You are known as an arbiter of
all aspects of sex and especially definitions, and we are seeking your
definitive opinion.
My wife and I were recently regaling each
other with anecdotes from our past, and she easily had the most
interesting story: It seems that when she was a young woman in college,
a fellow student invited her over for lunch. It turns out that he
thought she was lunch. He quickly had her clothes off and was kissing
her, although he was still dressed. Then he brought out a vibrator. He
applied the vibrator, she had an orgasm, and then she called a halt to
the proceedings. They went back to school, and that was the beginning
and the end of their relationship.
Did she have sex?
Now, I think any time you have an orgasm
you’ve had sex, and if someone else is present, even if they’re
clothed, you definitely had sex. My wife’s view is that since he never
got his clothes off and she never saw his cock, she really didn’t have
sex. We would like your opinion on this.
Definition Essential For Intensely Novel
Experience
Let’s say you and I met in a bar, DEFINE,
while the wife was out of town, and we hit it off. And let’s say I took
you home, stripped you naked, made out with you, sucked your dick, ate
your ass, spanked you, tossed you in a sling, fist-fucked you, and
then—with my right arm buried up to my elbow in your
ass—slowly stroked you with my left hand until you blew a massive
load all over your stomach, chest, and face.
Now let’s say I taped the whole thing and
e-mailed a copy to your wife. I think it’s highly unlikely that your
wife would turn to you after watching the video—remember: I don’t
get naked, you never see my dick—put a hand on your knee, and
say, “Well, I’m glad you didn’t have sex with Dan Savage.”
Your wife clearly regrets going to that
guy’s room; she regretted the moment she came, just as you would
probably regret going home with me. These feelings prompt her to round
this experience down to Not Sex, to minimize it, to exclude it from her
sexual history on a technicality: He didn’t get naked, she didn’t get
fucked. Your wife can attempt to rationalize away the sex she had in
that dorm, DEFINE, but she had sex with that guy—and that guy’s
vibrator—whether she wants to admit it or not.
I’m writing to you to let you
know that a huge fan and reader of your column has been in a coma since
September 5. He had a bad motorcycle accident and has a severe brain
injury. His name is Jon Broom, and he’s my boyfriend, the love of my
life, and my best friend. Even though he still hasn’t woken up, I’ve
been reading your columns out loud to him so that he never misses one.
I know you’re a busy man, but I thought I’d take a chance and ask if
you could pass on his Facebook support group at “Get Well Jon” in one
of your columns (www.tinyurl.com/m3ngc3).
I think it would be awesome for him to look back and see your column
when he wakes up and is able to function again.
We appreciate your writings and support for
the people who ask for your advice. Here’s to hope, faith, and
community.
Penny Kim
Oh, Penny, I’m so sorry. Best wishes for a
full and speedy recovery. If you’re on Facebook—and who
isn’t?—please join Jon’s support group.
I just had to share with you
my first reaction to reading this headline: “Santorum dips toes in 2012
Iowa waters.” My first thought was “Ewwww,” followed quickly by “Is
that even possible?” After all, santorum is something that is dipped
into, not something that can dip. And then I remembered that before
“santorum” meant santorum it actually designated a person, a senator.
But it took me a few seconds.
Congratulations on a job well done. I expect
I am not the only one who had this moment of cognitive dissonance upon
reading this headline.
A Faithful Reader
Ben Smith at Politico reported last Tuesday
that Republican former U.S. senator Rick Santorum plans to run for
president. Political Wire linked to Smith’s post and added that
“Santorum has a serious Google problem.” Truthdig linked to Political
Wire’s post and spelled out Santorum’s Google problem: “The former
senator’s rampant homophobia inspired sex columnist Dan Savage to
launch a campaign to usurp the conservative’s name. The result: If you
type ‘Santorum’ into Google, you’ll find that it refers not to a former
senator, but ‘that frothy mixture of lube and fecal matter that is
sometimes the byproduct of anal sex.'”
From uppercase Santorum to lowercase
santorum—in just three links.
And who deserves the credit? Not me. The
credit is yours, dear readers. It’s thanks to you that SpreadingSantorum.com—a blog
that I haven’t updated since July of 2004—remains the number-one
hit on Google when you search “Santorum.” It was a Savage Love reader
who first suggested that we usurp Rick Santorum’s name, another Savage
Love reader who suggested the “frothy mixture” definition, and Savage
Love readers who chose the winning definition in a free and fair
election. Well done, gang.
We can’t take credit for Santorum losing his
seat in the U.S. Senate to Bob Casey by 18 points. That was Rick’s
doing. But we helped to make him ridiculous—there were so many
headlines during his failed reelection campaign with “froth” or
“frothy” in them. And for a politician, being an object of ridicule is
a problem, which is why SpreadingSantorum.com and the
“frothy mixture” definition of santorum are going to be a problem for
Santorum.
“Maybe it’s time to start updating
Spreading
Santorum.com again,”
writes Savage Love reader P.B., “now that Rick is running for
president.”
I couldn’t agree more, P.B., but I’m a busy
guy. Back when I was writing for Spreading
Santorum.com, I had only the column on my
plate. Now I blog every day on Slog, I do a podcast, I’ve got a bad
case of talking headism, and I’m working on another book. I don’t have
the time to give SpreadingSantorum.com the attention
it needs.
But maybe some Savage Love readers do?
If SpreadingSantorum.com is going to
remain Google’s top hit when you search “santorum”—and it
should—then the site needs to come back to life. So I’m looking
for a few folks who want to torment Rick Santorum by following every
twist and turn of his sure-to-be-disastrous run for the White House on
SpreadingSantorum.com. (I
may dip in every once in a while and post myself.) It would be labor of
love—read: a nonpaying gig—but you’ll have the satisfaction
of knowing that you’re driving Rick Santorum and his supporters
absolutely batshit (batshittier?).
If you think you’re the right person for
this gig—if you think you’re right for Spreading
Santorum.com—write me at
mail@savagelove
.net.
Santorum 2012-
A frothy mixture for the future!
I want the T-shirt and the bumper sticker.
Great column, as always.
I have to take issue with comment 3. Sexual Assault? Rape? The encounter was consensual! Otherwise she could not have “called a halt to the proceedings.” Just because someone regrets something later doesn’t retroactively vitiate consent, nor does it make it assault or rape. That’s the thing about regret; one wishes one hadn’t done something that one did. That’s different from being victimized.
OMG! I tried Googling “santorum” and it is true! The two definitions are inextricably linked! I am in Heaven and there IS a God.
Good Science, people–who cares? Sex, sexual activity, whatever. I’m merely concerned by total lapses in common sense. #3 has been appropriately lambasted 85 times now, but….
@78: gay men don’t have penetration? What was happening while by bf was fucking me for 45 minutes then came in me? Heck, even oral penetration is penetration.
@90: sex for gays is mouth – penis, but not for straights? Huh? If you’re “giving” us sex because that’s all we can do, well–see above!
And @79, it’s rape if a person has a traumatic history and fails to indicate they don’t want to have sex?!?! That’s just a damaged person not speaking up–sex partners aren’t psychic! Note: a person who proceeds with sex with a partner who’s consented without pressure, but appears disgusted or uncomfortable and isn’t, to the partner’s knowledge, into that, is a bad person, but people can CHOOSE to have sex with people they are uncomfortable with or disgusted by, so that bad person is not be a rapist.
I’m personally not going to read all the comments to see if anyone else has asked why this clothed dude had a vibrator.
I love your column! Today’s is why I read it all the time. Your answer to DEFINE actually had me horny, wishing I was DEFINE and you were actually doing everything you wrote in your response!
Thanks for making my day, now I’m off to spread all my happiness on my bf 🙂
From what these comments and Dan’s answer sound like, guys think anything that gets you off is considered sex. If that’s how you want to think of it, fine for you.
But as a hetero girl/woman, there is a difference… a distinction, because penetration, and oral either-way, is definitely another level of permission or decision, than superficial stimulation.
In the gay/lesbian experience, isn’t there some spectrum of difference to progress a scenario from foreplay, to fooling around, to sex?
(And not just based on whether or not you orgasm? You could have ‘sex’ that doesn’t finish you, right?).
I “fooled around” a lot when I was younger, but there was a very conscious difference to decide to progress to any kind of oral, and a different decision to ‘have sex’ with someone. And that’s not just some arbitrary rationalization of actions.
There’s a difference between molestation/sexual assault, and rape, right? Wouldn’t the same lines be those that divide “fooling around” from “sex”?
Maybe any “genital/orifice penetration , or genital-genital contact” is sex, while non-orifice/non-genital contact with another’s genitals (or breasts) would be “fooling around”?
yea, if this girl didn’t want to have “sex” she should have put the brakes on earlier. that was sort of like letting someone who’s really into you give you oral and then bailing after your done . LAME! pump the brakes before you get to that point if all you want to do is fool around and they presumably want more
Uriel-238, I think I love you.
109: Welcome to the club.
Thank you, guys! I blush!
My only issue with Dan’s definition of sex, is that’s a definition of cheating more than sex.
If I got a video of my husband using a vibrator on a woman to the point of orgasam, I would consider that cheating.
But I also feel I could also truthfully say he didn’t have sex with her.
Did she have sex? No. Did she orgasam with the help of a guy? Sure. I really feel sex has to include some body parts touching the other persons privates directly. Whether we’re taking vaginal, anal, oral, fingers. What if I masturbate in front of my husband and he rubs my back, is that sex? I don’t think so.
Why does it matter? Rigidly defining sex is too difficult.
But the fact that some of you are saying there has to be penile/vaginal interaction, or just penetration in general is just crap. Sorry, but I have heard two of my lesbian friends before, and that did not sound like just fooling around from an auditory perspective. Point is everytime you make a claim that this is sex or that this isn’t sex, there’s going to be one person who can jump in and point out their experience that was.
Now, that said, my attempt to define.
Sex involves two (or more) people providing sexual pleasuring to other person involving genitals in some way.
So if I masturbate next to my boyfriend and even if he is just touching me in a pretty non-sexual way, no I don’t think one could consider that sex. But lets say we were both jacking ourselves off while also grabbing each other, kissing each other, rubbing each other, possibly fingering each other although not necessary, then yeah I would also consider that sex. Because even though he might have not been touching my penis, the fact is the interaction was providing me very erotic feelings conjoined with the fact that genitals were being stimulated.
the other person has to be directly be involved in providing the pleasure or stimulation at the very least. Even if only one person is getting pleasured.
Dan, You didn’t address the fact that if “not having an orgasm” means not having sex, some women will have gone their whole lives not having sex. That is a crazy way to define sex (and totally male-centric).
sex in absolute terms is the act of procreation. there’s just no easier way to describe the process of reproduction or to explain the functions of male and female genitalia. this is a totally logical and basic definition for any one who just doesn’t know what sex is. like kids under 10 yrs old or possibly aliens from some far away androgynous planet. if you can think up a better basic definition for sex that addresses all the functions of reproduction and why girls and boys have different genitals then go for it, I’m all ears…. but seriously every adult knows that theres more to sex and sexual behavior than what you would see on discovery channel. I dont think anyone in there right mind could imagine that what gay or lesbian couples are doing to show there affections for one another as not being sex, or at the very least extremely “sexual”
My $.02 on defining sex…
If both parties have prolonged contact with the genitals of the other party, it is almost definitely sex. If neither party has contact with the genitals of the other party, it is almost certainly not sex (though it might be sexual activity). If it is between these 2 things, then it may or may not be sex, though it is certainly sexual activity.
Personally, I have no problem with defining DEFINE’s wife’s experience as not-sex, if she so chooses. I’d probably count it as not-quite-sex m’self.
To: YOU ARE KNOWN….
Does it really matter if she ‘calls it sex’ or not? She’s fine. Why are you uncomfortable with what she did. That’s for you to deal with.
Unless you’re worried that she might go and ‘not have sex’ on her next lunch-break…. time to clearly define where the lines are?
Hey Penny, sorry to hear about your situation. Good luck (I’m not on facebook either)
@98: HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
Thanks–you made my weekend!!
So–what happened after the embarrassing trip to the ER?
Methinks Santorum’s biggest challenge isn’t just if he runs. He’s more like a CASE OF THE RUNS!
OMG—a Frothy Santorum Forum!
Lord help us all.
great column. if i were on facebook i would definitely join Jon’s support group. I just haven’t taken the time to figure how facebook works however…..
By the way Dan,
Did you catch Bill Maher last friday? It was fantastic. John Waters seemed a little out of the loop with those economic powerhouses but he still found a way to make it work. Dan, im not sure how it works but i always loved when you were on the panel. It was great having such a brilliant gay man defend our rights!
As with any retelling from a single party facts are omitted and or embellished to serve the tellers interests. Its similar to readers inserting or removing words from things they read.
@61: I can see it now. “I’ve been saddlebacking my gf for three months. About two weeks ago, I got some santorum on my dick and now my gf says she’s pregnant. I haven’t had sex with her yet, so she’s still a virgin, like Mary Magdalen. Does that mean our baby will be gay?”
PS. Where does one volunteer for this anti-smear campaign? (Because nobody wants to smear santorum around anywhere…)
Some of the best sex I ever had was the no sex sex I had in high school. Thanks Steve. I will always remember you fondley.
i get a rapey feeling from the DEFINE’s story.. ugh, dan.
Where can I order the specially embroidered Santorum towel to wave at the rally?
@105 good question, aren’t we supposed to put condoms on vibrators now a-days? When I think of the sanitary conditions I considered acceptable in college… yeech!!!!
Man- that chick totally had sex with that guy!!
I don’t care if it’s just a b.j.; it’s still sex! Just because she was ashamed of it, or didn’t enjoy it, doesn’t mean that it didn’t happen!
@27 hey now, Camille Paglia is a dumb cunt who can’t write.
sounds like @3 may have made a good point…even if she enjoyed it, it’s still assault!!!