Have boyfriend. Several months. Love sex. First time we sixty-nine, I notice he has a little turtlehead sticking out. You get me? Second time, he has bits of toilet paper stuck in that area. CAN I ADDRESS THIS? And how do I do it without giving him a permanently flaccid penis? I love this man to pieces and know this is a humiliating topic. Please help!
Mired In The Mud
Got you. Wish didn’t. But did.
If you don’t have the nerve to speak up when someone is grinding shitbuds and dingleberries in the vicinity of your nostrils, MITM, I’m not sure there’s anything I can say that’s gonna help. But for what it’s worth…
YES, YOU ADDRESS IT! IMMEDIATELY!
When someone pushes your face into a dirty asscrack—or allows you to place your face in the general vicinity of a dirty asscrack—you say something along the lines of “What the fuck, dude, go take a dump and jump in the shower! Christ!” His ego, to say nothing of his future erections, should be your least concern at a moment like that. So you say it without hesitation, without concern for his feelings, and you say it as you leap out of bed and reach for your shirt, pants, car keys, and phone. You don’t just lie there pretending that his buttrasta isn’t dangling over your nose. Even if he’s never able to get another erection with you, MITM, he’ll know to spot-check for cleanliness—are there no washcloths in Gilead?—before he crawls on top of anyone else.
I’m a 23-year-old gay guy. I’ve been talking to a nice guy who will possibly become my first boyfriend. The little quibble I’m having is… I’m a virgin. It’s not that big a deal to me—it just hasn’t happened yet—but I was wondering if I should mention it to this guy. He made an aside about virginity (unprompted by me) during one of our chats: “No, I’m not a virgin, that’s nothing that you should worry about with me.” That was probably my opportunity to tell him, but I didn’t. Should I have told him? What if I tell him during sex? Could that make it hot?
Thank you for what you do. I found the courage to come out because of you.
Ready And Willing
If you found the courage to come out to family and friends about being gay—which you found inside yourself, RAW, but thanks for the nice compliment—you can come out to this boy about being a virgin.
Don’t tell him during sex, RAW, and don’t tell him in a way that makes this relevant information about your sexual history—you don’t have one—seem like a character flaw, a cancer diagnosis, or a request for an open marriage six years after you began an adulterous affair with a congressional staffer. You’re just a 23-year-old virgin, RAW, there’s nothing wrong with you; it’s not like you’re one of Elizabeth Santorum’s idiotic gay friends or a cast member of The A-List: Dallas. The next time you see this boy, initiate a casual, low-stakes, getting-to-know-you make-out session at a time when you can’t transition to full-on, no-holes-barred gay sex. Relax, kiss the boy, be chill. Then pause and inform him that you’re not very sexually experienced—in fact, you’ve never been with anyone. Reassure him that you’re not a duckling—you’re not going to imprint on the first dick you see—but that you wanted him to know.
How are you supposed to react to the discovery—entirely accidental—that your youngest brother has a “femdom” relationship with his wife? I stumbled over my brother’s “anonymous” sex blog. It goes into detail about the “domestic discipline” she subjects him to: humiliation, spanking, “ruined orgasms” (whatever that is!), cuckolding. There are no names, but there are pictures. Their faces are blurred out, but I recognize their living room, their bedroom, the necklace my sister-in-law wears, my brother’s chin and hair. If I recognized them, other family members might. What do I say?
Biggest Big Bro
Besides “Hey, bro, I’m kinky, too!”? (You “stumbled over” your brother’s kinky sex blog? How’d that happen? Did he leave it sitting in your driveway?) If you can’t bring yourself to say that, BBB, you say nothing and trust that more-distant, less-kinky family members are unlikely to “stumble over” your brother’s anonymous femdom blog anytime soon. And even if they do, they’re probably not familiar enough with your brother and sister-in-law’s home, jewelry, chins, etc., to recognize him.
Congrats, Dan. It looks like you’ve got your first high-profile “monogamish” public figure: Newt Gingrich. You must be so proud.
Savage Can’t Understand Monogamy
For anyone who spent last week under a rock: Newt Gingrich, brave defender of traditional marriage, was still married to his second wife—and still fucking the consecrated host out of his “devout Catholic” mistress—when he asked his second wife to agree to an open marriage. Newt had been fucking Callista, his devoutly Catholic mistress, for six years when he made the big ask. Newt’s second wife wouldn’t agree to an open marriage, according to Newt’s second wife, which is how she became Newt’s second ex-wife and Newt’s mistress—the devoutly Catholic Callista—became Newt’s third wife.
That’s not monogamish, SCUM. That’s CPOSish. And lumping honest nonmonogamists—people who don’t lie or cheat—in with the likes of the Gingriches and Schwarzeneggers of the world, which whiny and insecure monogamists (who are not to be confused with reasonable and secure monogamists) are always doing, is simply unfair. Newt, like Arnold before him, didn’t succeed at nonmonogamy, he failed at monogamy.
Zooming out for a moment: The Gingrich campaign has presented the holesome story of Newt and Callista’s courtship as a redemption narrative: Newt is a better man today thanks to Callista, he’s better suited to be president thanks to Callista, and he’s better prepared to defend traditional marriage thanks to Callista. She’s been described as a “devout Catholic” in every profile written about her—so devout that her love brought Newt to the one, holy, Catholic, apostolic, and ever-more-rabidly anti-gay church. So it seems to me that it’s fair to ask if Callista knew in advance that Newt was proposing an open marriage to his then-wife and approved of the arrangement. (It might be more accurate to say that Newt informed his second wife that she was already in an open marriage and asked if she wanted to remain in it.) Did Callista know about Newt’s open marriage proposal? Did Newt bounce the idea off his devoutly Catholic mistress first? Maybe right after he finished bouncing himself off his devoutly Catholic mistress?
Would the devout Catholic still be Newt’s mistress today if the second Mrs. Gingrich had agreed to remain in the marriage that Newt had already opened?
This news alters the redemption narrative that the Gingrich camp set before the voters. So questioning Callista about the open marriage proposal—what did the mistress know and when did she know it?—seems like an entirely legit line of inquiry to me.
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.
Find the Savage Lovecast (my weekly podcast) every Tuesday at thestranger.com/savage.
@fakedansavage on Twitter
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.
@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.
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.
STOP TREATING CHRISTIANS LIKE ADULTS, they do not deserve it.
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 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.
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 😉 +~+.
Cheers.
🙂