Imagine a World of Really Righteous Members
WHY YOU SHOULD CARE
Because the penis is a lonely hunter.
By Eugene S. Robinson
The Bad Kind of Sucky
EUGENE, SIR: I have been reading your little column for a while. Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems like you think it’s impossible that only one person sucks, sexually speaking. Well, I started dating a guy who, because of religious reasons, thought we should wait on sex. Which I thought was cute. Ten months later, I didn’t think it was so cute, even though I enjoyed the movies, dinner dates, and holding hands and all, so I forced the issue and we had sex. Very bad sex. It’s easy to go back to not having sex, since we agreed we should have waited, but now that I know, I don’t know why I should wait when it was him and not me who was bad. I want out, but I think it seems a little bitchy to dump him just because of that. I’m 28, though, and I don’t think the sex with him will get better. Could this also be my fault? Can’t you have a good dancer and a bad dancer try to dance? — Catherine
Dear Ms. the Great: A “good” partner paired with a “bad” partner equals a bad partnership. A “bad” partner with a “bad” partner will more than likely yield not much more than a “bad” partnership. Even “good” partners partying with “good” partners yields mixed results on a long enough timeline. Because? We’re human, and while some would call these human “mysteries,” I’m not prone to mythologizing the biological beyond the fact that we’re a complex series of narrowly understood impulses, drives, thoughts and sensations. And if you want to know what all the quote marks mean, it means that what’s bad for you might have nothing objectively bad about it at all.
Which is not to say that he doesn’t suck in bed. You’re telling me he does for you, so I’ll believe it/buy it. But maybe the whole quasi-religious thing is a sham, cover for the fact that he figures if he’s winning anything, he’s winning on the grounds of great personality. Maybe he’s been down this road before and this road has led here, so it’s something he’s trying to fix, albeit with trickery. But even that’s an adaptive issue, and if you were of the mind to (and it sounds like you’re not), you could help. If so, this might be the time to do so. So, not backing off, but the other way around. Because? Sex is supposed to be play, and if you’re not having fun playing, you’re playing wrong.
I think there was something of an unforgivable nature that occurred and you’re doing a cost-benefit analysis. Which is just fine — sex is not charity and you’re clearly not a charity worker. But if you’re going to leave, best to do so with as little bullshit as possible. You’ve heard the adage “the truth hurts.” Yeah, maybe. But more than likely only in the short term. In the long term? This could help quite a lot. Presuming it’s not just a small-penis deal, tell him what would have made it better, probably starting with not waiting 10 months so that the valence of the act outweighs the fact that even pulling it off well on a good day is tricky. Then give some bullet point pointers. He may act offended, but he’ll listen to you like he’s never listened to anyone.
It’s up to you if you want to pepper your exit with any of that “let’s still be friends” crap, which most of us stop by the time we start closing in on 30. But far be it from me to ask you to Florence Nightingale your vagina time. Do what makes you feel the least bad, and good luck!
EUGENE, SIR: I saw your “Sex With Eugene” show, so I know you get a lot of penis size questions, but here is a philosophical one: If all penises in the future were large, wouldn’t that make having a large penis much less exciting for both partners? — Non-Size Queen
Dear Nursing Science Quarterly: This is a “lost in the weeds” query since your stance, regardless of whichever side of the schlong you’re on, tries to measure the value of philosophical penis, which, as Socrates might have told you, doesn’t pay. “Large” is not an absolute standard and should more correctly be understood as “larger.” Besides which, a great car driven poorly doesn’t win any races, if you know what I mean. In the field of unintended consequences, though? I anticipate I’d get a lot fewer queries about penis pills and pumps and people would probably stop looking at the president’s hands.
Peas Meet Pod
EUGENE, SIR: My fluid-bonded partner and I are into threesomes. My biggest fantasy is having him and our guest in my mouth at the same time, but he refuses on the grounds that penis-to-penis contact creeps him out. I say he’s being ridiculous. They’d both be in my mouth — seems like not the time or place for homosexual panic. — Ahnika
Dear Ha-Cha-Cha: For owners of penises it seems to make all the difference in the world where that penis is placed. Next to hedge trimmers? Not as cool as silk sheets. So, not so surprising that while dude is cool with the premise — the whole two-penises-in-the-mouth thing — he’s not so cool with one of those penises being his. Explaining it beyond this is akin to trying to tell folks why you don’t like cabbage if, indeed, you don’t like cabbage. And pushing here might make you a jerk. So you might have to bifurcate and widen what you do from threesomes to foursomes and have Guest 3 and Guest 4 be guys who are game to have their penises in extremely close quarters with other penises. Penises that would subsequently be rubbing on their penises. For a wonderful evening of penis-y contact. You get what you want, he gets to not get what he doesn’t want and you’ve made two other guys very, very happy. Seems like a win all around! For mouths and penises!