Columns Jan 25, 2012 at 4:00 am

Hopelessly Devoted


Excellent timing with the state of the union speech.
Fascinating that the oh-so-holy Callista wasn't quite holy enough to tell a married man (with a terminally ill wife) that she couldn't screw his ass. Or his dick, mouth, finger, whatever. I just cannot believe that so many people are giving him a pass on this issue - especially the "social conservatives"!!!
"Callista Gingrich, like her vile husband, doesn't believe that gays and lesbians should be equal under the law because, as a good Catholic, she believes that homosexuality is a sin and that homosexuals should remain celibate. Well, the Catholic Church considers adultery, divorce, and birth control sinful, too. Someone in the liberal media really ought to ask Callista to explain why her faith should place limits on my sexual expression but not her own."

Perfectly true, and I am wondering exactly why this has not come up in the past. It's not like we didn't know Newt cheated on his second wife before marrying Callista.
"Someone in the liberal media really ought to ask Callista to explain why her faith should place limits on my sexual expression but not her own."

And here you are, *editor* of a liberal media outlet, whining that a liberal media outlet really oughta do something.

For the love of god, send a reporter to an interview.
MITM-- Dan's advice is fine, but if it's too difficult for you, if you're not secure and assertive for that yet, there's a lead-in method for getting a man clean. Tell him that you'd like a sexy shower with him; take him by the hand; get in the hot steamy water with him, and soap him up. Allow him to do the same for you. Dry him off with big fluffy towels. Then retire to the bedroom and engage in whatever sex play you enjoy. After you've been washing together as part of your foreplay for a while, when he initiates sex, tell him to shower first without you. By that time, you'll know each other better. If he complains that he had a shower that morning, or if he's not getting those crevices clean, then you can explain, and it won't sound so harsh.
that second letter sounds like a re-run.
oops. i meant third letter.
Thanks to Joe Newton, I've eaten my last chocolate-frosted cake donut.
@5, I disagree completely. For one thing, most people's idea of a "sexy shower" is sort of incompatible the requirements of proper anal hygiene (a good, self-administered scrubbing with soap and water). Plus, she wouldn't be doing him any favours by being evasive or trying to sugar-coat the message. And I think Dan is right that there are certain things that a sex partner shouldn't be expected to put up with. Being clean for your partner is pretty basic courtesy, and it sounds like he needs to learn.

@9 Argh. *Incompatible with
MITM should handle this with more sensitivity than Dan suggests. Yes, cleanliness is a sign of respect and consideration for your lover or partner, but so is compassion. She could also swap out the hard scratchy apparently less than effective butt wipe that he is using for the moist grown up wipes. Crinoline's suggestion of a sexy shower together is a very good idea. And I just have to say, ew.

BBB needs to get troll Craigslist in a different town to get his kicks. And he needs to stay the fuck out of LLB's business. I am the littlest little sister in a family of 4 daughters, my oldest sister came across one of my vibrators while visiting, and felt the need to talk to me about it. After I told her that she really didn't need to be in my dresser drawers to use the bathroom down the hall, I told her that adults get to use adult toys, and respect other adults' abilities to make those decisions for themselves. And then I explained that sometimes, when a man and a woman really like each other, and sometimes when they don't, batteries are involved. Oddly, she has never come to visit me again.
"Callista Gingrich, like her vile husband, doesn't believe that gays and lesbians should be equal under the law because, as a good Catholic, she believes that homosexuality is a sin and that homosexuals should remain celibate. Well, the Catholic Church considers adultery, divorce, and birth control sinful, too. Someone in the liberal media really ought to ask Callista to explain why her faith should place limits on my sexual expression but not her own."

Sha-ZAM! Point: Savage!
Quick and easy solution for MITM- baby wipes. Keep 'em within arm's reach, and keep the tone playful and non-judgmental- less of the 'Eew you disgusting pig, leave now' and more of the 'Oops, things are a bit messy, let me take care of that.'
Goddamn is Calista a cunt.
It's not about whether the Catholic faith should put limits on people's sexual expression. It's whether the laws of man should. (They shouldn't.) The Church doesn't have to like or condone it any more than they have to like the secular remarriages of legally divorced Catholics and ex-Catholics. There's more than enough precedent for this.
@12: I second that nomination! Dan for the WIN!

Two questions: 1) Did Newt replace Rush Limbaugh?,
2) Why are so many rich, corrupt, balding white male GOP
candidates so fat and repulsively ugly? and
3) Is the answer to Question #2 so that the GOP can
fulfill Runny Santorum's wish for Americans to stop
having sex?

I really think we ought to neuter Jabba the Newt, Santorum, and Rush Scumbag right in the shitbuds.
Newt didn't want an open marriage, he merely tried to get his wife to forget that he had been a lying sack of shit for several years, sanction his scumbag habits so that he could continue to bang callista, but not have the embarrasment of another public divorce. It was all about Newt, of course.

This is not an open marriage. This is simply what a monogamous marriage looks like when one partner is a lying, selfish fuck who wants to keep up appearances.
I thought Dan has in the past lumped the honestly monogamish with the cheaters? Wasn't there a big kerfuffle about that re: the monogamish column?
Also @MITM, yeah, definitely be upfront with the person about their uncleanliness. It will hurt, yes, but not so much as finding out that they've been a disgusting bastard for god knows how long if you decide to avoid the topic. Plus it will drive you crazy trying to control their behavior through manipulation.
Re RAW, it strikes me that the guy he's talking to is probably himself a virgin. How else to understand this? "He made an aside about virginity (unprompted by me): "No, I'm not a virgin, that's nothing that you should worry about with me."

Only a virgin would go out of his way to assure a potential lover that he wasn't a virgin.
Yeah, why does Callista get painted as a "devout Catholic" when she was fucking a married man for six years? What are the Catholic sins? Let me count the ways:

1. Fornication--fucking outside of marriage
2. Adultery--fucking a married guy
3. Concupiscence: who knows, but I observe she did not get knocked up, so I assume she was using birth control
4. Really bad hair--needs no explanation
@11: haha, love the lecture to big sis.

@20: I was thinking about that one, too. Given that we've had that sentence filtered through two people, maybe what the dude actually said can be understood in a different way. Your explanation makes a lot of sense, though.
@20 : Actually, it sounds to me as though the other guy lost his virginity only recently, that the first time was difficult and is still fresh in his memory, and that he still thinks most other guys are way more experienced than he was at his age. (Off course, that sentence could mean a lot of different things depending on which words were stressed.)
In response to the first LW:

you say: "DUDE! you're prairie-dogging (hedge-hogging)"
Hypocrisy and cognitive dissonance amongst religious folks? Say it ain't so!!

How can religious people go on and on believing when they see the endless parade of scandals their leaders get themselves into? Beats me, but they're gullible by definition so it's not surprising. The only thing that bothers me is that these people are running the country/education system.
Hypocrisy and cognitive dissonance amongst religious folks? Say it ain't so!!

How can religious people go on and on believing when they see the endless parade of scandals their leaders get themselves into? Beats me, but they're gullible by definition so it's not surprising. The only thing that bothers me is that these people are running the country/education system.
I am not wiping someone else's ass for them.
I get all up close and soapy with my own bits every time I shower, in a way that I WOULDN'T want to do with someone else present. A good way to handle this (whilst still maintaining the subtlety) is to have a "Tag!" shower. You jump in, ask the fella to join in a few minutes, get the private cleaning done, he joins for a while, you leave and encourage him to get REALLY clean in the last few minutes in the shower by himself.
It's convoluted, but if you really can't make a stand, you could try that.
I had a very beautiful and meaningful relationship in the past with a man... The subject of "opening up" came by chance... New Year's Eve, 1992... We were partying, him , me and another female friend of his... We partied all night... When the sun came up, I said : "Thats enough, time to go home babe..." His female friend didn't want us to go, he didn't want to go... She suggested we all jump in the jacuzzi... He looks totally delighted and says: "That's a great idea! Why don't we stick around and all jump in the jacuzzi?" I said: "NO problem! But call your brother (who was just as or maybe even hotter than him), and if he comes round, we can all jump in the jacuzzi and have some great fucking fun! How about it babe?!! Great fun huh?" He proceeded to say his goodbyes and we left.. U wanna open this shit up, huh babe? Well then let it be something in there for all of us, then we can talk!
I had the first LW's problem with a (now ex) a few years ago.. it wasn't a visual (thank god, i couldn't have carried on!) but a scent issue.. I brought it up later on in a ' I love going down on you, but sometimes it's a bit off putting as I can kind of um.. smell you...' way.. He was of course, mortified, but he went out and bought some moist toilet tissue and problem solved. I think he was a bit more self conscious for a while, but, I like to think that, in line with Dans advice when dating younger (he was my one and only toyboy, about 5 years my junior, 22 to my 27) that I left him in better shape than I found him, which as he's now happily married I presume to be the case :0)
"Reassure him that you're not a duckling—you're not going to imprint on the first dick you see"

Wouldn't that be a dickling?
Dan. There are some basics with the internet:
Don't feed the troll. Never feed the troll.
Printing the letter from the Newt supporter puts you in the arguing with idiots on the internet category.

The point that the liberal news media is not making strongly or loudly enough is that while Newt was merrily Callista-ing, he was expending every dollar of his political capital to impeach Clinton for doing the same thing. That's what disqualifies him from public orifice in my mind.
Note that it was Marianne Gingrich (#2) who used the term "open marriage" to describe what Newt was proposing ("I'll do what I want and ask you to put up with it"). I, like Dan, think "open marriage" and "cheating" are 2 very different things with the former having positive connotations for many. It's opponents who can't figure out that that they're different, who try to imply that open marriage must be horrible because CPOS is horrible. Marianne was the one muddying the distinction. Newt seemed clear on it.
@11(catballou), I agree. Dan is quite a compassionate person, except when it comes to bodily fluids of the kind he doesn't like. MITM's partner may have been clueless, or forgetful... chances are, however, that he didn't do this to gross her out; chances are he'll be ashamed and apologetic if politely told what the problem is. A gentle reminder that personal hygiene is a sign of respect in the first offense is quite OK; the near-hysterical reaction Dan suggests is better left for repeat offenses.
I think the only reason why Gingrich got away in the first round of inquiry concerning his "open marriage" proposal was that he managed to turn it from a question about his hypocrisy to outrage about the salaciousness of the mainstream media and their "improper" interest in the candidates' "personal lives." He did it quite masterfully in the Republican debate. I don't know if this is what won him South Carolina, but I'm sure he got quite a few extra admirers, especially among the CPOS crowd.

Of course, there is the possibility that the second ex-Mrs Gingrich is lying. But at this point, how can this be proved?
@15 (DRF), that is indeed true, but Mr Gingrich runs on a support-traditional-marriage platform, according to which adultery and open marriages should not be allowed. He does not to get to claim to support an idea that he betrays in his private life. It's inconsistent, even hypocritical. If he was running on a secular, anything-goes-between-consenting-adults platform, then of course this would not be a problem. But he does.

Every time a liberal politician is criticized by conservatives as not appropriate to 'guide America' because of using a sex dating site or publishing nude photos or himself, I remember people in Mr Gingrich's situation. Have they never read John 8:3-11?
@25, I've often asked myself the same question. How can conservatives keep defending a way of life that their own chosen leaders find it difficult to abide by?

I don't know if it's consolation, but this means that 'non-conventional/conservative sex' is not going to disappear, no matter what. Even if the conservatives govern the country for 100 years, their example (as opposed to their discourse) will still show that it's OK to be kinky.
@2 (Moedee01) -- Couple of clarifications here.

1) Jackie Gingrich was not "terminally ill" -- she survived the surgery, and is, in fact, still very much alive! BTW, she was Newt's high school geometry teacher -- they married when he was 19 and she was 26. Nowadays, SHE'D probably be in jail :-(

2) Newt didn't leave Jackie for Callista -- he left her for Marianne! Callista would have been about 14 at the time (1980).

That said, all the rest is true. And if I live to be 100, I will never understand the Repub mindset.
Callista remained as a mistress for SIX years, aware that she was in fact destroying Newt's marriage. Is that a 'devout catholic'? How's she going to transform Newt into a champion of marriage and conservative family values?

Repubs are so desperate to unseat Obama that they don't care if in the process they look as blind hypocrites. Let's not forget that South Carolina's conservatives gave their vote to Newt so they don't vote for that 'liberal mormon'.

If they are willing to forgive Newt's 'sins', shouldn't they be willing to forgive yours as well, Dan? Or mine, for instance. What the heck! We should all go and confess!
Here's the dirty little not-so-secret about conservative family values. They admire the fallen-repentence-forgiveness cycle more than the upright-never-sinned one. Screwing up, screwing around, and getting on your knees to pray makes you seem human, someone everyone can relate to. It makes you appear strong, not weak. Never cheating just makes you seem unattractive. For that reason, the Bible-belt conservatives don't see their position as hypocritical.

I'd suggest that that is why Clinton came through his scandal relatively unscathed. He got the repentance thing right. Weiner didn't. Worse than that, Weiner sent pictures without consummating anything. He ended up looking like a failed stud.
Somewhat inspired by the monogamish letters (oh my gosh, I just want to have a dinner party with some of these lovely sounding people!), I made open marriage my theme when crashing the Gingrich victory party last weekend. GQ wrote it up on their election blog - I don't think I can link to it without getting tagged as spam, but check it out and know you had a part in the project, Dan! Oh, and also, you're my hero, read your column all the time, etc.
I'd like to ask #11 just what her dumb sister had in mind when she felt the need to talk to her about it. "I was snooping through your dresser drawers and found a vibrator; you shouldn't use those because they're naughty"??
I could offer creative pointers to the wife whose hubby loves domination from his Mistress Of The Sweetest, Most Orgasmic "Pain";) +~+ XXX lol! +~+
@ 41, Crinoline: That's awesome, what you wrote. If I may, I'd like to cite it with quotes and go from there :) :

"Here's the dirty little not-so-secret about conservative family values. They admire the fallen-repentence-forgiveness cycle more than the upright-never-sinned one. Screwing up, screwing around, and getting on your knees to pray makes you seem human, someone everyone can relate to. It makes you appear strong, not weak. Never cheating just makes you seem unattractive. For that reason, the Bible-belt conservatives don't see their position as hypocritical."

VERY True, and I agree fully.

I guess it's not "interesting" enough to people to consistently maintain a certain level of personal conduct and integrity. There's no drama or story in getting it right the first time, apparently.

I abhor organized religion. Spirituality, on the other hand, I embrace fully. Do unto others and *choosing* to focus your mind and mood and what it is you do have in your life, and appreciating what is, rather than what you wish for it all to be..

I never saw the sense in ever believing God would forgive me for being a reckless, abusive, self-centered asshole. Sitting my ass in a pew on Sunday morning after chasing pieces of tail the night before in the gin mill crawling on all fours while me wife waited obliviously and faithfully home alone: I highly doubt God or any other otherworldly presence would put me high on their lists of possible candidates for divine redemption.

*GET IT RIGHT AS YOU GO*! Stop waiting for Sunday to cleanse you: wash up and be mindful *each day* and practice what *you* preach, not what someone else preaches for you.

I like your style, Crinoline. Thanks for a happening read.

@20: That was my exact thought as well. RAW's bf is clearly a virgin also.

@9: You should never use soap on mucous membranes such as the anus and vagina.
All excellent, but definitely the advice to BBB - I've BTDT and it was the nicest thing I could do for my sibling in the world, and so easy, given that in a sense, she'd "gone first".
@41 and @45

While there is some truth to the preference for the prodigal over the good son, the real dirty little secret of "Conservative Family Values" is that they amount to little more than the control of sex.

Conservative Family Values means simply and always that there is no sex without a risk of pregnancy (punishment, subjugation) for women. Can't have they gay - someone might get an orgasm without the risk of a pregnancy - and can't have any type of contraception.

Newt gets a pass because he's been consistent on Contraception and Abortion (ex-post-facto Contraception). That's it, nothing more. They're happier with Callista since her Bishops are in line with that. They don't care if Newt has an entire harem and is never long as he supports limiting sexual freedom for others.

While Mittens does subscribe to a religion which also seeks to limit sexual freedom like this, he himself has a track record (being a NE GOP Governor) of doing things like funding PP, supporting sex-ed and other crazy late 20th century stuff. They will never believe him when he says he's changed his tune. That's the real reason, BTW, behind the anybody-but-Romney movement.

This isn't some conspiracy theory or partisan spinning on my part either: Richard Land was all over the airwaves last week on this issue, and he used more diplomatic double-speak, but very clearly came out and said exactly this, all the way around.
My question always remains the same with respect to Mr. Gingrich: Why does this scumbag have a political career? How can he possibly tout a "religious" high-ground, when married to wife #2, he is bopping former mistress and current wife #3? PLUS, doesn't anyone find it repugnant that the prick left wife #1 when she was diagnosed with cancer and fucked around and ultimately left wife #2 when she was diagnosed with MS? Gingrich, in any other reality couldn't be elected dog-catcher.
@ 49, teppy1954: THANK YOU :-) ! I've been wondering the same thing.

Listen, I honestly try not to live life judging people or being judgmental, but how TF does *anyone* ask their cancer-stricken wife for an open marriage, gets denied that and *then* opts to divorce her...still riddled with cancer?

Sorry, Newt could have the diplomatic genius of Kennedy/Obama/Clinton in one person but he loses my vote based on the fact that I can't help but to put his true character in question.

I'm not moved by him. John Edwards, another fellow acting and active douchebag, was real kind and respectful to his late cancer-ridden wife, Elizabeth Edwards.

Prestige and material whatever can *never* afford someone the moral fiber one must earn *for free* on their own time.

Newt's goofy-looking too. Like Howdy Doody or something. His name reads like Newt Grinch, instead of Gingrich. My condolences to all things and characters Dr. Seuss!

All of this brouhaha about the Republican Presidential Nomination: does it really matter, really? Obama's gonna win again if he runs for office a 2nd time:

1.) He got rid of Obama
2.) The war is ending


3.) Once the deficit begins to correct itself 'cos we wouldn't be funneling so much government funds to fuel the war chest...

Newt's a dick, John Edwards is a scumbag and Barack Obama is Cool. He WILL get elected again.

And all that stuff ;) +~+.


@36, I can't understand that while Newt is expressing outrage that the topic of his infidelity be raised in the media, no one can seem to recall that Newt pushed online publication of an unedited Starr report with salacious details of Clinton's encounter with Monica Lewinsky.

It was unmanly of Gingrich to not let Clinton see the report before it was published online for tens of millions of people to see. And so Newt wants us to feel outrage that we have the nerve to notice his hypocrisy.

As the late James Garner used to say, "Nuck Fewt".
11 Catballou-- First, thanks for an excellent laugh. I can just picture it. But next, am I reading that right? Your sister never visited again? She thought the point of your relationship was for her to lecture you on what you're doing wrong? I guess that's a big leap from the little you've told, but it sounds like it.

I can understand someone not understanding vibrators and getting the wrong idea. (I didn't know and was glad when a boyfriend educated me.) I can almost understand older sisters lecturing younger ones. (I'm a younger sister, and while I find my older brother annoying a lot of the time, he's not altogether a bad sort.) The part I can't understand is cutting off visits after being stood up to. Maybe she was embarrassed at being caught in snooping?
Don't know if someone mentioned this but, he needs to take a crap, not just have a shower. If he has shit sticking out of his ass, he needs to get it out, not just wash the outside. SO the shower is not going to resolve many of the problems this guy has. Yes tell him you like someone to be clean and tidy before having sex too. If it was my husband, I would assume this was a one time thing and wouldn't say anything bc It would hurt his feelings. I would just stop 69ing immediately. BUT this was a boyfriend so savage's comments are perfectly perfect.
@ 11, are all big sisters who are also the oldest siblings like this? I've grown up with one, known others, and already see this kind of presumptive behavior developing in my older daughter (also the first child). (Not that it's a bad thing now, as I hope to be able to leave her in charge when she's big enough, but I know it can go when all the kids are grown up and want her to be able to curb the tendency herself.)
I wish someone would ask Newt how the most repulsive human on the planet has still managed to get laid by multiple partners for his entire political career. I know that power is supposed to be an aphrodisiac, but geez! Ewwwww!
@54 I agree about the baby wipes. And having wiped my own kid's bum, the distinctive smell of baby wipes is something I've come to associate with runny, smelly bowel movements. If I smelled baby wipes on a partner's genital region, I'd probably gag. The woman just needs to talk to her boyfriend about his hygiene. She doesn't have to coerce him into taking a shower with her. And besides, that wouldn't take care of the "turtle head" problem. The guy apparently is just oblivious to the fact that he needs to clean himself better, and she needs to make him un-oblivious. God, I just can't imagine not caring about my hygiene to the extent of letting a woman go down while I've literally got crap coming out my ass. Even when I was teenaged and stupid, I was self-conscious about how I looked and smelled to women, naked or clothed.

#4 (gromm) for the win ...

"For the love of god, send a reporter to an interview. "


Maybe ask some Santorums for some names & numbers of those gay friends while you're at it.
There is no nice way of saying "your ass hole isn't clean" so just sit him down and tell him, but not in a sexual context. Or just push baby wipes like they're the second coming of christ. It works.
@ 57, idfriendly: Baby wipes are *THE* way to go! I've been usin' them on me own bum for over ten years now.. How I (let alone anyone else) ever lived life up until the advent of the baby wipe! They're cheap, effective and assure the utmost sanitary conditions for one's tuchus!


Ms Erica - Maybe a straight virgin (I lack the experience to pronounce).
That, and it's incredibly gross, not to mention mean and selfish, to expect anyone to wanna go near your junk when there's a foul stench emanating from your trunk ;-D lol!
@ 61: Your name moves me... ;-)~ I'll be your 'V'enomenon;-D ;-+-; +~+
@ Anyone in here: Who wants to fuck;)?
As for the pre-marital woes of the Gs, that would have been an ideal topic for a Spouses Debate, which really ought to have been held already. They could have dressed up like characters from Dynasty.
This may have been pointed out already, but we already know the answer to the question of whether or not Newt asked for Callista's approval for the "open marriage" he proposed to his second wife. According to Marriane Gingrich, Newt said "You want me all to yourself. Callista doesn't care what I do." So the devout catholic DID agree to and approve of the sinful, adulterous, non-monogamous 'situation' that Newt was proposing.

Come the bidet to America, please!
Wait. If both Newt and Callista are "devout Catholics," then unless they had both of Newt's former marriages annulled, they ain't hitched--at least not in the eyes of the Catholic church, right? AM I RIGHT?
RE: Skanky holes. Straight men, and even some gay ones, can be notoriously awful about cleaning the bunghole. "That's what underwear is for", they cry.
Only the women who refuse to go down on stinky cocks, or play with messy buttholes have had any effect on this at all. I say Dan's advice is right on- forget the hurt feelings. If he wants oral in that region, clean it up or get out of the game. Geez and gross!
@8- Could not agree more, but too funny!
The bidet is here already. Chk out the Toto Washlet. Seat Warmer, Warm Water Wash, Warm Blow Dry. Very Nice addition to anyones home.
@ 64, as well: No one's answered that question yet, so I'll ask again: who wants to get it on Right Now ;-)~ ... Come on;) : You Know You Wanna ;-D+~+xxx+~+~+... I like it all; I love dancing and you look divine ;) +~+ .......
@ 54, Indeed: To be honest, I misconstrued the main topic about the baby wipes: I get what you're saying: if you're gonna go and do it, *wash yo' ass 1st!*. If you're just home solo, it's the middle of the dayb and all you're doing is dropping a deuce, then *babywipes PLUS TP*... Shower optional if you feel especially skeeved-out despite one's best efforts to sanitize and certify the back door area lol...
@68 The RCC will generally give you an automatic freebie annulment for any prior, non-RCC marriages as part of your conversion process/induction package. Callista was never married before, so she didn't need one.
I'm surprised no one's mentioned the virtues of enemas, and colon-cleansing..

"Going to 'McDonald's(tm)' for a salad is going to a hooker for a hug!" ;-D Live quote from a friend and fellow comrade in the trenches of telemarketing lol..

Who in here drinks relatively-copious amounts of coffee? Who in here has exceptional Keigel-muscle control and can squeeze an amoeba out of your kiester?

Seriously though; open question:

I've never done anal: received or administered.
What's The Best Way to clean out your insides, so you'll have no mud on the prophylactic helmet?

I'll douche with fucking 'Massengill(tm)' if I knew it would assure (pun intended lol) that hygenically I would be health-inspection passing on cleanliness and sanitary conditions?

All input welcome (relative pun, I suppose lol!)

Fuck me or fuck off LOL ;-D .

Pidgey: Like My Man Didgey! +~+
Nobody seems to have brought this up in reference to LW 1's problem, but I doubt it was a turtle head poking out. It could be a hemmorroid or a skin tag, both are benign but probably not something the BF wants to discuss. Like everyone else says, a through shower would help with the aroma.
If Callista has always been such a devout Christian, then it must be okay to have sex with a married man for any devout christian woman. Not only once, but over the course of six years! So how devout was she really while she was fucking a married man ???
That scum bag !
Callista is Newt's third wife; Marianne was his second. Jackie, Newt's first wife, is the one who had cancer -- not "riddled with cancer" and not "terminally ill" -- in fact, she's STILL ALIVE! ALIVE, get it?? Not passed on. Not bereft of life, resting in peace. Not kicked the bucket, not pushing up daisies, not shuffled off this mortal coil, not run down the curtain to join the choir invisible. Not even pinin' for the fjords! She is not a "late" ex-wife! She is still among the living!
(Whew, hope I don't have to repeat that yet again!)

Jackie Gingrich had a history of uterine cancer in the past, and at the time of the infamous hospital visit, she was recovering from surgery for a tumor which turned out to be benign. Newt did not ask Jackie for an open marriage (as far as we know) -- he asked her for a divorce, as he was already having an affair with Marianne!

Callista doesn't enter into the above scenario at all. Callista was Fourteen-Freakin'-Years-Old in 1980, when Newt & Jackie were divorced!

@73 -- Callista didn't need an annulment, but NEWT would (2 of 'em, actually), in order to be married in the RCC! Somehow I sorta doubt he got them.

Nuck Fewt, indeed.
@70 YES! Why do Americans not embrace the bidet? It solves all these problems.

@46 I thought it was acceptable to use gentle, not-quite-soap soapy stuff, like Dove.
Someone else posted that Newt would need two annulments to be made good in the eyes of the RCC.

I am not up on the current RCC rules. How can Callista, let alone Newt, be considered in good standing (able to receive the sacraments?). Do they both get a pass because neither of his first 2 marriage vows were in the Church (although perhaps made in other denominations' buildings)?

[How come Protestant churces give the RCC a pass on this non-recognition of non-Cath marriages, anyway? Seems like it would be a major source of contention. But Religion has always been about hypocrisy and expediency, I guess.]

If Newt would need annulments, then his and Callista's marriage isn't Catholicly legit, is it? Besides that, how do they make good on six years of breaking a commandment? Did some of that Tiffany account pay for Papal jewelry to get special dispensations?

In some cultures they clean themselves before sex.
@41(Crinoline), that's an interesting point. I suppose the point is that, if someone does indeed go through the sin-repentance-redemption cycle, that would be OK. But did Mr Gingrich? What exactly is it about Callista that makes it more likely he has now finally really seen the light?

Besides... Mr Gingrich was already a family-values conservative politician before meeting Callista. If he only became redeemed after meeting her, does this mean he was lying then?

I suppose, from a religious conservative mindset, the difference between a repent-and-redeem conservative like Gingrich and Democrats like Wiener is simply that the former did repent, while the latter didn't. Come to think of it, I imagine the reason they are quite anti-liberal is that the liberals are those sinners who didn't repent, while the conservatives are those who did. Interesting.
@AFinch, who wrote:
They don't care if Newt has an entire harem and is never long as he supports limiting sexual freedom for others.

But that is flat-out contradictory; they couldn't believe that with a straight face. To make things non-contradictory, they would have to believe in some version of the theory that Mr Gingrich has redeemed itself with Callista's help and will no longer stray.

I do agree that conservatives think that fighting "the liberal threat" is even more important than sex control (this can be done after the liberals are gone), which is why the anybody-but-Romney movement gets traction: believing Mr Gingrich implies less is at stake than believing Mr Romney. If Mr Gingrich turns out to still be a philanderer, he can still repent and be brought to reason; but if Mr Romney turns out to be a closet liberal on at least some of the issues, that will be much harder to fix.
@79 "How come Protestant churces give the RCC a pass on this non-recognition of non-Cath marriages, anyway?"

Because we have Separation of Church and State. That means, among other things, that religious organizations are answerable to the state, not to other religious organizations. (The theology of the Catholic Church is none of the Protestant Churches' business, in exactly the same way that the sex life of my neighbours is none of my business.) If you have a country where some religious organizations have power over other religious organizations, that country doesn't practice Separation of Church and State.

BTW, Protestant churches not giving the RCC a pass on stuff has been tried. Google the Thirty Years' War (for just one example). Separation of Church and State works a LOT better.
The virgin's boyfriend might be a virgin himself. Or maybe he suspects the boyfriend is a virgin. I would guess the latter.

Mentioning hygiene (or any other requests) is just fine, but it should be mentioned later. As in "Honey, I really liked the 69 we did the other night, it was great, but I have a little request; can you please clean your privates, including your ass for me please, just to make them extra fresh, so I'll enjoy it even more". Just about any guy would love to hear those words. And if the don't, then don't go down.
erm..."devout catholic mistress" is an oxymoron

Callista Gingrich is simply a moron.
35 and the advice to MITM-- It's not just that Dan is compassionate except when it comes to bodily fluids he doesn't like. I quite agree with him there. It's that he sometimes has the idea that good relationships and good sexual relationships are so common that if there's something wrong with the first, you just find another in a few days.

This young woman (I'm assuming woman because of the tone. I'm assuming young because she doesn't seem to be out of the two-word language developmental phase.) loves the man to pieces and says she loves the sex. If she yells at him while running for her car, she solves the hygiene problem (never has to face that again) but not the one about finding another boyfriend she likes so well.

She cares about this guy enough not to want to humiliate him. She doesn't know that if he's clueless enough in the first place not to wash, he's probably clueless enough not to care when he's told to wash. So she can be as direct as necessary right on up to the point of being so harsh that he hates her. My sexy shower idea may have been unnecessarily oblique (I did say it was for someone who wasn't terribly assertive), but it's safe if she doesn't want to make him angry or hurt.
@77 - My information is perhaps somewhat dated, but I doubt the cannon law has changed. 22 years ago I married a divorced Catholic convert. I never converted, and she did not expect to ever remarry at the time of her conversion. I am (nominally) an Episcopal; she had been raised one and had been married in the Episcopal church.

We (she) sought to get the blessing of the RCC when we married, and they indicated that she might need an annulment, but said that if required, it would be pro-forma since her first marriage was not recognized by the RCC - they do not recognize non-RCC marriages. Moreover, the administrative cannon law paves the way for new converts, particularly given the RCC's dropping world-wide numbers. To wit: the married Anglican priests being ordained. I was given the impression by two parish priests that ordinarily annulments were requested and granted for already divorced people as part of their conversion process.

I was pressured to convert as a two-fer, but refused and our most significant issue was this - having a Catholic priest perform the ceremony in my Episcopal church alongside an Episcopal priest. It was not the annulment.

I am an insignificant nobody; I leave it to your analysis to reflect on what kind of barrier existed for a powerful Southern Baptist making the same conversion.

But that is flat-out contradictory; they couldn't believe that with a straight face.

Since when is cognitive (rational/logical) dissonance not a prerequisite for conservatism, much less fundamentalism? Sorry for the snark, but this is a sophmoric objection to the obvious issue. Of course you are right and they are entirely contradictory, but insisting their nuts doesn't illuminate how to deal with them! :-)

Old Crow is exactly right about how the RCC sees it spiritually or morally, though they don't really care about separation of Church and state; they care only about their own 'theology' (reality, and ontological definitions) and strive to push the state to conform.
My embarrassing bad: "they're" not "their". Oy the shame.
#75 may be right-what if it's a hemorrhoid? Which leads to a separate question: what is the sex protocol for people with hemorrhoids (but normal to great hygiene)? Is it gross? Do you say anything? Is anal play off the table? Is it gross to have anal sex with a partner with hemorrhoids? Should they treat them/have them surgically removed if they want to engage in anal? I imagine it's unappealing visually.

Also, always shower before sex. If you can't shower, use a wet wash cloth or a wipe.
@91 "always shower before sex"

Why? I love climbing on top of him in the morning, both of us barely awake....

And then there's the time in the parking garage. I didn't see any showers handy, I have to say.
Did I miss a new entry in the lexicon? No one else mentioned Dan's use of the word "holesome". I think that this new spelling and usage could be interesting, but I feel that it would still be misplaced in this context.

I figure he really meant "wholesome", but in Calista's case "whoresome" may be a better adjective.

As for the larger story, I don't think that the Republican party needs our help. They are doing a good job self-destructing on their own. In what should have been a pretty-much-slam-dunk to dethrone a sitting president (against my wishes) they clearly appear to most not as a party, but instead as a circus made up only of clowns.

Maybe we shouldn't gloat so much, the American voters may still show how incredibly stupid they are by electing one of these morons.
@93 - No, Dan knows his words well enough to have fun playing with them. I think he meant to sound like he was saying 'wholesome' while making up a new word meaning 'all-orifice spooge-bucket'.
Toilet paper or baby wipes by themselves are useless for cleaning your ass. You are mostly just smearing shit around. You need water (bidet, bottle, shower) to finish it off and actually get clean down there. Try it, you'll never go back.
How is water from bidet, etc. + TP different from using pre-moistened baby wipes?? Water alone, unless it is soapy water in a very strong stream isn't going to remove much, let alone all.

An expensive bidet installation probably does = less TP use. I just can't afford to have one installed everywhere I, uhm, go.

I use unscented moistened baby wipes all the time (buy in bulk at disc store) and they clean much more thoroughly than dry TP. Plus - guess what? They come also in portable packs.

Guys without handbags? Tsk. Tsk. Maybe a zip lock bag to carry a few in a pocket?
@84. I think you misunderstood my question.

I know Prots and Caths in history used to be at each other's throats. DUH! And that for legal standing marriages have to be licensed by the state. I also totally support separation of church and state. Would prefer no church at all, actually, but an atheist is nothing if not a realist.

I was just wondering why the Protestants aren't really offended that the RCC actively discounts Prot. religious marriage ceremonies as legit within RCC dogma? Perhaps not as rigidly as they used to, but that was part of my question.

I was raised Catholic so I am less familiar with the mindset of the various mainstream Protestant sects on this issue. Possibly they reciprocate by considering a divorced Catholic person to be never married in their god's eyes when he/she decides to marry one of theirs? But I never heard of them requiring a Non-Protestant mother to agree to raise her kids Protestant before they would sanction the marriage. Which is what the Catholics did to my Mom.

I get that they are all acting united now under the Xtian umbrella against the rational, progressive movement. If the majority, radical conservatives ever take real control of this country, the eventual conflicts among the American Christian factions will make the 30 Years War look like a cake walk.

Everything they do is based upon fear, power-mongering and expediency, not morality.
@87 (Crinoline), you're indeed right that Dan often writes as if getting out of a relationship and finding a new, better one were indeed easy. But there are other topics about which he is not so quick to push the eject button, about which he can be quite compassionate and take the time to evaluate the big picture. This one isn't, alas, one of them. Note that, even though most people would agree with Dan (and you) on the topic (certain, but not other, bodily fluids -- I don't think Dan would be so quick to feel revolted if the fluid in question were, say, semen), not everybody does (I, for one, don't).

(Be it said, though, that Dan has evolved more and more towards compassionate advising as time went by. When you compare his current columns to the first ones in his archive over a decade ago, you can notice a difference not only in preferred topics -- from how-to sex advice to what-do-I-do-now relationship and ethical advice -- but also in tone.)
@92, indeed, comparable situations are known to me, as well... Long live pheromones. :-)

Regarding anal hygiene: google "showershot" - It can be installed in any shower and is very convenient for making sure that one is prepared for sex.

Address the problem directly - When my ex questioned why I avoided "that" area, I told him I how I prepared for sex and said he needed to do the same. It was that simple.
More on the MITM question-- When I was in cooking school, the management teacher asked us how we would handle a dishwasher with a body odor. The hypothetical question involved a good reliable worker with bad hygiene. My classmates and I were all in our early 20s. We hemmed and hawed and got embarrassed. Most of us thought we'd fire him and hire someone else, but we'd already been learning about how expensive it is to find and train workers. Those of us who were willing to hazard an answer started with telling him what we'd been drilled on about the importance of cleanliness to food safety.

The teacher's answer was so brilliant I remember it now and have applied it to many situations. You don't concentrate on the problem. You get specific about the solution. Instead of telling a man that he smells bad, you explain that you're changing his break to mid day and issuing him a second uniform. You give him information on how you want him to go to the men's room during his break and wash there. Also, you've bought particular deodorant products that you want him to use and so on. She said it so naturally that we could imagine a woman speaking to a man and doing some good.

It sounds like an exaggeration, but that bit of information may have changed my life. I started noticing how often I assumed people didn't know about a problem when the chances were good they didn't know the solution. It applies everywhere, but I especially think of parents and teachers trying to help students in school. I remember being told over and over what awful things would happen if I didn't study more, raise my grades and learn the material. It was all about motivation, little about actual teaching.

Unless scat is your thing...why wouldn't someone finish before bed?

What in the hell?
@ Anyone In Here: Love Is Love. If Someone Is Truly Happy With Someone Else, & They're Both Virgins, Then Who Gives A Shiat? ;-D They Can Have Fun Not Being Virgins Anymore Together :-) +~+

To The Wild Sow:

What are you trying to say, man?! That Mrs. Newt #1 is STILL ALIVE ;-D lol...



    Please wait...

    Comments are closed.

    Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.

    Add a comment

    By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.