when the status quo frustrates.

Monogamy what?

Wednesday, August 19th, 2009

I was chatting on the phone with the kids’ dad this evening and he was complaining that said kids don’t open up emotionally and/or about their personal lives outside the home to him as much as they do to me. (Lemme make this clear, though–they hardly treat me like “Dear Abby!” What he meant was, they occasionally cough up a detail in my direction of their own accord as opposed to never coughing any up in his.) I pointed out to him (as delicately as possible) that my demeanor was perhaps more open-minded and nonjudgmental than his was, which he grudgingly admitted was likely true. However, he stated mulishly, you can’t give them advice on how to be a MAN, you know!

Well, no, I agreed–I give them advice on how to be a human being, as best I can–it’s true that I never try to advise them on how-to-be-a-MAN. The conversation then shifted to giving them relationship advice, especially our seventeen-year-old, and I found us unfortunately returning to the how-to-be-a-MAN meme in the form of “–and then I told him, you know, that we’re not naturally monogamous–that it’s all religion that’s forced that on us.”

“Um,” I said, “I’m actually pretty monogamous. By nature. I mean, that’s how I’m happy. And certainly I don’t feel that way based on religion–”

“Oh, well,” said the kids’ dad. “I meant MEN. Women, you know, are programmed for serial monogamy, and men are programmed to–”

“–spread the seed, right!” we chorused together. This disconcerted him long enough for me to invent a hasty excuse to get off the phone before I either burst out laughing right in his ear or started yelling at him for attempting to imprint my precious offspring with some evo-psych bullshit that he doesn’t even understand the feeble biological underpinnings of in an attempt to justify to himself why he probably wants to screw around on his wife–! (pant, pant!) But no, they’re also his precious offspring, you know–I don’t get to interfere with whatever ideological crap he wants to feed ‘em. All I get to do is present my opposing viewpoint to them, which I made a huge mental note to do ASAP.

…but it brought back to mind a recent post on Feministe about monogamy–well, about nonmonogamy really and the consensual practice thereof. (Nonconsensual nonmonogamy is otherwise known as cheating, and I think we all already know how I feel about that, right?) I am totally on board with consensual nonmonogamy, just like I am totally on board with pretty much anything and everything emotional and/or sexual that consenting adults want to practice amongst themselves.

However, I don’t agree that nonmonogamy is somehow more feminist than monogamy, which the blogger in question was more or less contending, though I understand why someone might take that stance. As I said in comments:

I would say traditionally that relationships (between men and women) were structured specifically so that the women were monogamous and the men were nonmonogamous–the main cultural variant was whether or not the men were openly nonmonogamous or applied a thin veneer of pretend monogamy to their nonmonogamy. This relationship was clearly structured to go against feminist views, but it wasn’t the monogamy that was the problematic structure, it was that only one gender was expected/forced to practice it (and on the other end, there was often a great deal of social pressure for men to practice nonmonogamy even if it went against their personal inclinations as well).

It does lead me to try to understand better my own definite preference for a monogamous relationship, though. Firstly, do I feel the same degree of need or desire for monogamy on both an emotional and a sexual level? or am I more definitely monogamous in one of those than the other? Secondly, what is the basis for both preferences? Is it something I can really, logically define, or is it an irrational conviction that I’m unable to defend logically but am still passionately attached to? (An example of the latter would be a belief in Creationism.)

I will figure that out and post a “Part Two,” but in the meantime I’d love to hear from any of you out there: Are you by preference monogamous or non, and why? What do you think about the intersection of monogamy and feminism? Harking back to the phone conversation I had with the kids’ dad, do you believe there are any genuine, inborn differences between the genders in terms of tendencies towards or away from monogamy? Shout it out!

More musing on the whys and wherefores of p-o-r-n

Wednesday, May 20th, 2009

So, I got some het dude input on my last post on porn, which I found somewhat useful and somewhat not–useful because one of the main foci of the last post was, why is this what your average het dude wants to see..? And not useful because apparently, these two het dudes are themselves not the dudes that want to see the commonest porn scenarios of woman = hurt/humiliated/bored.

(more…)

Anal Sex, Rape and What They Mean to Your Average Straight Man

Wednesday, April 8th, 2009

(No, Lisa’s preferences in regards to anal sex or lack thereof are not a theme that is going to be explored in this blog post. If harassed about it, I will briefly state my preference, but hopefully nobody will so far miss the whole point of this post that they will be motivated to ask.)

I got to thinking on this topic today after a brief hop over to Feminsting’s community blogsite where I saw an article entitled “Feminist Critique of Hetero Male Culture Causes Mass MRA Hysteria.” I wasn’t too intrigued by the header there, I’ll admit, because most feminist critiques of anything to do with men and sexuality send most MRAs over the edge of rationality–in other words, well okay but so..? but I was also waiting for about 5 million work emails to finish printing out on my feeble home printer and I had time to kill. So I read it, and followed the embedded link to the original blog post by the author on her own website and read that too.

It wasn’t a bad article, even if the author had to start out with the tired old refrain of “when I was a little girl I was really more like a little boy! because 99% of little girls, unlike me, were all about Barbies and gossip and hated physical activity of any sort–!” I do get tired of that one. It certainly does incline me to agree that the female writers who regularly prop up this stereotype did, indeed, have zero little girlfriends growing up or they’d know better than that. But then, if they acknowledged that to be true, they might have to reconsider why they didn’t actually have more little girlfriends, eh..? I’m sure it’s much more pleasant to imagine that one didn’t because one was simply too guyishly cool for all those little pink rainbow wussies! rather than it being, perhaps, for some other less self-congratulatory reason.

But moving on to the actual point she was trying to make–she certainly got it right about the prevalence of men using being on the receiving end of anal sex as a euphemism for a miserable situation. However, I think she rather missed the boat on why. Men also, just as frequently if not more so, use being raped in the same euphemistic fashion. So, when men are talking about being fucked up the ass by their boss, or the government, or their ex-wife’s lawyer, they’re not actually referring to the mechanics of anal sex–they’re referring to being raped. Since women don’t rape men (yes, I know they do, but bear with me), men are simply using the phrase “fucked up the ass” synonymously with “getting raped.”

That whole idea did strike me as interesting, though–because men also use “rape” euphemistically, with themselves as the main actor, to describe how they absolutely defeated some other person or persons in competition (the competition can be either formal, as in a softball game, or informal, as in getting the best parking space at Wal-Mart). However, they do not ever (that I’ve witnessed) describe themselves as “fucking someone else up the ass” in that way. So the distinction is made, and the distinction seems pretty clear-cut in cause to me. It is homophobic, specifically male-homophobic, and all of a piece with how the most common thing I hear out of pre-pubescent and pubescent boys’ mouths as an insult exchanged with other boys (and since I have a twelve-year-old son and a seventeen-year-old son, I get to hear a lot of this kind of exchange) is, “You’re gay.”

Men, therefore, who use all these euphemisms, have a clear grasp of the essentials–only women and faggots, ie, persons with status less than the standard issue heterosexual man, get fucked up the ass. To be fucked up the ass is to have your human status reduced. If something happens to you that reduces your status in the eyes of others, you have been fucked up the ass. If you soundly defeat another man, you have reduced his status to that of a woman–you have raped him–but you don’t quite want to say that you fucked him up the ass, as he is male like you, because that would make you a faggot and reduce your status too.

This is why we have the seeming paradox of these men fearing rape more than any other crime that could be committed against them, with the possible exception of castration, yet having no issues at all regularly blowing off and otherwise dismissing the rape of women by men, with the sometimes-exception of the rape of a prepubescent woman or a virgin. For them, rape is psychologically devastating because it makes you a homo, and physically painful because while pussies are clearly designed for dicks, assholes aren’t. They accept that rape might also be psychologically damaging because a girl child’s brain probably hasn’t fully accepted adult concepts yet and a virgin is probably saving herself for some special man, and physically damaging because a child’s vagina isn’t quite done developing to full readiness for a man’s penis and because they can imagine that the rupture of the physical membrane that is the hymen could be painful. However, once a female has begun to menstruate and no longer possesses a hymen, her getting fucked in the vagina is totally natural both physically and psychologically–it’s how we were all designed, right?–so it really can’t be considered anything nearly as psychologically or physically devastating as a man getting raped anally by another man. And it doesn’t reduce a pubescent, non-virgin female’s status–she’s already not a virgin, which is the only status boost she could possibly stack onto her pre-existing undeniable femaleness, and once that’s gone, she has no more to lose.

An interesting conundrum that this can present for men who find that they really enjoy receiving anal stimulation–I was in a long-term, monogamous relationship with one (I won’t say which one). He asked me, very hesitantly and shame-faced, after the first time we really made a point of trying it out, if I thought that that meant he had homosexual urges. I said, I don’t think so–who do you want to be doing this to you? Me, or a man? You! he said, very definitely, and I said, Well, I think that’s what defines you as homosexual or not–who you’re doing whatever you’re doing with, not what exactly you happen to be doing. But men who want to perform anal sex on women don’t have this agonizing conflict–because, again, it is getting fucked that reduces your status and puts you in your place, not doing the fucking.

I used to wonder why men seemed to have so much trouble empathizing with most types of rapes, when a woman was the victim, or even why they en masse never seemed to take it seriously when a man was raped by a woman, yet clearly had no trouble at all wildly overempathizing with the horror that was a man getting raped by another man. This is the answer, and it’s a pretty sad one.

On an end note, though, I can’t help but preemptively sympathize with the author of the original Feministing community blog post–one of the very first responses to her article was the following, by a self-described “MRAman:”

If you don’t like butt sex you should just say so. Nobody would be surprised anyway, since everyone knows feminists are always opposed to things men like.

Sigh. Yes, that must be it…well, if I’m lucky, our periodic trollers won’t be around to read this particular blog post and visit me with such sage perceptions as well. Fingers crossed. :)

It’s always good to know that I’m not the only one thinking about S-E-X

Monday, December 1st, 2008

Hugo has a post up about sex education in colleges and Amanda has another about something called a “Pirelli calendar,” which involves what I have come over the years to recognize as “bullshit sexual buzzwords:” “glamour photography,” “artistic nudes” and “pushing the boundaries of (fill in the blank).” That last one, especially–”pushing the boundaries” tends to mean “I’m gonna to do something disgusting and/or retarded and then I’m gonna say it’s A-R-T and if you don’t get its A-R-T-N-E-S-S, then I suggest you strive harder to be worthy of your amazing new clothes, Ms. Emperor!” Reminds me of the brouhaha over the broad who videotaped her menstrual clots at Yale not too long ago. Such pioneers!

(more…)

Fallout from the Edwards Affair: Part Two!

Saturday, August 30th, 2008

(Part One is here.)

This entire blog post was actually supposed to be a comment, in response to another commenter’s question on my take on sex work and its inherent feminism or lack thereof. However, once I started writing said comment, it became clear that I had WAY too much to say on the topic to inflict my response in the little comment section of a post! So I asked the commenter how she’d feel about a blog post and she said Sounds fine! (Of course, it’s taken me so long to get around to writing it, she probably isn’t even looking for it anymore.) And then, once I started writing the blog post, I realized that what I really needed to do was write an entire book in response to that query, because it is extremely complicated! and so, apparently, are my feelings on the subject.

(Note: In an attempt to keep this post from turning into the aforementioned book-length commentary, I’m restricting myself to discussing prostitution, not any other kind of sex work.)

(more…)

Condoms: Like my long-lost best friend. Or my long-lost friend that was only my friend because she was friends with my best friend, you know, the one who told me my senior prom dress looked like a lampshade.

Monday, August 18th, 2008

I’ve gotten to take a long sabbatical from these guys, but the endless round of business trips has now claimed yet another casualty in my life; my hormonal contraception. Impressively, in spite of being away from home on short notice on a regular basis for days at a time for more than a year now, I hadn’t yet managed to forget to pack my pills…til about two weeks ago. Sadly, a three-day hiatus is enough to render the reliability of said hormonal contraceptive dicey at best, so I dumped the rest of the month down the toilet upon my return home and informed the significant other that we were going to get to relive the earliest days of our romance til I could restart a new pack next month.

We’ve had a few adventures since then–like him discovering that by far the best place to buy condoms is the grocery store, where they are openly and innocuously stashed next to the disposable razors in the toiletries aisle; drugstores lock ‘em up next to the “Nicorette” at the prescription counter and glare suspiciously even at a man who is clearly well beyond the age of consent who expresses an interest in purchasing some. He also neglected to read the varietal descriptors on the box and, for anyone out there who is curious, “Climax Control!” condoms do indeed work, to the point where the poor sucker who innocently put the thing on may never achieve one. (I’m still trying to figure out who thought that the icy numbness which results after inserting your penis into a condom filled with lidocaine-spiked lubricant was some kind of brilliant sexual invention, and if anybody ever buys these twice.)

Oh, the joys of condoms! And apparently I’m not the only one who wishes they were anywhere near as conducive to fun or even efficient sex as they are to pregnancy- and disease-free sex. There’s a guy out there who has spent a lot of his adult life working on just that–Jan Vinzenz Krause, a German sex-ed instructor. Actually, he sounds like a very cool and useful guy–

As a teenager, Krause, now 30, had trouble finding the right size condom, which set him on a quest to aid other similarly befuddled young men. In 2001 he developed an online condom adviser, which provides printable measuring tapes and instructions to help men determine which condom, out of all the brands available in Germany, will fit the best. According to Krause, more than 300,000 people have used the free service.

This really is a problem–I have had in the past both a boyfriend who could barely keep the condom on, obviously not a reassuring situation, and another who lost his erection every time he put one on because they were so tight they literally cut off the blood flow to his penis. So among other things, this guy has invented spray-on condoms, which I think I actually did read about in the fairly recent past:

The prototype, which began testing last year, consists of a hard plastic tube with nozzles that spray liquid latex from all directions, much like the water jets in the tunnel of a car wash. According to Krause, there are numerous advantages to his spray-on condom. “The condom fits 100% perfectly, so the safety is much higher than a standard condom’s, and it feels more natural.”

Unfortunately, there are still a few bugs in the system. I’m not too worried about the first few bugs mentioned–

The men who tested the spray-on condom had a few hesitations, Krause says. Some were “a little bit afraid to use the tube” and would only try it on their fingers. Others worried that the mechanism, which hisses as it sprays, might ruin the mood.

Dingalings with this level of “techno-fear” probably have a multitude of other issues that dwarf this one and possibly don’t even use condoms at present due to the level of technical difficulty and intimidation presented by the packaging and unrolling phases of the operation so we can discount them, and unless you or your partner has some kind of snake phobia, I really doubt that a brief hissing sound is going to make anybody incapable of functioning. However, the next bug is a little more significant–

But the most serious problem with the design — which is what has kept the product off the market thus far — is that the latex takes too long to dry. Liquid latex currently takes two to three minutes to vulcanize, making it impractical. “For people to buy it,” Krause says, “it needs to be ready in five to 10 seconds.”

Well yeah. Three minutes is a long time, especially if you can’t touch anything to help it maintain its, er, turgid state and have to be super-careful not to move around and accidentally bump into or brush off the drying latex, and of course the are-we-there-yet?-are-we-there-yet?-how-bout-now?-well-how-bout-now? mindset is a mood-killer even when all you’re doing is driving to Grandma’s. So hopefully some genius chemists out there will figure out the secret of fast-drying latex soon. Of course by that time I’ll be back on the pill…

Unhealthy carnal urges or Even the patriarchy can be delicious.

Friday, August 8th, 2008

My girlfriend and I have been reading Vegan Cupcakes Take Over The World, which is basically the most fucking delicious cookbook you will ever purchase. It even has a foreword by Sara Quin! What more could you ask for?

So we’ve been fomenting cupcake revolution for a few months now, and I just now learned from her blog that V.C.T.O.T.W. has a blog, written by Isa, which is just as delicious as the book.

This is all backstory, of course, for an exciting, erotic tale about graham crackers.

(more…)

I Flatly Refuse to Blog About the Democratic Primaries Any More

Monday, June 2nd, 2008

Admittedly I’ve only blogged about them once so far. But I’ve THOUGHT about blogging about them a lot more!! I just haven’t gotten around to it, and now that they’re almost over, there just doesn’t seem to be a point. Besides, there’s no way in heck I can compete with what else is going on on the topic out in the blogosphere.

So instead I’m gonna talk about sex!

(more…)

For Women, Bisexuality May Not Be Just a Phase

Thursday, May 22nd, 2008

(thump!)

That was me, fainting from astonishment. Could it be trooooooo…?

I did not make that headline up for the purposes of this post. No, that is actually, really the headline of this article from MSNBC Health.

Bisexuality.

I tend to subscribe to the theory that human beings* are innately bisexual as a group, with massive individual variance in degree of bisexuality.

I have a close female relative who has been married twice (to men) and sometimes does indeed want a man, though overall she prefers women; I have another female relative who has only dated one man and definitely, strongly prefers women; I have two female friends who had a very close relationship that sometime spilled into the sexual before one of them married–the one who married genuinely has no preference between men and women, the one that is still single has a definite, strong preference for men. Then there’s me–of the about 1,000,000 sexual fantasies I have had during the course of my lifetime thus far, probably about 10 of them have involved women, and those 10 fantasies also constitute the entirety of my intragender sexual experience.** So when I saw this headline, my first reaction was confusion. Why would anyone think it WAS a phase..? Isn’t it just what is?

Then I remembered two things.

Firstly, this:

Kissing Girls
Hot young chikkx tonguing on the dance floor! to quote the subject line of one of the latest batches of spam to find its way into my inbox.

The close female relative of mine I first mentioned is also fond of pornography, though finding genuine good lesbian pornography, she used to tell me, was a challenge. That was over ten years ago and I was fairly fresh out of the Army and I said, “Clearly you are not looking in the right places ’cause trust me, there is lesbian porn EVERYWHERE–”

“No,” she said patiently. “What’s everywhere is heterosexual male fantasies of what two women–not REALLY lesbians because the male viewer definitely wants the option to join in whenever he feels like it–would do together.”

Or, as the article says:

Bisexuality in women could be a lifelong sexual orientation, not a phase, a new study suggests. The finding runs counter to the idea that bisexuality is an experimental or transitional period for women who, for instance, are uncertain or have fear of commitment.

“There were clearly some theorists who suggested that bisexuality is a transitional stage, but that was largely based on anecdotal, rather than empirical, data,” said psychologist M. Paz Galupo, director of LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender) Studies at Towson University in Maryland. “This view is popularized, also, by the stereotypes that our culture holds regarding bisexual individuals.”

It amazes me that we dignify the proponents of this idea as “theorists,” but then again, that’s no more bizarre than calling Creationism a “theory.”

As it turns out, bisexual desire ISN’T something that women feel because they are trying to turn men on, or because they are afraid of men, or–! Is it so hard to believe that a woman’s innate sexual feelings weren’t placed there nor are sourced from the existence of the monolith that is man? That she is not desiring whom she is desiring or performing the sexual acts she is performing every second of her life for the vast, omniscient masculine audience? For without men, a woman’s sexuality does not exist as an indepedent entity–it is solely a reflection of or a reaction to men? If a tree falls in the forest and a man isn’t there to hear it, does it make a sound..? Apparently not, according not only to popular culture, but to scientific theorists.

Secondly, this:

“One challenge facing bisexually identified women is that their identity is challenged by others,” Galupo told LiveScience, “and that identity becomes assumed based on the relationships that they form — either lesbian if in a same-sex relationship or heterosexual if in an other-sex relationship.”

Back to my close female relative–while she was married to her second husband, she had affairs with at least two women. Her husband was aware of them. She told me that it didn’t bother him, because he didn’t consider it “cheating.” After all real sex is something that has to involve a penis-bearing person in some capacity! (Harking back to point 1, above. Sigh.) However, her second relationship ended badly. Why? Because her lover got angry at her for having a sexual relationship with her husband…not because she was jealous, apparently, but because she just knew that my relative didn’t really want to have sex with him and was obviously just caving into what society expected of her–she was allowing herself to be brainwashed into thinking she wanted a man and in total denial that she was, in fact, a lesbian. My relative was quite sure she wasn’t a lesbian–not because she had any problems with the idea, but because she genuinely sexually desired men as well as women. But her lover couldn’t, wouldn’t believe that. My relative told me, with an air of sadness, that she had encountered this attitude before.

So. I believe, as I said, that we’re all basically bisexual. Some of us, like me, are so heavily oriented towards the opposite sex that we can reasonably be called heterosexual, and some are so heavily oriented towards the same sex that they can reasonably be considered homosexual, but these are in no way absolute, concrete definitions–they are tags for convenience only. Why is it so impossible to accept that human sexuality is a fluid thing? Is our need to label ourselves and others so great? Is it such a threat to the patriarchal structure of most of human society?

*I haven’t ever personally known a man who openly admitted to being bisexual. However, I observed enough group porn-viewing behavior during my Army days and surprised a few confessions out of a drunk specimen or four that I am relatively sure that innately, men span the same sort of spectrum as women.

**Other than passes made at me, of course.

All These Posts about the Abstinence Clearinghouse Have Inspired Me

Sunday, May 11th, 2008

Photobucket

Abstinence.

This is not something I have ever practiced on purpose except during limited periods and for a specific reason (example: my husband would be sent on a training tour of duty for several weeks) since I made the decision to become sexually active at the age of 17. Obviously I was not sexually active before then, but I wouldn’t have considered myself to have been practicing abstinence either; for about a year beforehand, I had been purposefully searching for someone with whom I really wanted to have sex. Why was I doing this? Well, I was sure I wanted to have sex because my body was telling me so, quite emphatically. However, I’d seen way too many other girls’ deep regret about how their “first time” had come about, and if I could possibly help it, that wasn’t going to happen to me–I already knew that I had a lot of potential to be really, totally crazy about the act of sex! and darn me if that was gonna get ruined right out of the gates.

(more…)

C’mon ladies, you know you want a taste of the forbidden liberal fruit (in my pants)

Saturday, April 12th, 2008

Hey, girl.



When I’m feeling smooth, I gotta channel my inner Zinczenko.

Yeah, you. Right over there. How YOU doin? It’s okay, you can come closer. I know I’m a liberal and all, but I won’t bite… unless you think it’s naughty to bite. Because it turns out I’m one of the bad boys your mama/pastor/delusional right-wing website warned you about, and I just wanted to draw you in close so I could force-feed you drugs, materialism, and an aversion to handguns. Confused? Well, just sit here on my lap, girl, and let me show you what I’m talking about.

Thanks to Jill, I now know just how wild and wicked I really am. The interview on dating she found with 6 rockin’ conservative chicks has taught me a lot about myself and just want makes me so damn cool. Turns out it’s all about liberalism, baby.

Take Sharon Soon’s story when asked if she’s ever dated liberal men:

I have always had a policy of not dating liberals, but once, after a bad break-up, I dated a couple of liberal guys…

Yeah, baby! We’re that sinister rebound guy lurking in the corner, and you know that totally ups our hotness factor. You need a break from those stuffy conservatives, you come see us for a dose of Teh Fun. She continues:

First of all, they don’t have the same values and I find that to be a fundamental problem. I know a lot of people are willing to accept that, but I’m not. Their whole world view is different from someone who has conservative values and traditional values as a way of life.

Being focused on yourself, and your rights, and materialism, and no ultimate sense of morality — because I guess when you believe in a more secular way of life, a more liberal viewpoint, it’s all about what you can do for yourself and how you can be happy…and you don’t have any belief in absolute truth or religious principles to guide how you live. You get guys who are selfish and into themselves and don’t care so much about humanity, other people, or me — that just leads to a lot of problems.

What can I say, she’s got us all figured out. My Harley has the bumper sticker “Free markets are for pussies.” Highfive! Those selfless corporate charity cases just don’t know what it means to be a real man, to put your own destiny first. Social justice, universal health care, the environment, educational equality — our ideas are obviously selfish, we admit that, but they’re also Patrick Swayze sexy. Besides, who wants to waste time helping those poor losers over at Halliburton when I could be hoarding all the CO2 in the air for myself with my badass tree farm? Or jerking off after the selfish rush I get from paying Medicare taxes?

Shoot, though, who am I kidding? We all know liberalism is the ultimate gateway drug. Sharon concludes:

I also have a problem with guys who are into things like getting completely trashed and doing drugs…

That’s us! The trashed substance abusers! I guess that’s why all those Bud Light ads really feel like they’re talking to me.

Sometimes, though, it’s about what the conservettes don’t say. Cassy Fiano says she doesn’t date liberal guys, but when asked what bugs her most about dating men, one of her answers is:

Grooming in general on dates…it’s really rare to find a guy who can do it right.

Sorry, wimpnuts, looks like we’ve got you licked again. By banning libs from her dating diet, Cassie appears to have been stuck with the slob crowd (though she professes an aversion to “metrosexuals” as well). Don’t worry, Cassie. Whenever you’re ready to take a walk on the liberal side, we’ve got our Axe Body Spray on and our stubble just right. We’re ready to party.

Not all conservative babes totally get what makes us hottie liberals tick, though. Take Michelle Oddis’ complaint:

Another turn-off with liberal guys, at least for me, tends to be 2nd Amendment stuff. Gun rights? I think it’s kind of wimpy when guys don’t think people should be able to protect themselves.

When I’m at the bar trashed on drugs and staring at myself in the mirror, and some dude steps to me, pulling out a gun is weak sauce. Liberal men are LESS wimpy because we throw down with our bare knuckles. We don’t hide behind the 2nd amendment, a.k.a. The Founding Fathers Had Esteem Issues About Their Junk amendment.

For the last word, where else would we turn but the most well-adjusted source of dating advice on Earth, Dawn Eden:

…My experience with liberals is that superficially, they may be more fun to be around. They’re a bit looser and more relaxed. They make an effort to be more sensitive, but the sensitivity only goes so far. It’s easy for a man to keep this illusion of being a great, sensitive romantic if he knows he’s just going to sleep with you and then say good-bye. Anybody can be Mr. Love God for one night or one week or one month.

WooWOOOOO! You heard it from Dawn first. The Liberal Love God Train is leaving the station, honey. You know you want a ride.

May your underwear guide you towards sexual enlightment

Tuesday, April 8th, 2008

Oh, if underwear could talk, the things it would say. It would tease us about those secret times we got excited and had to hide it, and probably complain about the sheer number of times it was farted upon.


Yes, even this guy farts.

There are also times it would’ve been nice if other people’s underwear could talk, right? Or at least have important messages written on it. We could receive crucial information, like:

-That’s Not Just a Rash
-Contents May Explode Prematurely
-Stubble Ahoy
-Hasn’t Showered Today
-Was Just On the Floor at Your Best Friend’s House

And so forth.

Alas, while the secrets of our undergarments remain hidden within their fragrant folds, there is one message they can help us get across: use protection. That’s what the folks at ISIS (Internet Sexuality Information Services) are hoping, anyway. They’ve set up a design-the-underwear contest for college kids at http://www.undiescontest.com/, and first prize is a $1k scholarship. From Allegra Madsen, the ISIS Program Director:

We are asking people to design a pair of underwear that communicates a difficult truth about STDs or that can serve as a conversation starter about safe sex. We are imagining underwear as the last physical thing that separates a person from their partner. It would make a strong statement to have a message there that could remind people to talk with their partner about safe sex practices or that brings up STDs (which are often difficult to do in sexual situations-when you need to the most) in a non-threatening way.

Contest ends May 15th, so go forth and see if you can make the least-awkward pair of message skivvies possible.