Why you should care
Because people who are bad at sex have no idea how really bad they are.
TTS: Time to Sex?
EUGENE, SIR: If I actually really like a guy and want to date him — and I’m currently seeking a life partner or fun in the meantime — can I fuck him on the first or second date? Is there a rule? I’m in my 30s, and the hormones are difficult. — CMD
Dear Clocking Much Dollar: There’s a lot to like about your query. There’s also a lot to not like. Since I’m one of those bad-news-first guys, I’ll start with the latter and call you on your last sentence: Your age and hormonal disposition is just a sort of outmoded attempt to explain how you’ve processed the urgency you feel about wanting to get to the life partner stage soon using the methods at your disposal. Specifically, bedding them in a way that you wouldn’t have when, for example, you were 22.
But that’s OK. It’s hard to carry the weight for doing whatever sovereign people do with the bodies they own without all of the public opprobrium for doing so. In any case, the benefit of having private lives is that they are relatively private, and you could have sex with 300 men met on Tinder and man 301 would have no idea, nor should he. Nor should any disapproving friends. It’s your business.
That being said, the advisability or inadvisability of having sex sooner versus later depends on a lot of things. Are these early sexual couplings bearing the kind of fruit you should at base level expect from what’s essentially a sexual crapshoot? Are they fun? Are they satisfying you?
There’s no “sort of” here that answers that question. It’s binary. If “yes”? Good sign. If “no”? Re-evaluate.
And if the former, then repeat until you find in the fray someone who wants a second, third, 300 or a lifetime of dates. This is the stuff “life partners” are made of. If the latter, reconfigure and maybe make the pre-sex prelude a much more stringent job interview than your “hormones” are suggesting.
But hey … remember the last job interview you had? Remember how friggin’ exciting that was? Yeah, exactly.
EUGENE, SIR: I have been told that going from anal to vaginal during sex without cleaning between events could lead to diseases, but these would be different diseases than if we went from anal to oral, right? On a danger scale, is one worse than the other? — No One Else to Ask
Dear Ask ANYONE: To quote Samuel L. Jackson from Pulp Fiction, and it’s open to dispute whether he said “eats” or “needs,” but “I ain’t need nothin’ that ain’t got sense enough to disregard its own feces.” And while the pigs he’s talking about do, indeed, when domesticated by humans, sleep and root in shit, the inescapable fact is we can’t talk about anal sex without talking about the aforementioned feces.
Now, if you’re a professional, a porn star or a prostitute with a reasonable expectation of an upcoming bout of anal activity, you will sometimes prepare. Sometimes via a colon cleanse/enema or at the very least, by eating light. This doesn’t fully account for those who might actually enjoy the transgressive quality of poop play and come just for that or people who understand that that’s just part of what you have to pay to play and are not squeamish and can deal where others cannot.
Whatever the case may be, making the jump from this to putting any part that had been in the rectum, then in your mouth? Unwise. Maybe less unwise than anal to vaginal since you could probably gargle with hydrogen peroxide well before you’d be in a place to clean your vagina, but still running a risk kind of like the risk you run with rimming, oral-anal activity or eating in a restaurant and being served by servers who don’t wash their hands after using the toilet.
Are the diseases different? Seems to me all feces-related diseases are, in fact, related to feces. But if we’re talking Danger Scale? Less dangerous than feeding breakfast meats to wild carnivores without a fence, but much more dangerous than kissing up on someone with hepatitis. I’m not a medical professional and don’t know if I’ve been much help here, but you know how they say moderation in all things? In regards to feces-related things, maybe even a little less than moderate. Good luck!
EUGENE, SIR: What percentage of female prostitutes are hired by lesbians? — LC
Dear Letter of Credit: Fantastic question and one fully in the realm of unknown but knowable. And beyond that super tricky to answer for a couple of reasons, all of them having to do with fluidity. Which is to say hetero couples will sometimes hire a third for threesome play. Clearly, the woman from the couple is bisexual and it’s highly likely that the female sex worker is, if not bisexual as well, a lesbian — though, as I’ve been informed by sex worker friends, even this is no guarantee. Which is to say, apparently homosexual acts do not the homosexual make. I’m not going to mine that for any meaning, but it offers plenty of possibilities since your question has my head spinning. You mean are women who like women hiring the women they like to have sex with.
I’ve been unable to unearth anything that isn’t merely anecdotal and those answers seem to suggest “yes,” and then I hit pay dirt. Or if not dirt, then an escort agency that specializes in providing prostitutes to women who want women prostitutes. They’re based in London and have been in business since 2005. I reached out to them for an answer, but I grew increasingly uncertain that they weren’t trying to upsell me, a person with a penis, into making a purchase. Which leads me to believe that the women-for-women model is financially untenable, and while the women they might want to have see me would be happier if I was a woman, they’d work for a man.
Suggesting? That there’s a very low percentage of women-only female prostitutes. I’m glad to be proven wrong here but until further notice, I’m going to stick to that.