http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2013/01/17/saddlebacking-as-birth-control Comments On: Saddlebacking As Birth Control by Dan Savage en-us Copyright 2013 The Stranger. All rights reserved. This RSS file is offered to individuals, The Stranger readers, and non-commercial organizations only. Any commercial websites wishing to use this RSS file, please contact The Stranger. webmaster@thestranger.com (The Stranger Webmaster) Wed, 19 Jun 2013 00:00:01 -0700 Wed, 19 Jun 2013 11:30:00 -0700 Foundation http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss
What if the studious Ichabod finds her mouth and/or butt so fascinating that he doesn't really care about this "gift" she values so highly?
Posted by Ballard Pimp]]> Sun, 20 Jan 2013 22:41:30 -0800 The Stranger Posted by Minerva]]> Sat, 19 Jan 2013 10:01:17 -0800 The Stranger
Regarding the mental game, however, there is still a certain level of basic logic lacking in the current case, which others have expounded on at length. a) the hypothetical guy who values an unused pussy is probably going to be unimpressed if it is paired with a thoroughly used ass, mouth, and everything else; b) I sure hope said hypothetical guy has an equally unspoiled dick, or he's a hypocrite as well as a misogynist and no, he doesn't get to claim even "technical" virginity if he's been using it in someone else's backdoor; c) maybe that's just my preference, but the very last thing I would want a woman to associate my dick with is blood and pain, nor would I consider it a "gift" to me, to have her bleeding, crying, and curled up in a fetal position. Sounds like a great way to ruin an evening.

No, she isn't doing it for any of us, but she did write in asking for an opinion. Surely she knows that includes the opportunity for people other than Dan to chime in.
Posted by avast2006]]> Sat, 19 Jan 2013 09:39:13 -0800 The Stranger Posted by lolorhone]]> Fri, 18 Jan 2013 21:59:49 -0800 The Stranger idea of a vagina that no other penis has been in before. No, there's not much physiological difference, especially not if the woman has engaged in other types of sexual activity, but thousands of years of tradition don't just go away when we figure out how to mass-produce fat-free potato chips. You can think of it as a territorial primitive thing, but sex itself can be pretty primitive.

I realize that a lot of people on this thread think it's a dumb idea, but the LW isn't doing it for any of us. The sort of person that she's likely to marry is also likely to be the sort of person who'd care about something like this. It doesn't matter if any of us think opera tickets are a dumb gift; we're probably not the ones who are going to be sitting in her theater.
Posted by DRF]]> Fri, 18 Jan 2013 15:15:49 -0800 The Stranger " Virgin? Yes, her vagina IS virgin. That's a treat, no doubt."

Really? Seems to me the "treat" will consist of blood and pain. Gee, honey, you shouldn't have.

If blood and pain aren't present, then how will the experience be any different than a non-virgin vagina, in which case what is special about it? Other than mentally, which is to say, catering to some misogynistic notions on the part of her asshole husband?
Posted by avast2006]]> Fri, 18 Jan 2013 14:15:35 -0800 The Stranger Posted by DRF]]> Fri, 18 Jan 2013 10:55:09 -0800 The Stranger Posted by LML]]> Fri, 18 Jan 2013 08:04:51 -0800 The Stranger Posted by GrammarQueen]]> Fri, 18 Jan 2013 07:58:47 -0800 The Stranger
http://youtu.be/cG-6AP8DIOU

Dinosaur points if you remember seeing this on its original web site.
Posted by Nyckname]]> Fri, 18 Jan 2013 05:03:05 -0800 The Stranger
This letter is a bit short, and I've nothing at all against the practice by anyone with multiple partners (or the same partner at different stages) of reserving act 42 for partner/stage W. It just seems that one could, if uncharitably inclined, find this LW a little too far along the slippery slope of feeling entitled to have all cakes and be eaten by them too that seems worthy of Nellie Oleson.
Posted by vennominon]]> Fri, 18 Jan 2013 04:31:28 -0800 The Stranger Posted by vennominon]]> Fri, 18 Jan 2013 03:48:20 -0800 The Stranger Posted by MemeGene]]> Fri, 18 Jan 2013 01:19:43 -0800 The Stranger Screwing a pristine vagina, belonging to someone sexually experienced and (probably) GGG is no small gift to any sex-positive guy. I'm just hoping she stays clear of the misogynistic, double-standard-owning men out there.
I've never understood the need by men to have an 'unsoiled' female to marry, while they go about 'soiling' every woman they can get their dick into. Crazy.
Posted by OutInBumF]]> Fri, 18 Jan 2013 01:12:45 -0800 The Stranger
It's because she doesn't want to get pregnant. In that, I believe her (as the use of caps shows the level of her fear).

No, wait, it's because she wants to give her husband a rare gift on their wedding night. Uh, LW, unless you're confident of preventing pregnancy on that occasion, I'd think your default setting will still be anxious precisely because you don't have the confidence for PIV or sufficient knowledge of contraception, though a wedding ring will merely mean that any pregnancy won't be out of wedlock.

No, wait, it's because she believes she'll please her future husband with lots of fulfilling sex after all those years of practice. Ugh. Is she a member of the Stepford Wives' Junior Auxiliary? Note that nowhere has the LW stated that SHE enjoys the sex she is having which - to me - means she hasn't learnt the value of mutual reciprocity. Does GGG ring any bells for her? Probably just the sound of her clenched vaGGGina.

Posted by Helenka (also a Canuck)]]> Thu, 17 Jan 2013 21:48:15 -0800 The Stranger Posted by xjuan]]> Thu, 17 Jan 2013 20:10:48 -0800 The Stranger Posted by skjaere]]> Thu, 17 Jan 2013 19:51:14 -0800 The Stranger 1) She kisses a guy on the lips
2) She kisses with tongue
3) Hands roam around over clothes
4) Hands roam around under clothes
5) She gives him a hand job
6) He fingers her vaginally
7) He sucks her breasts
8) He gives her cunnilingus
9) She gives him oral
10) They have anal sex
11) They have vaginal sex

Obviously, after 11 she's not a virgin. But the rest are pretty damn fluid.

The main thing is that young women (and in a different way, young men) are valued as adult or not, mature or not, "real" or not, good or not, depending on how much sexual experience they have. What perplexes me is to watch the slut-shaming needle swing from 'you're bad if you're not a virgin' over to 'you're bad if you are a virgin' for women. In either case, we're standing around judging women by their sexual experience, as though that's a valid indicator of their worth as a human being and sexual partner. The judgment of young men is VASTLY different and mainly based on performance rather than intrinsic value. I wish we'd get away from this valuation of women based on things the woman herself has little control of (your opinion of her sexuality or beauty, for instance) and more on things she DOES have control over (like what kind of sexual partner she is).
Posted by Gamebird]]> Thu, 17 Jan 2013 17:59:12 -0800 The Stranger
Also, If you've had your ass plowed you are not a virgin, sorry
Posted by high and bi]]> Thu, 17 Jan 2013 17:57:45 -0800 The Stranger Posted by LukeJoe]]> Thu, 17 Jan 2013 17:47:03 -0800 The Stranger Posted by who can you believe anymore?.....]]> Thu, 17 Jan 2013 17:29:47 -0800 The Stranger Posted by DRF]]> Thu, 17 Jan 2013 16:10:30 -0800 The Stranger
I think she's got it backwards; her special gift is not going to be her tedious cluelessness about vaginal intercourse, but rather her well-practiced skills at oral and anal, which are going to come as quite a surprise if hubby thinks he's married a virgin.
Posted by Fnarf]]> Thu, 17 Jan 2013 16:05:28 -0800 The Stranger dictionary.com. I didn't make them myself.

By using words like "especially," the dictionary shows that the precise definition of "sexual intercourse" is a bit subjective. That's why I refer to the girl as "arguably" never having had sexual intercourse. I literally mean that reasonable arguments for "yes she has" and "no she hasn't" can be made. So yes, if we use the strictest existing definition of "sexual intercourse" to mean only penis-in-vagina sex, then the term "virgin" does technically apply to this girl. She's right to call herself a technical virgin.

Mr. Savage believes that anyone who's had sexual activity is a non-virgin, even people who've done oral sex and no other kind. He didn't get this from a dictionary; he worked this out on his own. So yes, he developed his own definition of the term. His definition serves his political beliefs and preferences: As shown in the columns and posts, he doesn't think that anal sex is the gay equivalent of hetero sex, but he does want the types of sex that gay people can engage in to be considered as important as hetero sexual intercourse. That means treating anal, oral, surrogate object (strap-ons et al.) and vaginal sex as all equally important. This is almost certainly why Mr. Savage believes that oral sex counts toward someone not being a virgin. I'm not 100% on his opinions on outercourse.
Posted by DRF]]> Thu, 17 Jan 2013 15:53:03 -0800 The Stranger
@ 39, the word in your definition "especially" doesn't mean "exclusively." Your comments treat the word "especially" as having that meaning. In other words, oral and anal are not excluded from the definition of "sexual intercourse." Which means that, no, not even technically is the LW a virgin. And means that, no, Dan did not "develop his own definition" of virgin.
Posted by Matt from Denver]]> Thu, 17 Jan 2013 14:55:03 -0800 The Stranger