You are known far and wide as an arbiter of all aspects of sex
and especially definitions of sex, so we are hoping that you can give
your definitive opinion on an interesting conundrum.
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 Saturday, 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 at 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
US 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 making the news with the announcement that
he intends to run (runs?) for president to the full definition of
lowercase santorum — in just three steps.
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 US 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
as Rick runs for president.
“Maybe it’s time to start updating SpreadingSantorum.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 these days. Back
when I was writing for SpreadingSantorum.com, I had only
the column on my plate. Now I blog every day at thestranger.com/slog, I do a weekly
podcast, I’ve got a bad case of talking-headism, and I’m working on
another stupid book. So I just 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 helpful if one
of the people posting to SpreadingSantorum.com was in Iowa,
and it couldn’t hurt to have someone in New Hampshire, but you don’t
have to live in either of those states. 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 SpreadingSantorum.com — write
me at ma**@********ve.net.
