Savage Love

1. Excellent timing with the state of the union speech.

2. 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”!!!

3. “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.

4. “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.

5. 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.

6. that second letter sounds like a re-run.

7. oops. i meant third letter.

8. Thanks to Joe Newton, I’ve eaten my last chocolate-frosted cake donut.

9. @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.

10. @9 Argh. *Incompatible with

11. 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.

12. “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!

13. 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.’

14. Goddamn is Calista a cunt.

15. 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.

16. @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.

17. 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.

18. 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?

19. 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.

20. 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.

21. 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

22. @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.

23. @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.)

24. In response to the first LW:

    you say: “DUDE! you’re prairie-dogging (hedge-hogging)”

25. 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.

26. 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.

27. @13
    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.

28. 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!

29. 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)

30. “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?

31. Dan. There are some basics with the internet:
    Don’t feed the troll. Never feed the troll.

32. Printing the letter from the Newt supporter puts you in the arguing with idiots on the internet category.

    STOP TREATING CHRISTIANS LIKE ADULTS, they do not deserve it.

33. 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.

34. 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.

35. @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.

36. 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?

37. @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?

38. @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.

39. @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.

40. 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!

41. 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.

42. 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.

43. 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”??

44. I could offer creative pointers to the wife whose hubby loves domination from his Mistress Of The Sweetest, Most Orgasmic “Pain”;) +~+ XXX lol! +~+

45. @ 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.

46. @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.

47. 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”.

48. @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 monogamous…so 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.

49. 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.

50. @ 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 😉 +~+.

    Cheers.

    🙂

51. @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”.

52. 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?

53. 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.

54. @ 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.)

55. 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!

56. @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.

57. #4 (gromm) for the win …

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

    BUMP

    Maybe ask some Santorums for some names & numbers of those gay friends while you’re at it.

58. 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.

59. @ 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!

    ;-D

    +~+

60. Ms Erica – Maybe a straight virgin (I lack the experience to pronounce).

61. 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!

62. @ 61: Your name moves me… ;-)~ I’ll be your ‘V’enomenon;-D ;-+-; +~+

63. @ Anyone in here: Who wants to fuck;)?

64. 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.

65. 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.

66. Come the bidet to America, please!

67. 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?

68. 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!

69. The bidet is here already. Chk out the Toto Washlet. Seat Warmer, Warm Water Wash, Warm Blow Dry. Very Nice addition to anyones home.

70. @ 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 😉 +~+ …….

71. @ 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…

72. @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.

73. 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! +~+

74. 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.

75. 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 !

76. 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.

77. @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.

78. 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?

79. In some cultures they clean themselves before sex.

80. @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.

81. @AFinch, who wrote:

    They don’t care if Newt has an entire harem and is never monogamous…so 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.

82. @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.

83. 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.

84. erm…”devout catholic mistress” is an oxymoron

    Callista Gingrich is simply a moron.

85. 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.

86. @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.

    @83

    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.

87. My embarrassing bad: “they’re” not “their”. Oy the shame.

88. #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.

89. @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.

90. 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.

91. @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’.

92. 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.

93. 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?

94. @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.

95. @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.)

96. @92, indeed, comparable situations are known to me, as well… Long live pheromones. 🙂

97. 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.

98. 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.

99. Turtlehead?

    Unless scat is your thing…why wouldn’t someone finish before bed?

    What in the hell?

100. @ 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…

     Gotcha.

     😉

101. @ YOU ;-)~ : Don’t think I will stop and be deterred for your ongoing, crafty campaign to sidestep my passionate and perhaps sometimes mortally-embarrassing public displays of romantic and carnal overture to your delicious soul of a person… I must have you: now! How can I sample your tantalizing goodness further? ;-D Playing hard to get, yeah? That ol’ standby lol.. Maybe you’re a gentleman. So am I. It doesn’t mean I still don’t wanna do it with you like mad right here like performance art….or something ;-D lol. Rock On & Stay Cool. So, as I was saying…..

     *WHO WANTS TO GET IT ON WITH ME RIGHT NOW?*

     Ignore me all ya want: I’m still gonna keep at it ;-D!

     +~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+~+.

102. This is pretty crazy stuff you guys talk about. The one with MITM made me laugh and Dan’s approach to the situation was good.

103. @Crinoline, who wrote:

     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.

     Indeed, that’s also been my experience. One thing I will be forever thankful for is that my parents didn’t care about my school results. If I had had to listen to the kind of tedious explanation about how ‘I’d end up mowing lawns or washing dishes for money’ if I didn’t get good grades, I probably would never have liked studying. (A cousin of mine, naturally quite intelligent and eager to learn, became disgusted with learning just because his mother kept trying to ‘motivate’ him with such negative images and to control all his study time. A pity — this treatment dulled his natural curiosity and guaranteed that he would be just a slightly-above-average student.)

104. Anybody who has participated in the dominant position of doggy-style enough times can attest to that even the most hygiene-conscious partner can accidentally have a shred of TP near their ballon-knot.

     But poo? No. No. No!

105. Sorry so ignorant, but WTF does +~+ mean??? I tried googling it, but there were no results!

106. Newt is already condoning woman-on-food sex. I mean, look at the man. He’s a biscuit.

107. Unless the boyfriend is stinky and dirty every single time, LW1 could try a positive reinforcement approach rather than negative… Right after a shower, or on an occasion when she notices that things are seeming particularly good down there, she could comment, “wow, I love it so much when you’ve made such a wonderful effort to be clean and fresh for me! It really turns me on and makes sex so much nicer.” Of course, she’d want to reinforce with especial enthusiasm. She could even add a comparison – “I’ve dated guys who never made that effort, and it’s so much nicer to be with someone who does.” Trying to maintain an image as the awesome hot guy who is super clean might be more effective and less embarrassing than trying to figure out how to quit being a dirty slob.

     As a girl, an early boyfriend did this with me – commented “you’re one of the cleanest, tastiest girls i’ve ever gone down on!” I’ll never know if he said that because I had tasted worse at other times, or if it was just an offhand compliment. Before that, I think I was fairly clean, but not particularly meticulous. After, I always wanted to make sure that I was the cleanest and most pleasant.

108. Newt Gingrich: “Why do people take such an instant dislike to me?”

     Bob Dole: “Because it saves them time.”

109. Why is Bob Dole’s arm so gimpy-looking?

     Because it is.

     😉

110. Pigeon Park: Can you unregister so I can automatically unsee your posts, at least until the spasm of logorrhea passes? Is there a pill you can take?

     Prairie-dogging is beyond the pale. That calls for a call to his case-worker. Really. How can you not know you’re in mid-shit?

     FWIW, this is a problem with women, too. I guess if you don’t expect any attention back there, you don’t spot-check for daggy bits.

111. @46

     Erm, unless I’m confused, isn’t the LW referring to the area surrounding the anus? (Which isn’t mucuous membrane)

112. @113: There’s a greasemonkey script for SLOG somewhere. I have it but can’t remember where I got it. It’s pretty handy in cases like this…

113. @102: Talk about clearing your cache …

114. @117: What version of Firefox are you running? I’ve got 7.0.1, and after installing I get bupkis. It says it’s active, but no list and no pigeon-erasing button.

115. @107 & 110 — I just remembered the Charmin Bears “Won’t pass inspection” ad — if they’re still running that one, she could say to him when it comes on, “Oh, by the way sweetie…..” Hoping the “turtle head” was a hemorrhoid or skin tag of course!

     BTW, who’s inspecting a bear’s ass??!

     http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JAzqGuZfo…

116. LOL, other than the bear’s boyfriend I guess.

117. @ 117: Funny. I think Firefox took a complete shit around version 4, so I’m still back on 3.6. It hasn’t been updated since April of last year, so maybe there’s a problem with 7?

     For anyone else who’s looking for it, you can get it here:

     http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/4858…

118. “It” = the greasemonkey script. Damn antecedents…

119. dan,your answer makes sense.Lots of people don’t clean there butts.Mostly men.Women are normally cleaner because they wipe themselves after using the bathroom.I have been with someone who had tissue in their ass.So I politely told them to wash before sex and I led by example.I taught my sons that when using a public bathroom (when possible)wet some paper towels with with soap and use them after wiping your ass.Also never go to bed without cleaning your ass.If everyone used a “White” wash cloth at the end of the day and after showering ,they would be surprised at how much “Brown” surfaces.

120. 98- ankylosaur–Dan’s changing attitudes toward compassion don’t concern me as much as his attitudes towards using his column for entertainment. Everyone who gives advice in a public forum has one responsibility to the questioner and one to the audience. In a world where ratings matter, it’s understandable that the Dr. Phils and Dan Savages of this world will go towards the sensational or the low level that will gain them the larger audience base. Since I wouldn’t read this column if I didn’t find it entertaining, I get that. (I can’t say the same for Dr. Phil. It’s so dumbed down that I’ve gotten bored before watching a show straight through at the gym or car garage waiting room.) On the other hand, I become somewhere between annoyed and outraged when I think Dan is taking advantage of a letter writer in order to amuse his other readers.

     And that’s what I think happened with MITM. She asked an embarrassing question that was important to her. Dan gave an answer that wasn’t in her best interests. Dump him for something that, while disgusting– I agree with him there–, has a less drastic solution? It strikes me as irresponsible.

     Dan has been the woman’s advocate in the political arena, but he seems to fall short when advising them in personal relationship matters.

121. @ 113, aureolaborealis:

     “Pigeon Park: Can you unregister so I can automatically unsee your posts, at least until the spasm of logorrhea passes? Is there a pill you can take?”

     No, I won’t, your dialogue is even less thought-provoking than my own and yes, I can take one of your mother’s little yellow pills.

     Why so bitchy? Keep scrolling if you don’t wanna read me! I barely give a shit about what you write! I only responded ‘cos you name-dropped me. Fuck you! I’m in love and you’re being a cunt, so I win, and you can fuck off 🙂 .

122. Public service announcement: trolls go away faster if ignored than if engaged with. Even happy, perky trolls like me 🙂

123. Inexpensive aftermarket spray bidets can be added to most toilets by home do-it-yourselfers at very modest cost. I don’t want this to turn into an ad, but Google “Bio Bidet.” Depending on the proximity to a sink, you might even be able to have warm water. It is just as good as a shower, if not better, and much faster. Highly recommended if any kind of butt play, or even proximity, is being contemplated.

124. PSA addendum: of course it only works if everyone is on board…

125. @125(Crinoline), I’m a bit more idealistic about Dan. I don’t think he’s doing it only for the money, or ratings, or internet hits. I think he actually cares, and he’s also developing his own pop version of an ethical system for dealing with sex and relationship issues in general. Which is why I am interested in the changes in Dan’s attitudes through time: I see the maturing.

     I can see Dan’s column as entertaining, but I prefer it because it’s also thought-provoking.

     Which is why I don’t think he was playing this letter for entertainment value. Sure, he picked on the LW’s wording of the question — she was already in full OMG mode. But I think that, comparing his answer to other answers to similar situations in the past, it does reflect something about Dan’s system — he’s really very much into bodily hygiene, and will do a question every now and then to get the point across (like the occasional anti-pitbull post). And I do notice that he’s tuned down his boyish anger and displayed more mature compassion in many a topic, but not in this one. Maybe in the future, though.

126. @125(Crinoline), just to summarize: which is why I wouldn’t call Dan’s answer “irresponsible”, because I don’t think he was just trying to be entertaining (if this had been a real-life consultation — say, if one of the tech-savy at-risk youth had asked him for advice on that — I imagine he’d have given the same kind of emotion-laden answer). I find it more “wrong,” actually (precisely because of the excessive emotion concerning a situation that is, after all, rather trivial), or “exaggerated” — it makes me think of highschoolers — or maybe anti-gay fundies — thinking about anal sex and going “eeeewww.”

127. Re: RAW’s letter.

     What’s the deal with virginity anyway?

     I’ve assumed that it is for others what it was for me: An experience that loomed large more for its emotional impact than for the physical one (though that was nice too). I could understand someone not wanting to be responsible for trying to stem the tide of such powerful feeling. (I’d have been glad to reassure that I wasn’t going to imprint (great expression) as Dan says, but it wouldn’t have made any difference.

     For me, PIV sex really was a big deal that oral sex wasn’t. I considered myself a virgin until full penetration. But in this world of shifting definitions, does that matter? I should think it isn’t that big a deal for everyone.

     That brings me to RAW’s question. He’s a virgin. It just hasn’t happened yet. I’m not sure I would bring it up except in the most minor of passing conversation.

128. @ 127, EricaP: I am not a troll, I am minute. Thank you for noting the distinction 😉 .

129. “Did Newt bounce the idea off his devoutly Catholic mistress first? Maybe right after he finished bouncing himself off his devoutly Catholic mistress”

     Image.Burned.Brain.

130. “Did Newt bounce the idea off his devoutly Catholic mistress first? Maybe right after he finished bouncing himself off his devoutly Catholic mistress”

     Image.Burned.Brain.Help.

131. EWWW…images of “shitbuds”, “dingleberries”, and Newt Gincrich having sex suddenly and rudely branded into my brain! (OK, so it WAS with my consent, since I came here of my own free will.)

     Wow, MITM, if he can’t take it when you tell him he is SHITTING in your FACE as you give him oral pleasure (or that he might as well be, for all the good his last wipe/shower did), how is he going to take it when you tell him him his breath stinks or he has B.O. or he left the restroom with a trail of t.p. stuck to his shoe or his fly is open or he has a booger hanging out of his nose in public? Or even “hey, you’re too drunk to drive, honey.”

     Don’t you want a lover who accepts such “criticisms” (I consider them loving PSA’s, myself…”private service announcements”…that I would be pissed as all HELL if MY loved one DIDN’T give ME if I were in a similar situation!) rather than getting all defensive and/or flacid when you point out the obvious-to everyone-but-him?

     Yes, he’ll be embarrassed, but how much MORE embarrassed will he be if you don’t tell him and he finds out later, from you or (worse) someone ELSE that it was something you never alerted him to?

     If his dick can’t get hard for you after you perform this most loving of acts upon him (the PSA), then he has bigger problems than bowel control and hygiene and you probably don’t want to go there.

132. A while back (don’t ask me when) there was a letter similar to BBB’s about a craigslist ad and Dan suggested that the finder approach the kinkster and say “Hey, more power to you, but you should know that I could identify you so someone else might be able to too”. I think if BBB thinks his relationship with his little bro is solid he should do this. Just tell him that there are some identifying things in his photos and maybe he should drape a sheet over the couch, have a specific bedspread only for the photos, remove all jewelry first.

133. OK, so now we know all about man ass and dirty little brown helmets wanting to join the fun. I had a girl in my distant past who loved to present their pretty little ass upward for my choice of insertion points. I’ll take vag like that anytime. Problem is that when a woman simply wipes her ass after defecation, the streaky left behinds can give a decidedly unsavory aroma when she’s opened for pleasure. It’s not just a guy thing, that dirty ass hole business. And the stank was enough for me to turn her over and do the missionary thing instead. For a good romp in a thickly, juiced up pussy, I will endure a lot, but draw the line at unpleasant odors that are easily dealt with beforehand.

     The simple solution is to wipe your ass after defecation, followed by a TP wash using soapy paper, then a rinse with wet TP and finally a dry wipe. And if you have to use a public toilet, you just need to prep the TP before going to the stall. The bidet idea sounds good, but without a cleansing agent, the shit still is there, it’s just wet and smeared. But if used in conjunction with a good soap wash/rinse, the bidet solves the problem of those little snowballs that TP can leave behind.

     And you’re not safe from it by deciding to simply forget about it and jack off instead. I remember that old 70s bondage porn that sometimes showed fine babes in strict bondage, but they’d be exhibiting snowy white TP buds scattered on otherwise fine ass cracks. Now those photographer’s oversights are still out there haunting the stacks of vintage porn collectors’ HOM magazines.

     When will we ever learn…?

134. I often wonder why this rag tends to put the GOP in a bad sexual light and the Dem party as somehow holy and devoid of sexual corruption. Now don’t get me wrong, Newt is a sexual pig and I still cannot fathom why otherwise good looking chicks would go for a fat old slob like him. Maybe Kissinger was right afterall. BTW, although I haven’t seen the video yet, there’s an actress playing Callista (love that name BTW) on Youtube who attempts to explain what women see in the bloated Newt. Heard the audio on Seattle FM radio and it was a hoot. “He puts on his size 57 pants one leg at at time, like any other man,” she says.

     I was as repulsed by Bill Clinton’s sexcapades in the oval office. What a fucking distasteful thing to do, getting blown in the same place where greater men than him labored for their country. Hell, he’d probably be the guy having a blow job spew all over his girl’s Sunday dress in the choir loft during the sermon. Hillary’s looking the other way because she has no self-respect and his power will propel her onto the world stage. And you have Anthony Weiner with his unsavory internet pix sent to a college girl in Bellingham, WA as well as Barney Frank running sex-for-pay out of his apartment. Left, right or indifferent, sexual politics sucks and not in the good way.

     Jackasses and elephants, they’re all animals to me. Bunch of corrupt pigs across the board. I’m finished with picking a team and rooting for the big win. It’s just a shell game and whatever your orientation, you lose.

135. Ted Rall has an interesting, and forgiving, take on Newt. Probably won’t work, but he’s clearly a better man, er, person, than I am:

     http://www.rall.com/rallblog/2012/01/24/…

136. @139, I think the main point is that Republicans (and conservatives in general) make sexual politics part of their platform, since they are usually for laws that limit sexual behavior and condemn some of its forms. In order to do that, they claim to be defenders of a traditional way of life — so, when it turns out a Republican who makes such claims was actually not practising what he preaches, this is relevant information. He markets himself as one who is against those who do such things, in order to appeal to those voters who are against such things — and then he’s caught doing them? That is relevant information, since it confirms that he is lying when he says he defends traditional values. Or at least that he has two standards: traditional values for the others, whatever I want for me.

     Now, Democrats (or liberals) in general tend to regard one’s private life as not important for politics. What Wiener did, for instance, may seem disgusting to you, but he never marketed himself to his voter as someone who would fight against this kind of behavior; so, whatever you think about it, it is not inconsistent, self-contradictory, or hypocritical. The same, mutatis mutandis, with the other examples you mention.

     I’ll be all in favor of disregarding the sexual politics of Republicans when they stop making the sexual also political.

137. What if the turtle headed BF is into being a dirty ass mofo? By not calling him on it, you might be encouraging him. He better stop it now, or GTFO.

138. Dan Savage: an inhuman creature subsisting on a diet of pure pud & santorum. It can be quite the cranky little pooswa if crossed, so steer clear if you should see it. You have been warned.

139. @144:

     Another conservative commentator who comes on here to say how repulsive Dan Savage is and how everyone should steer clear. Then comes on again to say how repulsive Dan Savage is. Then a few hours later…

140. Not sure who you’re talking about there James. I posted one time, spoke my mind & that’s it. You must be delusional. You’ve got this lawyer suing two women for “slandering” him on the web, stating it’s going to cost him work, & that’s okay, but just cause ol Danny boy doesn’t like what Santorum said, he has to do what he did to him, but they tell him nothing can be done about it. # one, how is that fair?# 2, doesn’t your hero believe in free speech or must he smear people whose opinion differs from his, even when they’re mostly correct? He like all the rest of his ilk will answer for all this crap when the time comes; I just wish I could be there to see them squirm, stammer & beg. He won’t be able to google bomb God.

141. @146

     Post #1: January 28, 2012 at 5:56 PM

     “Not sure who you’re talking about there James. I posted one time, spoke my mind & that’s it. You must be delusional.”

     Post #2: January 29, 2012 at 1:48 AM

     Fail.

142. @141, hey! You know some Latin, wow, I am really impressed. How about this-the left just skewered posse comatatus and our personal freedoms to speak our minds freely without some government hack listening and making book on us for later action. Perhaps a FEMA camp or worse, torture in some foreign military prison, signed into law by Obama and actually pushed by his administration in the first place. Gee, I thought the left was all for personal freedom.

     You missed my point by a mile anyway, I say BOTH PARTIES are the scum of the earth. So go sit in front of your TV and watch the debates or whatever and enjoy your popcorn.

143. @146:

     “Not sure who you’re talking about there James. I posted one time, spoke my mind & that’s it.”

     On his second post.

144. @146 “doesn’t your hero believe in free speech”

     Free speech means the government doesn’t prevent speech.

     Fellow citizens are supposed to talk back to each other.

     When someone (Santorum) uses their free speech to spew nasty ideas, those of us who disagree are supposed to use our free speech to argue against the nasty ideas. That’s how the system works. (The Nazis get to march in Skokie, and the rest of us get to write editorials about how we hate their ideas and still defend their right to march.)

     Redefining Santorum is a legitimate use of Dan’s right to speak freely against nasty ideas and make poop jokes.

145. @46 and @114

     You should never use soap on mucous membranes such as the anus and vagina.

     BlackRose is quite right. I should have said “ass hygiene” instead of “anal hygiene.” However, I’m a firm believer in daily soap for the surrounding area, if not the delicate butt cherry itself.

146. Erica, while pissed is actually right in acerting that both political parties work in tandem to fuck us. It’s like wrestling, they hate eachother for us, have a beer together backstage after the show and the same person cuts both of their cheques.

147. @153 Yes, both parties work together to fuck us. But one party will appoint supreme court justices who will ban anal sex, contraception, and abortion before moving on to banning Islam. And the other side won’t.

148. @149(ironvic), I speak fluent Latin. Si vis, possumus hanc disquisitionem latine discutere… Sed non credo, ut mecum latine loquari possis. What a pity.

     I haven’t missed your point, which is just the old cliché “they’re all pigs, what’s the difference.” I’ve told you what the difference is: some of these pigs base part of their political success in claiming they want to fight the pigs, and yet they are themselves pigs, whereas others don’t claim they want to fight pigs. You decided this difference isn’t important, but hey, that’s you, not me.

     I don’t like popcorn, but you’re free to imagine me eating it if this satisfies some of your urges. Have a good day.

149. @154, indeed. Since politics is the art of the possible, I’ve been often left wondering why people will play the division game without realizing what the consequence is for their own goals. Insisting on ideological purity or on rapid change usually gets you quickly out of the game; and yet people will go on insisting that, unless I can vote for a party that is a True Representative of the One True Truth With All The Right Ideas and contains only the crème de la crème of honest sincere politicians.

150. @ mydriasis: you too must be delusional. Everything I said in my response to James was true. How is that a fail? I must admit adding some things in my response, but my first post was exactly as I stated: one post, one comment,that’s it. Learn to read & reason.

151. @ Erica P: slandering someone with completely false statements, or definitions in this case, isn’t free speech. What I did is exactly like what danny did to santorum, only in a far less public way. Turn about is fair play,isn’t it? And by the way, dan spews nasty ideas with his very life. If I disagree with someone, I discuss it with them, I don’t slander them with complete untruths in a very public forum. That’s for the weak of mind & spirit. I only did what I did to make a point,which has been proven. He didn’t simply talk back to santorum, he lied about him in a very public way, which I would think would be legally actionabe, but everyone is afraid of insulting the gays. Too much freaking PC in this failing country. If you can’t take an insult, which by the way wasn’t made directly to him, then grow up & be a man instead of having one.

152. @158 if I build a bridge or a town dump and name it after you, that’s not slander. Assuming I have the authority to name it, then it really has your name, and it’s not a lie.

     Dan came up with a new definition, and named it in honor of Santorum. It’s in online dictionaries, because that’s really the new meaning of the word. No lie.

     Dan doesn’t suggest seriously that Rick Santorum is actually “the frothy mix of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex.” Dan knows Rick is human, and therefore not actually made of santorum. But santorum is made of santorum; that’s true by definition.

153. @158, even though EricaP beat me to it, this bears repeating: this is not slander, this is simply a redefinition. When a scientist’s name gets used as a new measuring unit — pascals, farads, ohms, newtons, etc. — nobody is suggesting that there is any natural relationship between the person whose name was used and the actual physical quantity it measures.

     Creating the word santorum based on Mr Santorum’s name is therefore not slander, but a redefinition. In Mr Santorum’s case, one that was motivated by his anti-gay record, which is stellar.

     From what I can see, if you disagree with someone’s lifestyle, you don’t discuss it with him — you’re certainly not doing it here. You’re spewing accusations and outrage; you’re not discussing reasons or offering arguments. You’re yourself doing what you accuse Dan of doing, and you’re using terms and vehemence you would probably object to if they had been used against you, or against Mr Santorum.

154. My reasoning & argument is that you’re all full of shit & “You’re yourself doing what you accuse Dan of doing” was exactly my point. Just imagine, honestly, if you’re able, how any of you would feel if you googled yourselves & saw such a disgusting “definition”, & your family & friends had to see or hear it. Your type probably deals with something of this nature regularly, so you wouldn’t care. Calling this a “redefinition” of his name is probably the lamest argument I’ve ever heard. It’s attempted revenge, pure & simple. Any other excuse is pure bullshit. Catch a clue instead of a load.

155. Look, Rick Santorum decided to build a political career on scapegoating gay Americans. He saw sliming and crapping on a community as a way to make a name for himself. So, Dan Savage has made sure that name will indeed be associated with something slimy and crappy.

     Two wrongs may not make a right, but it damn sure makes it even.

156. @97 Xweatie,

     In our (subdivision) of the Protestant branch of Christianity, we:

     A).  Recognize the concept of divorce.  As long as the partners won’t be committing bigamy, though they may have to do a church mandated pre-marriage counseling course, there are no restrictions to “of age” marriage by the church.

     B).  Inferred in the above is recognition of marriages done outside of the church, because they have to be legally terminated after having been initiated somewhere.  Vis a vis the RCC’s denial of validity of non-RCC marriages, we just roll our eyes and sigh.  

     Because we end up getting a fair number of former RCC followers, we simply accept their (the RCC) indifference towards us, and carry on.  In fact, in the UCC, same sex in-church marriages are performed (by congregation in states where legal).  To our great benefit, because the RCC doesn’t accept women as ministers, we get former RCC women that have the calling to serve.  To put it all together, you could have a same sex marriage performed by a pregnant minister as long as those being married are legally permitted.  That is, however, most assuredly not the case for most mainstream Protestant divisions.  The stringency of orthodoxy can be mostly dependent upon the individual minister and congregation.  When I went “church shopping” for our wedding, I encountered the “orthodoxy pledge” mindset, but that was a rare experience.  Even amongst “fire and brimstone” Lutherans, I never encountered that kind of thing (growing up).  And as far as the “woman must obey man as man obeys God” thing, well, everyone has somebody that is a little different in their family tree.

     Peace.

157. @152 Sea Otter,

     What about baby shampoo (for those delicate membranes)?

     Personally I never get any irritation from using soap or shampoo when I wash down there. Now cheap toilet paper, or last night’s spicy peppers…

158. @161, that is not your point: that is your mistake (i.e., you’re being hypocritical by criticizing in others what you do yourself). How I would feel if I had had such a redefinition? Well, you’re doing it to me right now, so there’s no need for me to imagine it. It’s simple: you’re wrong. You have the right to do it, of course — your opinion, no matter how vile (as O’Reilly would say), is free.

     Yeah, that’s basically it. I feel that you’re wrong in slandering me (us?). But feel free to go on being wrong. As far as I know, it’s a lot easier to deal with than cancer.

     And at least now, if you want to understand why Dan did it… all you have to do is look at the mirror. You’re doing the same — that means you know why. And if you think you’re right in doing it to me (us), well… then maybe he’s right in doing it to Mr Santorum. Who knows? Weirder things have happened already.

159. @51: Apropos of absolutely nothing, James Garner is still alive. James Arness is the one that just died. http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001258/ Agree with the sentiment, though. Nuck Fewt, indeed.

160. @16: I don’t know. Maybe it’s just me?

161. A bit off topic, but I thought Sir Savage and Co. would enjoy today’s unfortunate Santorum headline from the St. Louis Dispatch:

     Santorum touts jobs plan in front of overflow crowd in St. Charles County

     http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/govt-…

     eeeeeew…

162. sorry to comment on something off subject but when i try to send an e-mail it comes back error… On the Jerry Sandusky molestation situation: Since all the experts say that molestation victims in turn molest, it begs the question who molested Jerry Sandusky in the showers when he was ten years old? And could it have been his mentor Joe Paterno and when Joe foresaw the shitstorm that was comming down the pike it literally scared him to death?

163. @170 — Full article here:
     http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/7…

     Relevant excerpt:

     “Sandusky was an only child, raised in one of the most respected families in the town of Washington, a picturesque community of about 13,000 that is within a half-hour’s drive of Pittsburgh. Art and Evie Sandusky taught their son to work hard. They often worked two jobs apiece, and they lived in a tiny apartment above the Brownson House, a recreation center that kept kids off the streets and engaged in sports. Art was Brownson House’s director, an athletic man who stood about 5-foot-10 and always took time to listen to any problem; Evie worked the concession stands, coached the cheerleaders and put together plays for the children.

     That old brick building is sort of a frozen snapshot of Sandusky’s childhood. The tiny gym with the wooden floor is still there, and so are many of the fixtures, including a couple of outdated candy machines that crank out selections for 50 cents. In the entryway is a large framed picture of Sandusky’s smiling parents. Outside, there’s an old field where the children play football and lacrosse and whatever else they want. It’s called Art Sandusky Field.

     “Art and Evie were great people,” said Dan Petrola, who replaced Art as the Brownson House director after Art retired in the mid-1980s. “I mean, he was my mentor. He taught me a lot about running activities and dealing with people. He was genuine. A very caring person. And he was very good at what he did.”

     Petrola, like most people these days, hesitates to say much about Jerry. He’ll say that he used to drop by when he was near the area for recruiting visits and that his parents “thought the world of Jerry.” He says, at least twice, that Jerry didn’t work with children at the Brownson House.”

     I don’t think Jerry Sandusky knew Joe Paterno till his college years. There’s a lot of stuff named “Sandusky” in “Little Worshington.” But I hear the town in Ohio is petitioning to change its name to “Cedar Point!”

164. @161: Normal, I’m with Hunter78 here.
     Rick Santorum is NOT a “gift”, but a whiny sack of runny bullshit.
     And unfortunately, like a toilet with bad plumbing, he’s still running.

     @169: Thanks for sharing!

165. @ankylosaur: Oh, so it’s slander when I do it, but it’s “redefinition of his name” when danny boy does it. I knew the double standard. I just needed it verified by you guys. And by the way, attacking someone just because you disagree with their opinion is childish & wrong no matter how you look at it. Just like kids in the schoolyard; someone calls you a name, & you have to come back at them one better. Pointless, silly & infantile. I would expect no less from your kind. I did what I did simply to make a point. Point made by your own statements. Not just yours, but others as well. And by the way, what santorum said about bestiality & incest was wrong, but his basic feelings about same sex physical relationships are spot on. Not just biblically, but in so many other ways. You guys are sick & you will find out just how sick on judgement day. I know most of you are atheists, or you wouldn’t be doing what you are, but believe me, it will come & it won’t be pretty. Think of me while you stand before your creator to explain your transgressions.

166. @Erica P: “Assuming I have the authority to name it, then it really has your name, and it’s not a lie.” That’s just it, he didn’t have the authority to rename or redefine his name. He is simply childishly retaliating against someone he disagrees with. If you can’t take the heat, get out of the gay kitchen. On a lighter note: How do you get 4 queens to share a barstool? Turn it upside down.

167. I always likes the funny and sexy blog, I am very enjoy this.

168. @173,174,

     Grow up.

169. @ You;-)+~+: I love you!

170. Latin experts, help me with the logical fallacy presented in 170. It’s the one that goes:

     Since those who were abused grow up to become abusers, if one is an abuser, he must have been abused.

     It’s a twist on the usual that goes:

     Everyone who is an abuser went to elementary school, therefore if you go to elementary school, you’ll grow up to be an abuser.

     What’s the short Latin phrase for it?

     (I’m assuming that the “all experts say” part is already called into question.)

171. I just listened to this week’s Savage Love podcast with Ira Glass. Thank you for having him on and combining my two favorite voices in one episode!

172. @174, one needs authority to name a bridge. One only needs chutzpah and imagination to come up with a new definition.

     @178 maybe secundum quid?
     http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accident_%2…

173. @173, the double standard is yours, since you’re the one doing the attacking and slandering here, while at the same time claiming people shouldn’t attack and slander others.

     It’s not surprising, though, that you claim others have double standards while wielding a double standard yourself. That’s what double standards are for — to have the fel eling one is righteous, while allowing oneself the leeway not to be fair, isn’t it?

     As for gays going to hell… I always wondered: isn’t eternal punishment enough? You guys still have to come here and make jokes (the kind of jokes Jesus would love to spread throughout the world, right?), and dispense accusations, throw mud… in other words, you guys still have to do everything to hurt people who you believe are already condemned to eternal damnation. So you think eternal damnation is not enough? Is your faith so weak that you really think you need to do this, instead of letting your god do the work?

     Oh wait — there is an explanation. I think you guys actually get off on doing this. It’s a frequent kind of sadism found among religious people: the pleasure of casting stones on others, even others who are already condemned to eternal damnation. The pleasure of being a bully. Again, what you accuse Mr Savage of, eh? The two of you have much more in common than you think…

     So you have a fetish for going nyah-nyah-nyah in front of those you think are going to hell, right? But wait — fetishists all go to hell… Which means…

174. @Crinoline, I think that would be the informal fallacy called Falacy of Accident:

     X = one who went to elementary school
     Y = one who is an abuser

     (a) All Y’s are X’s
     (b) A is also X
     (c) Therefore, A is also Y

     (the same structure remains if X = one who was previously abused)

     The fallacy being, of course, there the fact that all Y’s are X’s cannot directly reversed: it does not imply that all X’s are Y’s, only that the set of Y’s is contained within the set of X’s.

     The Latin name for this falacy is “A dicto simpliciter ad dictum secundum quid”, or
     Dicto Simpliciter” for short.

175. @ 183: I think the propensity to become an abuser after being abused yourself largely comes down to how strong one’s character is to resist passing on abusive behaviors to others..

     Some people have endured the most unspeakably-horrible abuse, and fought their ways back to heal themselves while not passing the buck of abuse onto someone else, as it was done to them once..

     Abuse of any kind: sexual, physical, emotional, mental… Some never recover from the damage, some spend their whole lives trying to recover..

     Who knows WTF happened to Jerry Sandusky where he became such a child sex-predator? Whether he was abused himself or not, he obviously is so fucked in the head that he kept doing that to innocent kids..

     Some people can overcome enough, others cannot.
     It takes all kinds…

176. Thanks. I keep thinking (hoping?) that half the blog comments would disappear if kids learned logic and logical fallacy in the public schools. But then I have trouble remembering the details myself. I can generally spot a ridiculous argument and sum up with “do the math.”

     If every abuser has several victims, and if all victims grow up to become abusers, then the growth of abuse is exponential, and abuse quickly becomes normal.

     185– You’re right, and then we’ve got the next question: Where does strength of character come from, and then we’re off and running on the whole of the human condition. Of course we’re all influenced by our experiences. Of course we all bring something different to our experiences which changes outcome. This is so ordinary as to be trite. I’m a little curious about the forces that formed Sandusky, but in the long run, he’s responsible for his actions.

177. @183, Crinoline’s example fits the definition of the fallacy of accident, and also that of affirming the consequent, depending on whether you see it as a logical claim about propositions (involving specific variables), or as statistical claims about the corresponding domain sets:

     Non-sequitur:
     P = one is an abuser
     Q = one goes to elementary school

     If P then Q
     Q
     Therefore P

     Dicto simpliciter:
     X = one who went to elementary school
     Y = one who is an abuser

     (a) All Y’s are X’s
     (b) A is also X
     (c) Therefore, A is also Y

     These are related fallacies. (Can you by the way think of an example of a dicto simpliciter that couldn’t be remodelled as a non-sequitur, or vice-versa? I’ve tried for some fifteen minutes and couldn’t come up with one.)

178. (Unless, of course, the difference between a dicto simpliciter and a non-sequitur is seen as one of frequency: Y’s often are X’s, but not always. A definite always would make these fallacies equivalent. Yes, indeed, the difference is then in the temporal quantifier.)

179. Oh, and as for my “do the math,” you wouldn’t get an exponential increase in the number of abusers if each abuser was abusing the same several victims. But now, while I’m trying for silly, I’m making myself uncomfortable. I need a better example for making this absurd.

180. It never ceases to amaze me how people who are guilty of a double standard seem to cry double standard. I simply posted what I did to make a point: that anyone can verbally or physically attack anyone they disagree with. First you say what dan did was “redefining” the name. Then it’s slander. Well, which is it? I know what the truth is & that’s all that matters to me, but you guys can’t seem to keep your story straight. Just can’t seem to disagree with someone without lashing out at them. Reeks of insecurity I’d say. I got exactly the response I thought I would. Thank you for being so predictable. Point made. That is all.

181. @190 lol

Comments are closed.