I’d fallen behind on my reading and made the mistake of missing some Savage Love columns, so it was only yesterday I discovered I managed to scoop Dan Savage by a whole week.

It was back in February, when I responded to the whole dumbass-politician “wriggling it around in excrement” view of anal sex with a simple internet memo: UR DOIN IT RONG.

But I’m not…y’know…an anal sex authority. So it’s pleased I am to discover that Dan Savage weighed in, a week after me, in a very similar vein and in a whole lot more detail:

Nancy Elliott, a state representative in New Hampshire, wants to ban same-sex marriage in that state–where it’s been legal for less than three months–and here’s her reasoning: “We’re talking about taking the penis of one man and putting it in the rectum of another man and wiggling it around in excrement. And you have to think… would I allow that to be done to ME?”

Where to begin? How about here…

If you’re wiggling your penis around in excrement when you’re having anal sex, Representative Elliott, you’re doing it wrong. You would think this would be obvious even to people who’ve never had anal sex, but apparently not. So let me break it down for you, Representative Elliott: You don’t have anal sex with an ass full of shit for the same reason you don’t have oral sex with a mouth full of food. It’s messy and no one wants a mess. (Except for the people who do want a mess, of course, but they’re a blessed rarity.) An empty, douched, and lubed anal cavity is just as delightful as an empty, flossed, and brushed oral cavity.

I will concede that excrement is for anal what Representative Elliott is for the New Hampshire State Legislature: a PR disaster. But excrement-free anal sex is easy. Make sure there’s some fiber in your diet, be regular, and only go for it when you’re empty–no anal during your butt menses!–and you’ll never get excrement on a wigglin’ dick.

And now a question for you, Representative Elliott: Are you really sure you want to make it illegal for buttfuckers to get married?

“According to a 2005 survey conducted by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,” Baconcat wrote on Slog, The Stranger‘s blog, in reaction to Elliott’s remarks, “40 percent of men and 35 percent of women between 25 and 44 had engaged in heterosexual anal sex. Some studies put the incidence of anal sex in the heterosexual population as low as 24 percent and some as high as 56 percent. Averaging those numbers, let’s say 38.8 percent of heterosexuals engage in anal sex. Ninety-six percent of Americans are straight. There are 190,000,000 adults between the ages of 18 and 65 in the United States, so that means 70,771,200 adults are engaging in heterosexual anal sex. Four percent of the adult population is gay, or 7,600,000 people. Roughly half–3,800,000–are gay males. Polls indicate that between 55 and 80 percent of gay males participate in anal sex. Taking the average–67.5 percent–that means the number of gay men having anal sex comes to 2,565,000.”

Math is hard, Representative Elliott, but see if you can’t wiggle this into your cranial cavity: 70,771,200 is more–a whole lot more–than 2,565,000. If you really want to protect the sacred sanctity of marriage from the unholy taint of penises wiggling in rectums, Representative Elliott, you need to ban straight marriage first. (We needn’t protect marriage from lesbians, of course, as lesbians don’t have anuses.)

My internet spaceship game has voice communications. And sometimes the guys (it’s mostly guys) say some funny stuff. Funny or sad, it’s not always easy to tell:

So, my ex-wife asks me, “Where can I get an old used keyboard?”

I ask her “Why?”

She says: “I thought maybe I could pry all the keys off and glue them to my body, then maybe you’ll touch me the way you touch that game of yours.”

Ouch…

I want to share this article by Dr. Marty Klein, who continues to hold the line against the “sex addiction” bogosity.

I don’t treat sex addiction. The concept is superficial. It isn’t clearly defined or clinically validated, and it’s completely pathology-oriented. It presents no healthy model of non-monogamy, pornography use, or stuff like S/M. Some programs eliminate masturbation, which is inhumane, naïve, and crazy.

Oh, I observe people with obsessive-compulsive disorder, bipolar disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, depression, and a few other exotic states. That accounts for some of what laypeople call “sex addiction.”

What I mostly see instead of “sex addicts” is people who are neurotic or narcissistic. They can’t quite believe that the normal rules of life (“tell the truth,” “all behavior has consequences”) apply to them. They make promises they intend to keep–but then they want relief from frustration, or loneliness, or anxiety so much, they are unwilling to keep their promises, even promises to themselves. And some “sex addicts” just can’t come to terms with having one, relatively brief, life. They want several lives, so they can have everything.

Solid sane stuff. But, to be honest, my attention was more captured by the dude who featured in the intro to Dr. Klein’s piece:

Before he even sat down, my new patient blurted out why he had come. “My wife says I’m a sex addict, and she demands I get treated immediately,” he said.

No further than this did I read, before two pertinent memes with a common soul began warring within my breast. In the order they burst into my mind, they were 1) DTMFA! followed briskly by 2) “Run away! Run away!”

Lest there be any mistake, my sympathies are with this dude. There’s a frequent belief, among monogamy-minded wives, that their wifely prerogatives include not just the right to demand their husband’s exclusive sexual attention, but also the right to demand his lack of sexual attention — to, if they so choose, stop having sex with him while simultaneously expecting him to remain faithful and even refrain from porn and masturbation. It’s selfish, unrealistic, and disturbingly common. (And, yes, sometimes you can flip the genders and get the same story — not as often, but it happens.)

I myself am with the comedian who once said “I’m a pretty good dog, when you get down to it. But if you don’t scratch me once in a while, it’s going to be hard to keep me on the porch.”

So, back to our protagonist. It’s a lead pipe cinch that he’s guilty of some sort of sexual misconduct, if his wife claims he’s a sex addict. So, what turns out to be his special flavory of dickery?

Well, getting handjobs at massage parlors, which I myself consider a bit inappropriate for a married man. So, no “Husband of The Year” award for him. But the context? Exactly as I suspected upon reading the opening sentence:

The poor guy looked like a lot of Silicon Valley engineers: light blue button-down shirt, khaki pants, shoes that desperately needed a shine. He had started going to a massage parlor a few months after his baby was born. After about eight or nine desultory hand jobs in the course of a year, he’d confessed to his wife.

I told him I might work with him, but why did he need this specific approach?

“Because Maria said that either I’m a sex addict and I couldn’t help it and I need treatment, or I’m just a selfish bastard and she wants a divorce.”

He wanted to keep his marriage and kid. To do so, he had to admit he had a disease and get it treated. He was desperate. He would do anything. I told him I might be able to help him deal with the power struggle in his marriage, and help him stop avoiding conflict (his wife happily abandoned him when she had the much-wanted baby, then unilaterally invited her mother to move in with them for a year–and he couldn’t confront her because “I love her so much”). I said I could probably help him feel better about himself, and help him feel less guilty about masturbating.

But I couldn’t treat his sex addiction because I didn’t believe he had such an ailment. In tears, he left. The town’s best-known sex therapist had failed him.

Similar Sex Blogging:

• Instead Of Objecting To Porn
• Competing With Porn

I’ve seen individual sexy covers from the old Film Fun magazine all over the web, but I never knew very much about the source of them. Now, fortuitously, I’ve stumbled over a nice partial archive of covers:

Y’all know that Kink.com is one of my favorite porn companies. But I gotta ask, what’s up with the dick on a long stick?

This latest example comes from The Upper Floor, but you can see it at any of their sites … and I don’t remember seeing it anywhere else in porn. Still, it’s obviously a porn thing:

I have some theories to explain the dick on a stick, but I don’t know if they are the right ones. For instance:

1. the dick on a stick allows them to show a lot of penetration in scenes that are mostly girl/girl, no male model needed;
2. the dick on a stick allows them to show penetration from angles where an attached man would obscure the camera shot;
3. the dick on a stick allows them to show penetrations that are rougher and more vigorous than could be easily managed with a dick attached to a man; or
4. the dick on a stick allows photographers and directors to participate directly in shoots without being visible on camera.

But weighing against all that is a more fundamental question: Who actually wants to see a dick on a stick?

If porn is about satisfying the fantasies of the viewer, who are the viewers who fantasize about a dick on a stick, either giving or receiving? If this were a fetish, wouldn’t there be written dick-on-a-stick fantasies? (I know, I know, Rule 34. Somebody will probably find some written dick-on-a-stick porn and link it in the comments, in an attempt to prove they have better porn-fu than me. Cool, knock yourself out, we all benefit.) Let’s hear it, readers: Do dicks on sticks do anything for you?

If I should be so fortunate as to have this blog post read by any of the Kink.com creative people who are responsible for stick-dicking porn, I’d be delighted to hear why you make it and what your impressions are of the target purchasing audience for it.

Similar Sex Blogging:

• Playboy Versus Kink.com?
• Two Stock Porn Views
• It's New Year's Eve!

As everyone creative scrambles to figure out how to make a living in a post-mass-media world, it’s always good to know that somebody, somewhere, is scrambling even harder. You thought the buggy whip makers and the guys who install pay phones had it bad, how about this guy?

“I myself have zero chance of ending my career at Advertising Age, I tell you right now, because we don’t have a sustainable business model either. I make a living criticizing TV commercials at a print publication. How fucked am I?

Dude, yer fucked.

A post with such a title you would expect to find, at Titty Blog. But the number is unusual — these these things usually come in pairs:

Nice Knockers @ Titty Blog