your pocket unused.
(Also, I get surly when I'm up at 3:30 because my math homework is hard)
And even surlier when you're in the wrong thread?
Do you think God was trying to send you a subtle message? ("Ogged, my son, don't forget you've got this condom here. It's still right here just waiting for you. Date's going pretty well, you know. Just want to remind you this is here.")
i thought the main issue with bass-playing life-guard was her dodgy taste in music.
have you thought about carrying two condoms, one for each ear?
When I was a lad, we were always instructed not to maintain our supply of condoms in places where they would be exposed to continuous body heat, as this was said to deteriorate the fragile latex sheaths over time. Mr. Ogged, pray tell me whether you rock only the modern, polyurethane condoms, alleged to be more durable, or is your "stuff it in my pocket and forget it" policy rather the fruit of your joyfully insouciant approach to life? (This last also characterizing your willingness to publicly post intimate details of your love life on a blog for all the potential dates to see.)
Right, wasn't the issue of the last bad music lifeguard post that she said she was going to find your blog, and you were debating what it would be bad for her to find? I guess you've decided to announce to her that you're down with teh safe sexx.
Well, crap. I missed the post linked to in comment 14 when it was up. Skimming the comments, I am distressed to learn that "I had a nice time" apparently has a widely accepted meaning of "Wow, please don't call me." All this time, I have been using to mean "I had a nice time."
Further evidence that you are a fictional character, as the condom is clearly a clumsy literary device symbolizing your newly-stirring efforts to defeat the forces of auto-cockblocking, themselves variously symbolized, if I am keeping up, by high-tech swimsuits, chicken-salad pitas and pull-up bars that install conveniently in door frames.
I kept one in my wallet, and one in my glove box, for some time before I ever had occasion to use them. Of course my mother found the one in my car, and made a big scene; I'm like twenty-one or two years old.
When I did have occasion, I bought new. The others had been some sort of talisman.
I well remember the embarrassment and awkwardness, though, for which we all agree there should be no reason in principle, but still.
Only God's grace ...
Calvinist.
OK, bad analogy, but some folks' fumbles haven't been covered as smothly as our hosts.
5: That she didn't bring what up so as not to embarrass him?
It's easier if you just have the condom on the whole time.
Don't gentleman's pants have special condom pockets any more? Young people today! (They were called "watch pockets" IIRC. Heh).
"Oh, no, I didn't bring this for you. That would have been ungentlemanly, presumptuous, and premature. I was just thinking that after we split up I might be able pick someone up on the way home."
the condom is clearly a clumsy literary device symbolizing your newly-stirring efforts to defeat the forces of auto-cockblocking,
Did you read the post? Like every other device in ogged's world, the condom is nothing else but a tool for auto-cockblocking.
ogged, I'm now like 87% sure that every post of yours about your dating and potential dating life is complete fiction. I'm not sure how much of it is trolling, and how much of it is to cover up the fact that you've been seeing a very nice young man for a couple of years now.
Side note regarding the post title: are we aware of any other blogs that routinely redact posts in the name of discretion? Is that just not done because there are too many ways an indiscreet post can be archived elsewhere on the internets?
One journalist told me about an experience he had while interviewing a senator. He reached into his bag to pull out his recorder, which was kept in a leather sheaf. As will happen in the bag of a contemporary gentleman, things had gotten jumbled, and affixed to the sheaf was a condom, which the journalist inadvertently pulled out and plopped on the table before the senator, his press aide, and God.
29: Oops! Is there a way to undo a Metafilter post?
Ogged's conscious mind thinks he wants a "relationship", but his unconscious mind is working for me.
30: I hope the journalist had the presence of mind to ask either the senator or the press aide if they were free later.
We're the girl pal that Ogged shares all his dating travails with and eventually falls in love with.
But by that time, we've found someone and so happy in love.......one of Ogged's ex-girlfriends, actually.
Why couldn't he see we were meant for him? no, it's always lifeguards, lifeguards, lawyers.
Safety pin that rubber
Doesn't that somewhat defeat the purpose?
Well here I am in the office on Sunday morning. The fabled benefits of tenure, bitches!
36: it's always lifeguards, lifeguards, lawyers, masturbate, lifeguards
Our health teacher in high school wore condom earrings on the day each semester when she taught the birth-control lesson. One once popped open as she walked the hallways, for a slinky-like dangling effect.
I can't wait to see this scene in the movie version of Ogged's life.
See, this is why ones wears jackets on dates. More pockets keep the seemly and unseemly a safe distance from each other.
42: Judd Apatow presents Superogged starring Chris Noth as Ogged and Seth Rogen as "The Blog"!
I have an amusingly tacky condom carrying case with a 50s style design on it in bright blue with rhinestones.
Who would play you and me, Tweety?
My gut reaction was Kevin James and Fabio, but I couldn't decide which would be which.
Or a Valhrona chocolate tin. A meet size for sitting in your drawer, anyway-- not for carrying around in your pocket.
48: depends who can yell "CLOOOOOOONEY@!##@!#!@!#@" more convincingly.
Just put it on before the date. You can pretend to put it on at the moment of consummation.
52: Where do you think 51 learned that trick?
Ok, I think I'm caught up now. Thanks, Minivet. Way to go Ogged!
Things posted, redacted, it's like this blog is trying to kill me. More than once it's been in my dreams as a 100 person musical. Seth Rogen all by himself is a much better idea.
More than once it's been in my dreams as a 100 person musical.
I would totally pay money to see that.
I could have told you this would happen. Something like it will happen next time.
56 Me too! Apo's links alone would revolutionize the genre! But the editing, what be a nightmare.
I'll never say "I had a nice time" again, now that I know it doesn't mean that.
Now, JoeD writes musicals......
An altoids tin is a meet size.
"Breath mint?"
I, too, have now had an unfogged dream. Last night I dreamed I was at my parents' house in Missouri for Christmas, and the Texas contingent stopped in on their way to DC. Sir Kraab, M/tch M/lls, Heebie, and John Emerson, who for some reason had decided to take the long way around.
Everyone was very nice to my parents.
next time,
..... morning --
a strand of her hair
between the kiss
see, wishing only good
59: Oh, see now I'm visualizing the entire production. To represent links, lights would go down on the main stage and a spotlight would redirect the audience to the separate "link stage." The spotlight would do an increasingly hilarious dance of hesitation to represent that sense we all get when clicking Apo's links of "Oh, man. I know better than to click through. I totally know better than to click through."
Oh, people, I wish I could tell you more about this date, because it was hilarious in so many ways, but one mustn't use people so, now must one?
Let's try that again, slol.
An altoids tin is a meet size.
66: using people to tantalize is ok, though, apparently.
The post is all about my own awkwardness and misadventure. As you well know, using oneself is fine.
As you well know, using oneself is fine.
Indeed, there are times when it is the only option.
So, how'd it go with the chick you picked up after the date?
Being prepared is good, even (especially?) on the first date, nevermind a second or the fabled third.
I wonder if she did notice. In the beginning, everytime my boyfriend shifted in his seat a little, I would hear the crinkling sound of a wrapper in his pocket. Now, it could have been a candy wrappy, I suppose--only I didn't suppose so. I didn't mind. I knew it was there. Carrying a condom is prudent, making the move to horizontal without signal from the lady that she would like to do so is presumptuous. As is, I imagine, whipping it out, although obviously yous wuold have been inadvertant displays of protection.
I have a friend who doesn't initiate sex the first time, waiting for the girl to initiate or ask, no matter how many bases they've rounded.. It's worked well for him. I think he's waited a few weeks for this current girl though, so it depends on your patience.
I always mean "I had a nice time" when I say it. It's supposed to mean something else? I've heard that "we'll do this again" doesn't mean what I thought it means too.
Characters like the lifeguard or surfer will be dramatically represented by off-stage gibberish, like the voice of the teacher in Charlie Brown movies.
I always mean "I had a nice time" when I say it. It's supposed to mean something else? I've heard that "we'll do this again" doesn't mean what I thought it means too.
I don't know if I could be interested in someone who never means something other than what he or she says. I like a challenge.
Even today I always carry a condom in my pocket just to protect against rape attempts by sex-crazed, fertile, HIV-positive bitches. I just fall to the ground weeping and pleading to be allowed to use a condom.
Since the redacted thread, I wear one at night, too.
Indeed, there are times when it is the only best option.
So this brings up a question that has been increasingly on my mind.
Doesn't there come a time when a guy has to stop carrying a condom - even though he's still single and dating? I decided a couple years ago, when I hit 35, that it was just uncool to carry a condom anymore: for all the embarrassing reasons described by Ogged, as well as others...
Naturally, if we end up at my place, I'm set for latex. If we go to her place, I suppose I'm running a chance. But, I've reasoned, once a woman is in her late 20s, she should be similarly equipped. Almost inevitably, I've found that women who are confident in their sexuality are stocked, and those who aren't are not. The end result is that women who take responsibility for having condoms at home are much better in bed; the women who don't tend to be much more timid. This ultimately virtually becomes a screening device. If I end up at a woman's place who doesn't have her own stash, it's hard not to conclude she isn't really ready to have sex.
So, what say you, Unfoggedtariat?
Am I off base?
Is there a time when a single man should stop carting around a dome? (and, btw, one condom leaves pretty little margin for error, and, at best ensures a one shot deal...)
Is it fair to expect a woman, by a certain age, to equip her home?
Oh, this is so awesome, and I missed the other taken-down post. I knew that the issue of who wrote the songs was key.
This reminds of the time I got a craigslist ride-share from the Bay Area to LA (I was broke). The nice geeky-type guy picked me up from the Berkeley BART station, and then we went to pick up his friend who was also coming on the trip. About two minutes after the friend got into the car, he goes, "oh, FUCK." Geeky guy is like "what's wrong?"
"Fuck, I forgot the condoms."
Apparently the guy was planning on getting laid when they got to LA. I informed him that, you know, they sell prophylactics at a variety of locations, but for a minute I thought I was going to be so very raped.
78: I actually carried a couple condoms in my purse for a while. And I have a stash in my bedside table.
Of course, it's odd, because I would be annoyed if I was on a date and my stash was the only reason we were able to have sex. It's like, dude, didn't you think this might be a possibility? So, no, I think that producing a condom when you both decide it's time to have sex shows a) preparedness b) that you were thinking enough about the possibility of having sex that you planned ahead. Which is cute.
Moral of the story: single&dating people of both sexes should carry a condom on their person and have some in their home.
78: I'm inclined to think, carry or don't carry, but treating not being stocked as a screening device is goofy. If you think you might have sex, the condom is just as much your responsibility as hers.
81: Absolutely --- besides, you never know when you might make your way through his stash *and* her stash. Just saying.
84 ... or, you know, his stash *and* his stash. Not trying to be heteronormative or anything.
An excellent performance of "Sea Song"!
Follow up question, though. When stocking up, do you need to have a variety on hand? Like, in case s/he's allergic to latex or might require, er, non-standard sizing?
But I think we disagree, Di. I think it is a kind of screening device. Not that I wouldn't have sex with someone I'd already decided to fuck because of the no-condom thing, but it does show a certain unattractive quality. I remember a couple years ago, I had gone on a first date with a dude, and a second date which involved watching a movie at his house and hours of making out. When the third date was also at his house, and I discovered that he didn't have any condoms, I was like "I'm confused--do you actually want to have sex?"
Luckily, I had one, so it was all good, but it shoulda tipped me off. Contraception attitude is actually very important to me--I think it says a lot about a person.
88: Those non-latex ones are expensive. I don't know that you should be expected to cover all bases, really.
88: surely people with special needs can be expected to shift for themselves in this arena.
Yeah, I don't think stocking a variety is necessary. Although due to the vagaries of my sexy funtimes, I have had for the past couple years both the regular and "magnum" condoms in my home.
And before anyone starts whining about the "but condoms fit over your head! What's with the Magnums?", I will say that regular-sized condoms work for dudes of large size, and vice versa, it's just an issue of comfort and how well the thing stays down at the base.
Isn't "non-standard sizing" basically a fantasy (with the exception of the guy I saw at Splash Bar once sucking his own cock [and barely bending over to do it])?
Has anyone compared those "Magnum" (or whatever it is) condoms to regular old condoms?
Agreed with 92.
Slate had a product review of various condoms .
I agree that everyone should have a stash at home, but do you really need to carry a condom around, too? Is everyone else having much more sex in cars / movie theaters / other people's houses (other than the sex partner) than I am?
As an analogy for the condom size issue, I present the following (banned!): You know how if your hips are substantially bigger than your waist (which is to say, you are a woman), and you wear a stretchy shirt that's a little too tight, and you pull it down over your hips, when you walk around it will roll up of its own volition and ride up to around your waist? Same principle.
89: Hmm, I guess we might disagree -- though I suspect it's a matter of circumstances. Not having them on hand when the sex is something that reasonably should be anticipated as at least a possibility raises some questions. Not having them on hand when you had no real plan or expectation that you might be having imminent sex doesn't seem horribly irresponsible.
97: I think the idea is that you carry one with you when you're out with someone with whom you might conceivably have sex, in case you end up at their house and they aren't prepared. In which case you are annoyed, but still get to have the sexytime.
God, it's just so much simpler not to have sex.
Of course, the problem with having Magnums on hand is EXTRA care must be exercised to avoid an inadvertant condom appearance. A guy who doesn't need Magnums is likely to get a little self-conscious when you whip that out, take a second look, and then say, "Hmm, actually we may be better off with something a little more snug."
If you think you might have sex, the condom is just as much your responsibility as hers.
I'm not sure how I reconcile this with your view that a woman who has no condoms at home has no bearing on whether or not she's ready to have sex. If a woman isn't equipped, then she's obviously *not* taking responsibility.
As m. leblanc says, whether sex happens shouldn't be an accident of serendipitous equipment by one person.
(and, btw, the #1 reason - which Ogged's post makes clear - for not wanting to cart a condom around (at least for men, who don't have purses), is that it's a giant pain in the ass; I once had to empty my wallet at an airport security gate, when the foil wrapper on the condom set off the hand wand.)
74: Characters like the lifeguard or surfer
Speaking of which, did the surfer ever call back?
once a woman is in her late 20s, she should be similarly equipped. Almost inevitably, I've found that women who are confident in their sexuality are stocked, and those who aren't are not. The end result is that women who take responsibility for having condoms at home are much better in bed; the women who don't tend to be much more timid.
Whereas it says nothing about a man.
Oh no wait! Yes it does. It says "I am a lazy irresponsible asshole who expects you to be the grownup in this relationship."
"we'll do this again" doesn't mean what I thought it means too
What does it mean? Never mind--it's too complicated. I'm gonna get two more cats and join Emerson's team.
did the surfer ever call back?
[tears]
On the condom thing, I think some women are (understandably) touchy about the idea that men may think birth-control is their problem. This isn't the same issue entirely, but you can see how a guy showing up with the expectation that you've got it covered could piss someone off. Might work as a filter that way, too.
If a woman isn't equipped, then she's obviously *not* taking responsibility.
Women have the "responsibility" for using the pill, for stocking chemical contraceptives, for having paps to find out if they have HPV, for getting the abortion if Mr. Smooth is too cool to bother about birth control, etc.
If a man can't be bothered to carry a condom, he's a dick. The kind you want nothing to do with. IMHO.
I'm not sure how I reconcile this with your view that a woman who has no condoms at home has no bearing on whether or not she's ready to have sex. If a woman isn't equipped, then she's obviously *not* taking responsibility.
You've never been in a situation where the sex was an unexpected, but welcome surprise?
Out of curiosity, B, what if the guy doesn't want to have sex on the first date? Still a dick?
as an aside: carrying condoms isn't actually a big pain in the ass. Some packaging is better than others (slim plastic vs bulky crinkly foil, for example). Leaving one in your wallet/wherever is generally a bad idea though.
If a man can't be bothered to carry a condom, he's a dick.
B-but &mdash I can't go around carrying condoms everywhere. I'm a married man, for god's sake! Don't you have one I could use?
112: No, that's fine. But wanting to have sex and coming up with some rationalization about how carrying condoms is such a pain in *your* ass and after all, responsible women will take care of it? Dream on.
114: Okay, in Jesus' case I'll make an exception.
115: not having said that I'll feel free to dream about other things.
Mmmmm, bacon ocean.
A guy who doesn't need Magnums is likely to get a little self-conscious when you whip that out, take a second look, and then say, "Hmm, actually we may be better off with something a little more snug."
For the full effect here you need to rig up some James Bondish button that triggers a servo that pushes a little chrome rack out of the wall, with an array of condoms of various sizes. Then you say, "Just take the one furthest to the left."
Honestly I would want a straw man to use something stronger than a condom in any case; might poke a hole in the polyurethane.
118: The effect is enhanced if you precede your instruction with a long, considering look at his erection.
118: Q would come up with a better system. There'd be a lazer measurement device, and the appropriate row would light up.
You expect me to fuck?
No, Mr. Bond. I expect you to grow.
Sifu, meet the straw man in comment 104 to whom B's remark was directed. It's not all about you, dear.
Condoms should be removed before walking into court through the metal detectors.
Women have the "responsibility" for using the pill, for stocking chemical contraceptives, for having paps to find out if they have HPV, for getting the abortion if Mr. Smooth is too cool to bother about birth control, etc.
I have a hard time understanding how a woman who goes to the trouble of taking oral contraception and all the other things you outline...but doesn't advert to the much more basic step of having a few condoms by her night table, is really prepared for sex.
What I am *not* saying is that both parties aren't responsible for using birth control, so I don't know where you got that from my comment. But if a woman, in her own home, is not equipped for birth control, I think it says something about her readiness to have sex (which is a different from a hookup, say, at a conference out of town).
If I ask friends back to my place for drinks, they should have a reasonable expectation that I have wine or liquor on hand, or beer in the fridge. If a woman asks me over for dinner, I have a reasonable expectation that she's cooking or otherwise providing food. Why is it such a big deal (or make me a lazy asshole) to think, on a date, that if a woman wants me to come back to her place, she's prepared to have sex?
So we've got a tin man and a straw man. Who's lion?
Why are you sorry, Otto? The man has a hot bass-playing lifeguard pursuing him, and a lawyer with deep pockets on the side.
I will say that regular-sized condoms work for dudes of large,
Not so. They break or fall off (the condom seems to stay in place much better if the end ring is farther down on the shaft).
88: Too much like stocking soy milk just in case he turns out to be lactose-intolerant.
Because Otto can see into my heart, young, soulless, Ben.
What you're saying is that you don't bother carrying condoms because you figure women will stock them. The *only* form of birth control--indeed, the only material preparation for sex--that men are responsible for, you refuse to go out of your way to provide. Moreover, condoms are a shitty form of birth control; they're disease control. Most women are probably on the pill, or have a diaphragm/iud/depo/VCF/some kind of supplement to condoms in their bathrooms.
Your attitude doesn't exactly demonstrate that you believe that both parties are responsible. It demonstrates that you think it's the woman's responsibility, unless she's willing to come to your house.
29: Is that just not done because there are too many ways an indiscreet post can be archived elsewhere on the internets?
During more innocent times (the early '90s) there was a general lack of appreciation on the Internet that 'ephemeral' might not mean what people thought it meant and that "security by obscurity" was a very time-limited concept. The advent of the Alta Vista search engine and DejaNews (now Google Groups) in the mid-90s did a lot to dispel those notions. (And at the time most folks only had "official" institutional e-mail/identities.)
The most interesting recent instance I know of was when a whole boatload of Enron e-mails became public via one of the court cases. Some enterprising folks put search engines in front of them (I think this one is still up but you have to register.) I think there was even a contest at one site for the most embarassing find. There were some doozies.
Condoms only break if you put them on incorrectly, or due to unusual friction. This is true regardless of the size match/mismatch.
Sliding off is a different problem, made worse if you have an unusually tapered cock. I think the problem with the end ring being too far up the shaft has little to do with the cock, per se, but the fact that inserting the ring in the vagina can cause it to roll up if there is sufficient tension.
B, he's saying that one can assume that sexually active adults have condoms at home, so there's no need to carry one around unless you're going to have sex somewhere else.
124: Hey!!
Actually, this was a helpful comment. I'm heading to court tomorrow morning to finally get me that divorce I've been looking for, and I suppose I don't really need those showing up when my purse goes through the x-ray thingy...
110: Women have the "responsibility" for using the pill
Tangentially, who's looking forward to this?
I can't wait. Especially given the important reminder from Quentin Brown in the article:
I think it would empower men and deter some women out there from their nefarious plans
Free at last!
135. Right, but the case can be made that a woman might both have a stock at home and find it annoying/insulting that you assumed she would.
I dunno, I don't think the attitude "if she doesn't have condoms at her house, and we're at her house, I'm not going to have sex with her" is necessarily "being a dick": it's just setting the parameters for when and with whom you would like to have sex, which presumably we all get to do without accusations of dickitude?
135: He's not just saying that; he's coming up with rationalizations about how women who take responsibility are better lays, about how inconvenient it is to carry condoms because you have to empty your pockets at the airport, etc.
Basically instead of just saying, "eh, I'm too lazy to carry condoms any more, plus most women have them now anyway" he's trying to turn his own casualness--which fine, hey, be casual--into a referendum on women's responsibility. Which is an asshole move.
139: I think that's a slightly different scenario. Would you hold it against her?
139: It's being a dick if you've made a deliberate and considered choice not to carry them because you think it's her *job* to provide them.
If it just so happens that you don't have one, and she doesn't, and you say, okay, well then we're not having sex, then no, that's not being a dick. That's being responsible.
Isn't it too early on a Sunday to be calling people assholes and dicks? Come on.
Bah. It's too early on a Sunday to log into a cute discussion of someone's latest date and have to deal with male entitlement.
I think the accusations of dickitude are less about the not wanting to have sex without condoms and more about the expressed judgments that the woman is presumpively timid, bad in bed, and not really ready for sex if she doesn't have a condom in her nightstand while the guy who finds them just too big a burden to stick in his pocket is fully justified.
or due to unusual friction
well, one shouldn't be the judge of one's own performance...
141: I think that it is actual penetration that is raising the issue.
It's being a dick if you've made a deliberate and considered choice not to carry them because you think it's her *job* to provide them.
This isn't what he's saying he's saying it's the responsibility of the person who's house you end up at -- whatever their gender! -- and if that person hasn't done that, then hey, no sexy time just yet. What an asshole!
141: of course not, no.
A period and some capitalization.
145: it's a weird way to put it, a little bit, yes. If he had said "means she doesn't want to have sex with me," would that make more sense?
McKingford?
150: the joke before the pedantry, Ben.
I read McKingford the same way Sifu does. So he thinks that women who don't have condoms at home probably aren't for him; that's at least as reasonable as any of a dozen disqualifying criteria that we all have in our heads.
135 sums it up much better than I have to date.
Plus, at least, in my experience, women who aren't stocked, make for much more inhibited lovers, which tells me something about whether or not they are really prepared to have sex.
And, *not* that I've had this experience, but if a woman is on the pill and/or iud, diaphram, depo, etc, but can't stock a night table with a few condoms, then that's slightly disturbing.
Anyway, this is exactly the kind of uncharitable jumping on someone that's annoying. Maybe he's expressing male entitlement, maybe not, but the response here is going to make him a lot more likely to become defensive than to answer honestly or maybe change his mind.
It's also exactly the kind of uncharitable and reflexive defense of male entitlement that's annoying.
That said, I'm going to go do something else now, so nobody has to worry that I'm going to call them names.
This isn't what he's saying he's saying it's *the responsibility of the person who's house you end up at* -- whatever their gender! -- and if that person hasn't done that, then hey, no sexy time just yet. What an asshole!
Re-read:
Almost inevitably, I've found that women who are confident in their sexuality are stocked, and those who aren't are not. The end result is that women who take responsibility for having condoms at home are much better in bed; the women who don't tend to be much more timid. This ultimately virtually becomes a screening device. If I end up at a woman's place who doesn't have her own stash, it's hard not to conclude she isn't really ready to have sex.
"You don't have condoms? Oh, no sexy time," super, a responsible call.
"You don't have condoms? Oh, you are a timid thing who would surely have been bad in bed anyway. You're not really ready for sex," obnoxious.
And now it's impossible for any woman to agree with anything McKingford said without being accused of courting male favor.
That said, 135 gets it exactly right.
"You don't have condoms? Oh, you are a timid thing who would surely have been bad in bed anyway. You're not really ready for sex," obnoxious.
I hear you on this, but it's really a different issue from who should expect whom to have condoms where. It's more like my saying that make-up and heels are a proxy for personality, and people finding that obnoxious.
157: the guy is rationalizing behavior which is generally agreed to be correct behavior in a somewhat dodgy sounding way. This is a net harm? It's not like he's saying "if a woman doesn't have condoms she doesn't want me to use birth control! Sweet! AIDS baby makin' time!"
Is it really that shocking that someone who has condoms is more likely to be more confident and someone who does not tends to be more timid?
How is that a surprising statement?
If he had said "means she doesn't want to have sex with me," would that make more sense?
Yes.
That said, I'm going to go do something else now, so nobody has to worry that I'm going to call them names.
Which is why I ventured one last response...
~
On the subject of judgments, for every woman who thinks a guy who comes unequipped is a lazy, irresponsible, asshole, is a guy who thinks bringing a condom makes him a presumptuous sexaholic Lothario...
Come on, will, she obviously just has the condoms because she is seeking male approval.
If a woman has condoms, I think that she wants me to approve of the idea of us having sex.
Plus, at least, in my experience, women who aren't stocked, make for much more inhibited lovers,
Your experience differs from my own, for what that's worth.
164: just the abstract idea though.
"Why yes, dear. What a lovely thought. Now off I go!"
165: you've had a lot of hot, hot condom-free sex with women?
It says "I am a lazy irresponsible asshole who expects you to be the grownup in this relationship."
Someone's been reading my wish book.
McKingford asked a question; you can respond intellectually, noting agreement and/or disagreement, or you can throw a fit, try to heighten the offensiveness of the original comment, and respond offensively in kind.
One of these methods is for intelligent people, and creates a good atmosphere. The other seems to be the opposite, and seems to me to bring the general intelligence of the who place down.
168: I haven't been keeping up with parsimon's expressed gender/orientation, but dude, just think about that one for a second.
164: Approve, or simply prove...
167: if you'd like to reach comity with "McKingford's behavior is probably fine, but he should really think of a less clumsily patriarchal way to phrase it, and remember that there are many reasons women don't want to have sex which don't have to do with delicate-flowerness or timidity," I'm down.
For the record, I don't expect girls to stock condoms. I'm not with McKingford on this.
172: what, only men get to use condoms? Sexist.
Is it really that shocking that someone who has condoms is more likely to be more confident and someone who does not tends to be more timid?
Is it so hard to imagine someone who is perfectly confident and talented but doesn't keep a constant stock on hand because s/he doesn't necessarily feel a need to have constant sex? Not everybody who is dating is always banging away. It's actually possible to date without having sex and it's possible for a date that you hadn't thought would result in sex goes so surprisingly well that the issue comes up unexpectedly.
I mean, I've know guys who always have condoms at the ready -- and it's not because they are so confident, but because they are so goofily giddy about the (real or imagined) possibility of having sex that it's like, "Hee hee, I bought condoms, there are condoms in my nightstand, I have condoms in my nightstand that I might use to have sex, sex is so cool and I might have it because I bought condoms."
(I don't mean to sound defensive, of course. For the record, I am fully stocked, timid, and terrible in bed.)
174: I'm down. I have protection.
It seems to me that the resources of Emily Post, Amy Vanderbuilt, Canon Law, and American Law should be brought to bear on this question. Our unaided minds are not up to the task.
177:
Note the use of the words "tend" or "more likely."
Not, "always" or any other similar word.
Just saying that in re: parsi's 165, there are plenty of reasons women who might not regularly stock condoms could be as sexually bold if not more so than women who don't. For, you know, reasons as tame as having until recently been in a fluid-bonded relationship where they weren't used.
God, this thread is depressing as hell.
Why don't you just keep condoms in your car? Ogged, why weren't you driving?
168:
you've had a lot of hot, hot condom-free sex with women?
Yeah, low-hanging fruit and all that.
Nah, just that I don't tend to stock condoms myself unless I'm quite sure that's where I'm going with a guy. Often enough, even inviting someone over is just an invitation to see what develops, not something done with intention. There are convenience stores, after all.
No, just remarking that stocking or not stocking condoms has little to do with inhibitedness.
182: The beard always drives. Absolute rule.
Has anyone proposed that a woman who is timid, reluctant or distracted with one fellow might be eager, enthusiastic and equipped with another?
I didn't want to hurt McKingford's feelings, since he's a dude.
Note the use of the words "tend" or "more likely."
Not, "always" or any other similar word.
Cool. Let's just edit B's comment in 110 so it reads "If a man can't be bothered to carry a condom, he's more likely to be a dick. The kind you tend to want nothing to do with. IMHO."
Comity!
(In any case, Ben long since got it exactly right in 102.)
Also, you know, there are plenty of reasons other than lesbianism for any given woman to just not be that into PIV sex, speaking as someone who's a double threat on that score even after discounting my general dykery.
Has anyone ever encountered a sincerely humble opinion? It seems, like Gentle Reader, to be referenced more often than found.
Look, any way you slice it, this discussion certainly has heteronormative and patriarchal underpinnings. What about gay men, who's responsible for the condoms there? What about threesomes? What about non-penetrative sex?
All of this talk of "responsibility" seems to me to be a category error. I agree that if ABC invites XYZ back to ABC's house after a "date", with the possibility of some sort of sexual encounter tantalizingly welling like a drop of dew on the pericarp of a succulent raspberry, its minute hairs barely perceptible in the rhododactylos embrace of Phoebus' crepuscular illumination, then yes, it would be wise of ABC to provide any accoutrements which may be necessary for the fulfillment of that scenario. But come on, nobody's twisting anyone else's arm here.
181 God, this thread is depressing as hell.
I tend to agree.
It's a good idea for a woman to have her own stash of condoms at her place, if only because she knows the conditions in which they have been stored. Much better to be using condoms that have been hanging out in a nice cool nightstand than have made lengthy travels between wallet, glove compartment, pocket, etc.
Same with carrying one's own stash in one's purse -- you know the last time it was replaced (and "mobile condoms" should really be replaced frequently if unused) and you know that they were stored in a way the packaging likely wasn't breached.
Guys should carry them, too, but I'd trust my own before theirs.
189: Please forgive my straight-dude ignorance, but how can you be "a double threat on that score even after discounting [your] general [word I feel kind of embarrassed even quoting]"?
But come on, nobody's twisting anyone else's arm here.
Or if they are, it's consensual.
194: (and "mobile condoms" should really be replaced frequently if unused)
A true gentleman or lady would replace the used ones as well.
Has anyone proposed that a woman who is timid, reluctant or distracted with one fellow might be eager, enthusiastic and equipped with another?
I fully accept that this is a possibility (but thank Sifu for the consideration)...after all, I've already been identified as an obnoxious asshole by people who doesn't know me; it isn't much of a leap to assume that someone who does might come to the same conclusion.
But this is all the more reason for thinking the way I do. If she's not that into me, I'd hate for her to be having sex simply because I brought a condom along. For all I know, women who've said they don't have condoms actually do; at least I'm giving them an out that is less harsh on my feelings (and therefore easier for them to express) than: "I'm not into you".
Cool. Let's just edit B's comment in 110 so it reads "If a man can't be bothered to carry a condom, he's more likely to be a dick. The kind you tend to want nothing to do with. IMHO."
Comity!
ok. deal.
To be fair, my objection to McKingsford's comment is not specifically on gendered grounds. As was noted by (I think) Sifu above, the comment wasn't that women should be responsible for providing the condoms, just that whoever is hosting the encounter should be stocked. Switching the genders in the comment around, I have the same objection -- if I go back to a guy's place and he doesn't have a drawer full of condoms, I don't assume he's timid or "not ready" for sex, just that he hadn't planned on sex happening that night.
Someone else mentioned having beer or wine on hand if you have friends come over, and I think that's a dead on analogy because, if it's a spontaneous visit, I might not have stocked up on beer because I don't drink alot of beer but it doesn't mean I'm not thrilled the guests dropped by. We can drink soda, or if we really want a beer soemone can make a quick run to the store. If I *never* have anything to drink on hand, even when I'm expecting company, then feel free to think me a poor hostess. But expecting me to always have beer on hand, which does eventually go bad, is asking a bit much.
200: comity's breakin' out all over! I'm with you.
110: S/B
"If a man can't be bothered to carry a condom, he's more likely to be a dick. The kind you tend to want nothing to do with don't want thrusting around in your scarce commodity / pie area."
I wouldn't necessarily expect it, but a person who has prepared for it, is a person who has thought about it.
195: Props for what I presume is sensitivity, but really, you don't have to be embarassed about quoting it. Using "dyke" as a descriptor for a young, non-heterosexual woman who self-identifies with the term is pretty far from "my niggAH" territory.
But basically, there are plenty of physical reasons why some women find PIV unpleasurable, uncomfortable, or even downright painful, from "was just built that way" to "have other physiological ailments that are impinging on happy funtimes"; personally, I started off as a mild case of column A, progressive hijinks by my uterus have contributed to column B. TMI, but - I used them for most of my post-menarche life, but I've recently had to stop using tampons entirely; it's just too damn uncomfortable.
There are also plenty of psychological reasons, too, including plain old "eh, I'm just not that into it/prefer other stuff", although obviously there's the whole happyfun area of traumatic/non-consensual experiences.
Sheesh! Decades after HIV? The only questions should perhaps involve expiration dates and allergies to latex, not who has possession or "responsibility" for the condoms.
I wouldn't necessarily expect it, but a person who has prepared for it, is a person who has thought about it.
Very true. Every now and then, though, you get one of those rare but delightful moments of, "Wow, I hadn't even thought of that -- what a great idea!"
(And if neither party anticipated, then the frustrating moment of "Damn, I wish I had thought about that sooner so I could prepare. Wanna play Boggle instead?")
Now that all this comity has broken out, I'm gonna pull out of this conversation and go Christmas shopping.
But basically, there are plenty of physical reasons....
An ex-girlfriend of mine was very uncomfortable at times, unless we took particular care. The physical conditions seem more individual than high school health class first led me to believe.
As for "dyke," I am embarrassed to use the word because men who say it are often jerks hollering it at women to be crude and mean.
Recently I was staying at a friend's house, when in the middle of the night I was awakened by a blow job. Assuming that it was the wife, I politely followed the family custom and did not object when she climbed on top of me and achieved penetration. Then in the morning I found out that it was the 15 year old daughter, and that she was horrified that I had gone to bed without a condom, in violation of their the family custom. There had, in fact, been an assortment of condoms in a dish on the bedside table, along with mints.
NOTE: The wife and daughter are very similar in appearance and size, and I hadn't had sex with either of them before.
NOTE 2: I am not married, nor is the 15 year old daughter.
NOTE 3: I don't need the jumbo-size condoms, and the daughter commented sarcastically about this.
How should I be feeling about this. The family seemed a little stiff at breakfast. The daughter kept talking about what a "nice time" she's had the night before, and her parents were casting significant glances back and forth. What does "nice time" mean these days?
209: Your squeamishness would probably have been ameliorated by hanging out with my dyke friends from high school, who liked to walk around the snooty rich hipster areas of town and scream "PENIS!" at the yuppies.
And now, with the relief that 210 came along to make me feel like I'm no longer the biggest asshole in this thread, I'll take my leave and do the weekend crossword...
Frankly, I think it's a mistake to overthink any of this (condom, condom, who's got the condom?)
This at 198, for example:
If she's not that into me, I'd hate for her to be having sex simply because I brought a condom along. For all I know, women who've said they don't have condoms actually do; at least I'm giving them an out that is less harsh on my feelings
sounds like second-guessing intentions, when ideally communication should be straightforward enough that both parties know perfectly well that it's not going to happen, or they do want it to happen, if not tonight then next time, and so on. Using "I don't have a condom" as an excuse for avoiding someone's advances sounds like it'd backfire soon enough.
I'm just not seeing that the question should be so fraught in the first place: a million reasons you might not have condoms. (Checked this afternoon and they were expired, threw 'em out!) I wouldn't draw any conclusions from this unless it became a pattern.
What does "nice time" mean these days?
She was fertile. Mazzeltoff.
214.1 is so not in the spirit of unfogged.
211: What does "nice time" mean these days?
It means you were a fuccess!
94 etc. As a President of Size, I'd like to say that it's not entirely a concern of the condom breaking or slipping off. Ordinary sized condoms are downright painful to wear for some. I am not even porn-star sized, merely above average.
manskirt up, Jimmy. What's a little pain in the pursuit of glory?
214.1 is so not in the spirit of unfogged.
I demand occasional quiet time for my reasoned self.
As a man, I think I'm entitled to have sex that's only painful for one of us.
Also, in case any of you didn't get the memo, used condoms are not for flushing.
The worst is getting up in the middle of the night and finding one floating around in the toilet bowl belonging to your roommate/roommate's dude. Ugh.
(Note: I am talking about pre-Flophouse roommate experiences.)
No, Becks, the worst is when a mother finds one floating around in the toilet bowl belonging to her son. And then offers to teach the happy young couple the rhythm method.
Now that all this comity has broken out, I'm gonna pull out of this conversation and go Christmas shopping.
I think it is adequately demonstrated that commentus interruptus is not an effective method of internet control.
For the record.
1. I think it is FINE to assume that sexually active adults of either sex usually have condoms in their homes.
2. I do not think it is fine to make remarks about how women should be responsible enough to provide condoms without recognizing that a man who says that *he* doesn't carry condoms because it's inconvenient to do so is invoking a double standard.
3. I think it's obnoxious to make those remarks and then couple them with judgment about what's wrong with women who don't stock condoms, again, while overlooking the fact that there are two people, *neither* of whom have provided condoms.
4. I think it's obnoxious to defend 2 and 3 while implicitly accusing someone (me) who is pointing out the double standard and, yes, passing judgment on the *other* person who failed to provide condoms--in reaction to the comments in 3, mind you, and not simply out of the blue--of casting aspersions on women (158, 163) or of being stupid (170). Especially if the complaint is that I used Bad Words directly, rather than indirectly, which seems awfully holier-than-thou.
Now I'm out of here and taking my kid to the beach. I'm sorry that I ruined everyone's good time. I hope you can all get back to giving Ogged a hard time about his date rather than spending the next however long making comments about me in my absence.
It was my impression that we were talking about women having condoms *in their homes*. In the hypothetical situation, the guy doesn't have a condom, but they're not at the guy's house. They're at the woman's house.
228--
so he failed to bring his house along, too? why should a second failure exculpate the first one?
i mean, you're either prepared or your not.
The host of an encounter should, ideally, have condoms.
Anyway, congratulations, ogged! Maybe she'll let you use one of your lovingly prepared condoms one of these days.
230: The host of an encounter should, ideally, have condoms.
Whoa, Craigslist flashback.
Yeah, but you can't actually appeal to (as you appear to be) an implied standard of "Condoms are something you have in the home, rather than carrying around, no one actually carries them around." People do carry them around.
There's nothing wrong with expecting anyone of either sex who's expecting to have penetrative intercourse to have condoms available. Taking a woman's, particularly, not having condoms available in her home as diagnostic of personality flaws is really obnoxious.
That is to say: I don't think what you are calling a double standard is one, B.
And as for my 158 being "obnoxious": well, it felt like you had set up the argument as Your Side versus "uncharitable and reflexive defense of male entitlement." (156)
And for the record, this comment isn't about you, it is about the argument.
There are convenience stores, after all.
Seriously. Not that running out to a convenience store is fun, but still.
I think McKingford's wrong and not having condoms on hand could mean everything from 'was surprised that things progressed this fast this quickly' to 'just got out of a long-term monogamous relationship and I'm on the pill so I forgot' to 'I'm a complete scatterbrain who also sometimes runs out of tampons, toilet paper, and Advil.'
But I don't think there's much wrong with the train of thought other than it being factually wrong and likely to make McKingford miss out on sex with delightful scatterbrains. It doesn't seem to incorporate any assumptions about whose responsibility protection is, other than whose home it is.
Diagnosis of personality flaws on that basis as obnoxious: agreed.
But I just don't see the double standard- it is different to have condoms in your house all the time than it is to carry one around all the time.
233: This is what makes me hate these conversations about who's oppressing who. Picking apart 'who started it' is grim and pointless and stupid and makes everyone hate everyone else. Walking away from a conversation that has become about who started it is also very difficult.
If you don't have Advil in the house, you're probably too timid to have a headache!
Maybe any time one is about to write "for the record" (227, 233), one should refrain.
236: I think unravelling whether or not there was a double standard in what McKingford said is a useful debate to have. If only things had not begun with specific personal insults, maybe we could have done better with that debate.
There's nothing wrong with expecting anyone of either sex who's expecting to have penetrative intercourse to have condoms available.
Right; "expecting" being the operative term.
I gather we're talking about dating situations in which inviting a guy over to your home usually means that you're inviting him with the possibility of sex in mind: you're hosting an encounter, as JM put it, which is a sexual one -- like, this very night.
Sure, if you both know that he's coming over with nakedness in the back of your minds, the host(ess) should have condoms on hand. If he's just coming over for dinner, for crying out loud, I'd not go running out to the store for condoms. Seems a bit much.
239: It seems odd of you to describe a comment made in response to McKingsford's as how things began. You can call it unjustified if you like, but calling it the beginning of the conversation appears simply false.
241: it initiated a new phase in the conversation based more on people taking offense and getting pissed off than on discussion of the issues involved, in my opinion. It did that because it was specifically personally insulting to McKingford based on a reading of what he said that I personally think was factually incorrect (specifically, that he was advocating for any kind of double standard). In that sense, I think it was sort of unfortunate, in a way that none of the preceding comments (however ill-concieved they may have been) were not.
If he's just coming over for dinner, for crying out loud, I'd not go running out to the store for condoms. Seems a bit much.
This makes me chuckle, as "inviting someone over for dinner" around the third or fourth date is pretty forwardly inviting them over for sex in many circles.
"none of the preceding comments (...) were not."
Ack.
232: It's possible that McK's original statement was empirical rather than theoretical. N is most likely less than 500, so beware of anecdata and all that.
I think unravelling whether or not there was a double standard in what McKingford said is a useful debate to have.
I don't know how useful a debate it is. But I don't see a double standard: the claim was that the host should have condoms on hand, no? And that the visitor should not be expected to bring them with (him).
Fair enough.
What rankled some was obviously the thought that women (people?) who don't have condoms on hand at home are likely sexually timid or some such. An entirely separate question, and best ignored.
Aside from that, possibly the question whether condoms should be provided by the man, because they're donned by him, after all, is of interest.
243: So if Molly and I invite the couple next door over for dinner, should we have condoms on hand?
This makes me chuckle, as "inviting someone over for dinner" around the third or fourth date is pretty forwardly inviting them over for sex in many circles.
It is? God damn it, do I have to wear a shirt with a collar again?
"inviting someone over for dinner" around the third or fourth date is pretty forwardly inviting them over for sex in many circles.
Ah, that was my question: apparently it is in many circles. I shall have to attend to just how I invite people for dinner, then. Wouldn't want to be caught unprepared.
242: The assumption you're making is that sweeping generalizations about women who don't stock condoms, like:
Almost inevitably, I've found that women who are confident in their sexuality are stocked, and those who aren't are not. The end result is that women who take responsibility for having condoms at home are much better in bed; the women who don't tend to be much more timid. This ultimately virtually becomes a screening device. If I end up at a woman's place who doesn't have her own stash, it's hard not to conclude she isn't really ready to have sex.
are the sort of thing that it's unreasonable to be pissed off by, and that responding by commenting on the qualities of the sort of person who would think that way are taking the conversation to a newly hostile place. And I'm just not seeing that as a general rule, really. McKingsford is perfectly welcome to make unpleasant, contemptuous generalizations about women who don't meet his standard for preparedness, and that's cool with me. But anyone who finds that sort of thing annoying is also welcome to be cross about it, and to express their crossness.
To sum up: "Don't start none, won't be none."
247: m. leblanc said she had a similar thought about men who didn't have condoms on hand.
248: Stock up on Advil, too!
The obvious explanation for a woman who doesn't have condoms on hand in her house is that she's very sociable, and she's just happened to run out. Shit happens, and not everyone has a Costco membership.
What rankled some was obviously the thought that women (people?) who don't have condoms on hand at home are likely sexually timid or some such.
Agreed, and I don't think there was much debate that what he said in that regard was stupid at best, and patriarchal and misogynist at wors(e|t). The problem -- as I see it -- with B's comment (and I feel a little bad making this argument while she isn't here, but not that bad, because I imagine she'll feel free to retort later) is that it took the objectionable portion of his comment (imputing somewhat laughable motives to women who didn't have condoms on hand) and extrapolated it to mean that he didn't think that men had any responsibility to provide birth control, something which he explicitly did not say (in fact, he said the opposite). She then used this misinterpretation as a basis to brand him, and eventually others, dicks and assholes.
243: Provided they aren't lubed/spermicidal, they (or certain analogs I am well-stocked on) are occasionally useful as kitchen supplies. Perhaps unsuprisingly, on the one occasion I actually wound up using a latex glove as a makeshift container, I was making cocktails.
251: The assumption you're making is...
That isn't the assumption I'm making, as explained in 254. It's perfectly reasonable for B and others to have been pissed off, it's not reasonable for her (them) to have claimed McKingford said something he did not say, and that, in my opinion, is what got the conversation off the rails.
So if Molly and I invite the couple next door over for dinner, should we have condoms on hand?
Can't be too prepared!
Actually, one can be too prepared. A couple of months ago, a couple of ladies outside the subway had set up a condom distribution booth, singing out loudly "Cooooon-dooooooms! Get your New York City coooooooon-dooooooms!" And I was so charmed by the whole thing that I donated a dollar and got a big handful of condoms. I brought them home, and my honey was unamused (I'm on the pill, and we're monogamous). I ended up having to throw them away, after having decided that it would just be too weird to give them away to people.
Agreed, and I don't think there was much debate that what he said in that regard was stupid at best, and patriarchal and misogynist at wors(e|t).
So, you're not complaining about B. taking a nice conversation and making it unpleasant, you're complaining that she got annoyed wrong? Geez.
(That is, if that's what you think, complaining that she started with the insults seems screwy. Disagreeing with her seems fair, along the lines of "I can see that McKingsford's comment is a piss-off for other reasons, but I, too, think it's reasonable to expect anyone sexually active to have condoms in their home." But complaining about the effect of her comments on the tone of the conversation generally, I don't get.)
257: At least now you know you can safely invite Rob and Molly over for dinner.
256: Again, making it clear that your issue was about a factual disagreement, rather than complaining about B's tone when she responded in a hostile way to a nastily unpleasant comment, would have made things clearer.
Provided they aren't lubed/spermicidal, they (or certain analogs I am well-stocked on) are occasionally useful as kitchen supplies.
Ok, I'm intrigued.
Actually, one can be too prepared.
I've mentioned my Peace Corps government issue first aid kit, packed to the gills with hundreds of condoms, that sat in my house mocking me for two years, right?
258: the reason that things got so ugly is that she insulted McKingford, among others, based on a mischaracterization of his views, and then wouldn't back down. Look at 106 and 110. Both of those comments are based on the premise that McKingford didn't think men should be responsible for birth control, something he explicitly disavowed. Now look at 227.2 and .3, posted hours later, where she is still taking the position that McKingford was expressing a double standard: he was explicitly not endorsing a double standard, rather he was endorsing a standard whereby the person who's house the action is going to happen at be responsible for birth control. A uniform standard. If B had not persistently misrepresented what he said, I don't think anybody would have disagreed about anything, as seen in how quickly comity broke out when she bowed out of the conversation because (I am guessing) she thought we were piling on and/or being unfair.
they (or certain analogs I am well-stocked on) are occasionally useful as kitchen supplies
When you want to re-skin a chorizo, for instance.
260: again, it's really both; she applied in a hostile way based on a misinterpretation, and then stuck with it, insulting people who tried to correct her along the way. That's what bothered me.
261: Well, usually the gloves are useful because they're gloves, but in this case, I was making various flavor-infused sugar syrups for use in said cocktails (similar concept to grenadine, but with peppers and such), and underestimated just how much of the stuff the recipe I was working from would produce, as well as how many clean, empty containers I had on hand for the refrigeration period. The habanero syrup seemed none the worse for wear for having been stored in a tied-off glove, although the remaining amounts that got put into cold storage were transferred to a plastic water bottle first.
In Ireland until 1994, condoms were illegal except for culinary purposes.
When I was single, I used to keep a little bowl on my nightstand with condoms and quarters in it. (I did laundry a lot more than I got laid, oh yes I did.) I don't think it's entirely unreasonable to hope that other people who are sexually active would do something similar.
I don't really think I would judge somebody for not having condoms on hand. However, it is likely that if I were to tumble into someone else's bed without any notice, the encounter might have been RATHER poorly planned and judged all the way around, and condoms' not being around might just help throw on the brakes for the one night of the stand, as it were.
I associate condoms so much with the taste of latex and spermicide that I don't think I could use them in cooking.
the worst is when a mother finds one floating around in the toilet bowl belonging to her son. And then offers to teach the happy young couple the rhythm method.
Awesome.
You're reading his comments with the maximum of charity, and hers with none. Throughout, he insists that not being stocked with condoms at home is "disturbing", indicative of not being prepared for sex, and so on. If he wanted to back off the hostility of the conversation, after having opened it by being broadly shitty about women he's fucked in the past, he could have dropped the broad personality diagnoses at any point, and just said that it's a gender neutral rule about hosting. (If you want to take a gender neutral rule from his comments and argue that it's a good one, that's a reasonable thing to do and no one's going to get angry with you for it.)
I'm good with a free-for-all, or I'm good with a rule where people mind their manners and don't say shitty things. I'm really tired of these arguments where someone says something shitty, and then the big issue is if people were overly mean in response to the initial shittiness.
I associate condoms sheep intestines so much with the taste of latex and spermicide ground pork and garlic that I don't think I could use them in cooking for birth control.
271: see 135, and then 154. He did back off the hostility.
Again, I don't really give a shit if people are mean. It's jumping on somebody based on a misinterpretation, and then jumping on the people who were trying to correct that misinterpretation, that I have a problem with. You might argue that McKingford imputed motives to his previous lovers that were based on a misinterpretation of his remarks: indeed, people did argue that, and he backed off (as in 198, again, whatever its other faults). B, instead of backing off, continued to argue against a position that McKingford hadn't taken. That right there is arguing against a straw man, and when you couple that with personal insults, things tend to go off the rails.
Now, yes, the guy has some weird opinions, and obviously he could have been (a) more educated in the first place and (b) come to his senses faster. But he still didn't say what B claimed he said.
I associate sheep so much with the taste of first love that I don't think I could use the in cooking or for birth control.
271: With respect, this sounds like a rule of "If you misinterpret someone, make sure you insult them, because then when people try to correct you, you can say that they just can't handle your tone." Or "if someone misreads you and insults you, it's your fault if the conversation doesn't rise to its potential heights."
If you count accepting someone else's maximally charitable (and, you know, inaccurate: Ogged left out all the diagnosing the emotional health and sexual skills of his partners by whether they stock condoms; B's comments in 140 were accurate) rephrasing of his comments as backing off the hostility, I guess. I don't see that as 'backing off the hostility' so much as taking potshots and then saying 'who me?'
You can disagree with B.'s interpretation of what he said, and there's nothing wrong with that. If you want to keep the conversation on the rails as a conversation about condom use and who should stock condoms, then say something about the topic. Disagree with B: she can take it. If McK's comments made you think of something independently interesting, say that, and go from there.
But turning the conversation to how one commenter's hostile response to another commenter's nasty remark is the real problem, is IMO what actually drives the conversation off the rails. Conversations about condom use are interesting. Conversations about who's badly behaved are dull and unpleasant.
276: No. It's a rule of: if you don't like bickering, don't bicker, if you want people to be charitable, be charitable. Correcting someone's misinterpretation is great, if you want to do that. Getting into a meta-discussion about how some people are just so poorly behaved that it's no wonder the conversation went off the rails, on the other hand, is boring and annoying.
I am so not telling you people any more date stories.
It's pretty clear that the disagreeable stuff was the suggestion that if you don't have condoms around the house, then you're a timid child who's not mature enough to be a good fuck anyway. I don't see anyone disagreeing with the idea that women who want to have sex at their homes should have protection at their homes.
I have had fun times going to the drugstore with a few unexpectedly good dates to pick out condoms. But awkward situations sort of turn me on, so YMMV. It does make for a good place and time to figure out how someone feels about sex. Is choosing condoms some big solemn moment for him? Then I will be warned that we may not be compatible. Does he refuse to give any input? I may have to take charge in bed. Is it an opportunity for making hilarious awkward jokes? It's going to be a great night.
The only thing sadder than having no condoms and having to go to the store is having one condom. You're just tempting fate, there. It will inevitably break, or be put on wrong, or whatever, and then you're SOL. This only happened to me once, but both the guy (who was leaving town in the morning) and I were at the verge of tears of frustration for the rest of the night.
For the record, I stock condoms at home (for no one at all, apparently), but don't think anything in particular of someone who doesn't. (It's not a mood-killer to me to have to go to the store.)
277: I think we're talking in circles to some degree, but I'll say again: the problem is not the hostility, it's the combination of the hostility and the misinterpretation. Whatever truth is contained in B's 140, the assertion that McKingford said -- or even implied -- that women should be primarily responsible for supplying birth control is not true. The fact that B continued arguing -- strongly, using personal insults -- that this was the case turned the discussion from an interesting debate into one that was primarily about whether or not she was creating a straw man. I see that you don't see it that way, and won't pursue it further, but looking at the progress of the conversation, when B was involved and when she wasn't, I can't see it any other way.
So what is your charitable interpretation of 106, LB?
Getting into a meta-discussion about how some people are just so poorly behaved that it's no wonder the conversation went off the rails, on the other hand, is boring and annoying.
Hysterical.
281: were at the verge of tears of frustration for the rest of the night.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but couldn't you think of anything else to do that would have, uh, relieved the frustration? 'Cause, like, I can think of a few things, and I'm certainly no Don Giovanni.
279: Probably wise. But I think you should get a charming old-fashioned cigarette case to store your condoms in.
286: We did all those things!
Alas, there are just some people that you really, really, inexplicably intensely want to fuck.
278: I think we need more charity all around, else it seems like a recipe for:
Position!
Insult based on misreading of position.
Clarification!
Gnomes come in and erase the clarification.
Cock joke!
Continued insult on account of gnomes.
Hurt feelings.
Repeat for 400 comments.
This makes me chuckle, as "inviting someone over for dinner" around the third or fourth date is pretty forwardly inviting them over for sex in many circles.
Are these the same circles where "I had a nice time" means "Damn, I'm glad that's over"?
||
I'm torn between rooting for NE or Pittsburgh, but I follow the path of the right and true, so suck it, Patriots.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but couldn't you think of anything else to do that would have, uh, relieved the frustration? 'Cause, like, I can think of a few things, and I'm certainly no Don Giovanni.
Well... did you remember to buy the Advil?
"inviting someone over for dinner" around the third or fourth date is pretty forwardly inviting them over for sex in many circles.
We're having cassoulet. Save that sausage casing, would you? I don't want to have to go to the store.
284: That it's an angry response to a contemptuous series of comments. I can't see any other interpretation making much sense.
Once again, no matter what Bitch PhD said, no one here is really arguing about who is responsible for birth control. The actual controversial part, which is what provoked hostile reactions and so forth, was:
Almost inevitably, I've found that women who are confident in their sexuality are stocked, and those who aren't are not. The end result is that women who take responsibility for having condoms at home are much better in bed; the women who don't tend to be much more timid. This ultimately virtually becomes a screening device. If I end up at a woman's place who doesn't have her own stash, it's hard not to conclude she isn't really ready to have sex.
The only thing sadder than having no condoms and having to go to the store is having one condom.
What about having no condoms and deciding, eh, that was probably a bad idea anyway? Cause the morning after that one, I was sad in pretty much every way possible.
it's the combination of the hostility and the misinterpretation.
To get even more meta, "misinterpretation" is something that's been brought up a whole lot in all of these godawful meta-arguments about what's wrong with the site, and it seems to get brought up as if it were unambiguously intentional bad behavior. I don't get that. People misunderstand each other all the time. Avoiding misinterpretation is a whole lot of work, as is straightening out misinterpretations when they occur.
I can see complaining about misinterpretation after a long, patient conversation along the lines of "You seem to me to be understanding me to say X. While [I can understand why you think that based on my careless phrasing/I'm not sure where you're getting that from], I'm actually only saying Y." Lather, rinse, and repeat for a number of rounds.
But complaining about misinterpretation as if it were an unusual and objectively avoidable type of conversational misbehavior, as opposed to something that happens in every conversation, between the most adept and cooperative of conversationalists, seems really ill-thought out to me.
see 135, and then 154. He did back off the hostility.
I don't see how you are characterizing as "back[ing] off the hostility" a comment that reiterates the initially offensive generalization that women who fail to keep a steady supply of prophylactics in bed are much more sexually inhibited.
And while I still think the offensive aspect is largely gender neutral, McKingford's nasty generalizations were in fact directed only at women -- "women" who aren't stocked are bad in bed, not "people." I am having a hard time understanding why this characterization of women who don't stock condoms is any less nasty than characterizing men who can't be bothered to carry a condom as dicks.
301: I think Sifu's point was that if you ignored all the nasty generalizations about the emotional and sexual deficiencies of women who don't have condoms in the house when a date comes home with them, that there was an interesting discussion to be had about what a good rule is for who should be responsible for condom supply: host, guest, man, or woman?
And there might have been an interesting conversation to be had along those lines -- as a big flake, I'd hope that the conclusions weren't too harsh on the unprepared -- but I'm unclear on what made it impossible.
still gronwup discussion is going on, huh
Dino vs Bolek et Lolek
just sorry, he'll take it down
who should be responsible for condom supply: host, guest, man, or woman?
Host! Host!
However, I seem to be very bad at choosing condoms. Either they make me itch or they cut off circulation to the penis or they feel like wetsuits or they come off...
make me itch
I've been off condoms for a decade now, but back in the day I was all about the polyurethane. I don't know if I've got a mild latex allergy or what, but the latex ones suck.
281 was funny, was immediately identifiable as AWB, and let me know that AWB is emotionally unprepared for sex.
Pleasure plus are fun.
I have had an extra toothbrush on hand, which was appreciated.
Ok, crossword puzzle done and now I return to try to clean up the mess I see I've made...
Throughout, he insists that not being stocked with condoms at home is "disturbing", indicative of not being prepared for sex, and so on.
Not a fair presentation of what I said: I expressed my view that if a woman goes to the extraordinary steps of getting injections or having a device permanently inserted in her uterus to facilitate sex (and forgive me - seriously - for not expressing my appreciation to women for doing this), but does not avert to the much more basic step of keeping condoms handy, then who is testing whom, exactly? "Disturbing" was probably a poor way to word it, but it does seem rather odd.
Nor did I suggest that it is a character flaw in a woman to not have a home supply of condoms. In *my* experience - which may be either/or both anomalous or misperceived (by me) - women who don't have a ready supply of condoms at home (or, who don't keep them because they think it's the guy's responsibility to bring them over) *tend* (as opposed to invariably) to be less comfortable about having sex. I don't think this is a character flaw, nor do I think it is my expression of contempt (as has been suggested). If someone else thinks that is a character flaw, that is their issue, but it doesn't come from me.
In short, I don't think someone who is less confident in their sexuality - or unenthusiastic about having sex with me - is flawed in the least. It just makes me less likely to want to have sex with them. [I also, as a result of this thread, accept that there may be all kinds of other, unrelated, or happenstance reasons why a woman doesn't have condoms handy: I may be entirely wrong]
~
This discussion has been instructive.
I had long worried I came across as being an asshole. I've recently accepted that it's likely because I *am* an asshole - although for reasons unrelated to my views on condom preparedness.
I now accept that I may be wrong about this, and this too makes me an asshole.
But, damn, B, did you have to be such an asshole about it?
McK: "I've found that [etc etc etc]"
Seems to me like those are the three words doing all the work in the observation. Mileage. Varying.
Shouldn't Ogged be taking more abuse in light of the post that followed, or is there an inexplicable outbreak of charity going on here?
302: Well, I'm bored and my cookies didn't turn out, so let's try that conversation!
And what the hell, I'll go out on a little limb and get things rolling with a little TMI disclosure that I have mixed feelings about having a stock on hand. As a good girl who married the first guy she ever had penetrative sex with, the idea of keeping condoms in stock like toilet paper or advil is kind of new to me. There is a part of me that cringes, thinking having a supply "just in case" rather than maybe purchasing together after some sort of meaningful discussion or something make you something of a little slut (applied to both genders, actually, so not entirely the product of internalized double standards).
It didn't help that the first guy I dated after separating had a weird tic about making jokes that I was "easy." Or that the guy I am currently sort of seeing expressed surprise that a nice girl who is not even divorced yet had an adequately stocked purse. I dated a guy who was well-stocked, and wasn't sure what I thought of that. I dated a guy who needs some remedial education on why condoms are special and important and was a little put off that he was unprepared. I have no actual conclusions other than, I guess, it depends.
I have had an extra toothbrush on hand, which was appreciated.
Me too, but it was appreciated to the tune of "Whose toothbrush is this?" and soon succeeded by "Whose perfume is this?" and then everything got complicated.
309: pwned by the return of McK, but at least not auto-cockblocked.
I've recently accepted that it's likely because I *am* an asshole
Seriously, dude? If this is anything other than disingenuous, and you have some vague interest in not being percieved as an asshole?
If you say something, and it pisses people off, check to see if you understand why people are pissed off, and if you're really committed to saying that bit. If not, back off that bit and apologize. (If you are committed to it, stick to your guns, of course, but people do make mistakes.) If you don't understand what they're pissed off about, than start actively trying to clarify it.
And of course saying that people who don't have condoms stocked in their house are less confident in their sexuality and not as good in bed as those who do is saying that they're flawed. This:
In short, I don't think someone who is less confident in their sexuality - or unenthusiastic about having sex with me - is flawed in the least.
comes off as "I just said he was ugly. Not that there's anything wrong with being ugly -- some of my best friends are ugly -- but facts are facts."
Di Kotimy, I think you might need a little more Sex! Hooray! in your life. I vote that you sleep with a bunch of people who weren't raised Protestant.
306: The problem is that you only get on-the-job training.
polyurethane is indeed better--all the more reason to stock your preferred variety.
the idea of keeping condoms in stock like toilet paper or advil is kind of new to me.
This just puts another peg in the `experience/es vary a lot in this area' board for me. The comments about sexual history here often make me think I'm an outlier in this group, but it's interesting.
314: Yes, I came to that conclusion some time ago. Working on it, working on it...
It indicates repression and inhibition to just say "ahem" when you object to a comment.
310: I don't know if this would necessarily help you with your internal slut-shaming, Di, but I keep condoms stocked in my first aid kit (which gets updated every three months). They are medical supplies, after all. A bit inconvenient, I suppose, but hey.
Position!
Insult based on misreading of position.
Clarification!
Reminds me of the scene at 25:00 in this episode of TAL.
321: object, hell, he was offering his body.
Personally speaking, I've found that if I put the right moves on her, even the most repressed woman can become a wild devil who just oozes sexuality.
(My position is fairly ecumenical, though -- protestant, Catholic, gentile, Jew, really no background or creed has been ruled out... )
322: Hey, that's not a bad idea.
Somehow I have the problem that the damn things accumulate.
We went through all (hopefully) of ours the other day figuring to get rid of expired ones. Which left us with a couple hundred or so --- and we don't even use them. Ah well, some are good for a few years yet.
I had a very fun time with a Wiccan, once. I recommend them.
Di, it's damned if you do, damned if you don't. It's like the "self-esteem" problem that all women have, unless they're "narcissists." If you stock condoms, you're an easy slut, but if you don't, you're emotionally unprepared to be a sexual adult, despite any and all evidence to the contrary.
This whole argument is nothing new, is it? The categories that allow us to judge women overlap with the ones that allow us to judge them for the opposite sin. It's not anyone here's individual fault that this is the case, and it shouldn't be a big surprise that we all have different kinds of misogyny to tackle in ourselves, or that some of us are less aware of that misogyny than others. I see little to get huffy about.
They are medical supplies, after all.
I'll bet a condom could be used as a tourniquet in a pinch. As it were.
And while I still think the offensive aspect is largely gender neutral, McKingford's nasty generalizations were in fact directed only at women -- "women" who aren't stocked are bad in bed, not "people."
I can only comment on my experience, which is limited to women (who do, however, happen to be "people"). And I didn't mean for it to come across as nasty...
It didn't help that the first guy I dated after separating had a weird tic about making jokes that I was "easy."
In my defense, I would never make an adverse comment on a woman who *does* keep condoms on hand; to do so is *definitely* an asshole move.
I also keep a supply of new (ie. packaged) toothbrushes on hand for overnight visitors; as much as it would be nice if it were invariably reciprocated, I make no judgments on anyone who doesn't...
Finally, AWB summed up what I alluded to much earlier. One condom is really rolling the dice, not to mention pretty much ensuring no repeats - and how much fun is that?
331: better than trying to use a tourniquet as birth control...
yeah, i like it when a woman stocks an extra toothbrush, sure.
but to handle a man like me, she needs to keep a *magnum* toothbrush in reserve.
an awesomely huge toothbrush, just bristling with...bristles.
hell, i understand some guys feel inferior looking at how big my toothbrush is.
me and my big mouth.
I'm going to unpublish the post in five or ten minutes, so say your piece if you've got a piece to say.
I also keep a supply of new (ie. packaged) toothbrushes on hand for overnight visitors
Man, disco really isn't over for some. I am so over the hill---happy about it, oh yes, very happy.
We'll chalk it up to inexperience and/or faulty observation to attempt generalizing from, McKingford.
More to the point though, digging it up again won't improve the smell.
Oh, ogged! We were just starting to have fun!
This was probably suggested in the thread I didn't read about publish and unpublish vs. not publish at all, but why not create a blog with only trusted access for posts which you're planning to unpublish in the future? You don't even need to put me on the trusted list.
I also keep a supply of new (ie. packaged) toothbrushes on hand for overnight visitors dangling in my chest hairs that burst out of the deep v-neck of my Varga-girl-patterned polyester shirt.
340: sniff, we hardly knew you. a tragedy to take one so young.
Polyurethane makes annoying crinkly noises, and isn't as stretchy as latex, so aside from the cost, it's really not better for everyone.
I'm in favor of having a stock around. Even in a relationship that's using hormonal BC, there are enough things that can mess that up (like antibiotics) that it's helpful to have a backup around.
However, this "you can go to the store" business bugs me. It's either urban-living-centric or car-owner-centric, and despite being both right now, I've been in situations where getting to a store would have had to wait until morning and a couple of long bus rides.
313:
So you hate McK. Why not just come out and say it? This would be such an easier conversation if everyone just admitted their immediate visceral reactions. Then everyone else can continue with their actually interesting conversation about condoms.
I'll admit that the whole conversation is foreign to me, since I've always been the provider of protection. I did have one date be pissed at me because I only had 3. Clearly, I had not planned ahead enough.
I'll also admit that awkward and semi-innocent is kind of cute, up to a point.
BTW, if there's a Date III, there needs to be a good subtitle, like Date III: The Quickening.
343 is true in that going to the store can only happen easily if you're out in public when you both agree you're going to have sex with someone. You can't wait to seduce someone at your home, because, at that point, going to the store is awkward.
I have never been seduced at someone's home, so I haven't run into this situation.
I did have one date be pissed at me because I only had 3.
That sounds a little unreasonable.
Date III: So that's where I was supposed to put it!
346: depends how clumsy you both are, I guess.
I have never been seduced at someone's home
Hang on, what?
In NYC, you go to someone's home without knowing whether there's going to be sex involved, JM? I can't imagine doing that. I like to know what's going to happen when I come into someone's house.
349: AWB dates people who move fast. Everyone is agreed (or not) on sex before the dessert course.
No one should lure people back to their apartment with the promise that this post will be there.
AWB has only been seduced in people's summer homes.
Only Lur should be luring people.
313: Are you serious?
Not disingenuous at all: I am an asshole. The reaction my post(s) provoked stand as pretty solid evidence of that. Of course I'm sorry about it; I've tried to walk it back a bit, and am sorry that hasn't been clearer.
I'm not about to own up to everything that has been ascribed to me, but I accept that my comments have been poorly received, and that says something instructive to me that I do have to own up to.
If you don't accept that someone can learn/change their position as a result of these threads, then what is the point of having them except to talk past each other?
Honestly, I can't imagine that people actually wander off to someones home at the end of a date without the expectation of sex unless it's been explicitly discounted. Seems implausible.
I assumed you sort of overstated your point, McK, but not that you're inherently an asshole.