Wed 23 May 2007
I have recently noticed that the number of visits to Grave Error have diminished over the past two months. One option to increase visits may be to improve the quality and interest of the posts that I publish. But this option seems like a lot of effort without necessarily ensuring the desired result. Another option is to start writing about sex or introducing lewd terminology that is often searched for by “curious” Internet surfers. So, let’s begin with a simple reflection after reading Savage Love. Those easily scandalized should read a different post!
Every Wednesday, I read the latest edition of Savage Love, an Anne Landers-like advice column written by Dan Savage. This advice column is “different” in that it covers relationship questions that deal with advice-seekers’ sexual issues (of all sexual persuasions). I don’t read the column because of any special deviance on my part, but because I think that Savage gives very interesting advice and, contrary to what one might believe from a column of this nature, I am always impressed about the accuracy (and consistency) of the advice he gives.
In any event, today I read the advice he gave to a guy who complained about having problems finding women to “peg” him. “Pegging” is apparently the act of a woman using a dildo on a willing male partner (an act that is not part of my repertoire, so no funny ideas out there). Here is the question and Savage’s answer:
Q: It’s impossible to find a woman to peg me! I’ve posted many personal ads, but the masses find even the most innocuous fetish disgusting. What is a man who longs to be sensually ravaged in the ass by a woman to do? The thought of a woman taking delight in the rich senses of my ass overwhelms me. I like voluptuous, dark-haired women, though I’m open to anything at this point. Hell, it could even be with a lesbian or a bunch of lesbians.
Signed: Man with Hungry Rectum
A: Let me see if I follow you, MWHR: Unable to find a straight woman to ravage your ass, you’ve concluded that it would increase your odds of getting pegged if you offered your ass to a lesbian—or a bunch of lesbians—because if there’s one thing we know about lesbians, it’s that they delight in the rich senses of a man’s ass. It’s really what lesbianism is all about.
Look, dumbfuck, if you’re having a hard time finding someone to peg your ass, it’s because you come across like a desperate, disrespectful, delusional creep, and not because no women are interested in pegging. As HIND [in reference to another advice seeker] can attest, some women are interested in little else.
I particularly enjoyed Savage’s response. Why? Because I have never quite understood men’s fascination with having sexual relations with Lesbians. Not because there is anything wrong with lesbianism, but because Lesbians, by definition, are not interested in having sex with men. It is barking up the wrong tree.
As a matter of fact, I have written a first draft of the initial chapters of story entitled “My Year as a Lesbian” (lost somewhere in my closet, no pun intended). I know that the whole Chasing Amy thing has already been done before, and even my favorite author, Haruki Murakami, has touched on the subject in his wonderful novel Sputnik Sweetheart. But, my story is different. It is about how people lose perspective in their lives over time as they grow older and actually doesn’t have anything to do with Lesbians at all. Well, except for the fact that their loss of perspective is as absurd as is a man who actively pursues Lesbians, for the reasons mentioned above.
May 23rd, 2007 at 6:46 pm
I’ll stop posting if that will help your numbers … ?
On the other side, you said: It is barking up the wrong tree.
There is a question here … at what level is it barking up the wrong tree?
Physiologically speaking as a male, “lesbian” is a purely cerebral construction, physiological attraction to a female, is prior to the mind.
So, do we know we are barking up the wrong tree, or does the body respond to stimuli as if it is the right tree, and the mind is latent or incapable of delivering the message?
May 23rd, 2007 at 6:50 pm
OK, you have a point. What if you know that you have no chance? So why do you continue to bark up that tree? One is a question of lack of respect for the perspective of the desired person. Another is whether people are actually turned on by what they cannot have. I think though that men confuse what they see in certain movies with reality.
May 23rd, 2007 at 7:11 pm
I certainly can’t speak for the movie aspect, that simply isn’t sensible.
We definitely have different perspectives where things of this nature are concerned. I was personally attracted to a “lipstick lesbian” for the better part of a year. She was immeasurably attractive, that’s what my body said. My mind reminded me often enough she was not interested, but the genetic impetus, was/is much stronger … plus I’m not entirely certain that I trust my mind with these decisions.
Lack of respect? I can’t say I understand that comment. If the physiological cursors for stimuli pack enough punch, (physical form, pheromones, standard procreative drive), the body will be certain to announce it’s desires, often over the protests of the mind.
We can also get into the discussion of genetic dissimilarity and it’s role in creating attraction for suitable mate.
I believe sometimes we try to put the “ought” before the “is” … although I can’t comprehend why that happens.
May 23rd, 2007 at 11:49 pm
Muy bien Eric, me gusta la nueva línea editorial de tu blog. Además ya tenemos un nuevo mote para tí: MWHR
Keep up the good job! It will take you further, or is it farther?
May 24th, 2007 at 8:51 am
Borja,
“To be or not to be” is NOT the question, it is, as you have highlighted, “to go further or to go farther”.
May 24th, 2007 at 9:57 am
James,
Let me elaborate on my general point about men and lesbians and barking up the wrong tree. My point is that if a man specifically seeks out lesbians, then he is barking up the wrong tree. If he is attracted to a woman, then that is natural, but the specific act of seeking out lesbians is absurd. Lesbians, by definition, are women who do not want to be with men. That’s what I meant.
May 24th, 2007 at 1:20 pm
Ack … I was caught having an illiteracy moment. Mea culpa, cugino.
Understood, and yes, that is a most logical assertion, we agree.
But then, men and their sexual proclivities do not exactly follow logic, so that is the opposition to your assertion. But, it would wager you win by default ~ it’s your blog world.
May 24th, 2007 at 5:23 pm
Eric, lesbian is not capitalized. It is not a nationality!
May 24th, 2007 at 5:41 pm
I thought it was a country that I didn’t have a passport to visit!!!
OK, because you are actually a grammar expert, let me ask you the question: what classes of people get capitalized and when? For example, when you speak of ethnicities or races? I imagine that “Latino” is capitalized even though it is not a nationality. “Asian” is capitalized but what about “white male”? Asian does not refer to nationality but to ethnicity or race? If the defining factor is the immutability of the trait that makes them a member of the class, then I suppose we would have to be uniform across the board. That’s the only reason I used capitals with the term “Lesbian” out of a show of solidarity and respect and for legal reasons.
According to US constitutional jurisprudence only classes of people defined by the “immutability” of their defining trait affords them the highest degree Equal Protection under the 5th and 14th Amendments to be afforded fundamental rights (right to marry, privacy, etc). These classes would be race, religion, age, gender and physical disability. For the time being, the Supreme Court has not recognized homosexuals as a protected class — in other words, the Court does not consider homosexuality as an immutable characteristic (meaning that the law believes it is something that people can freely change).
That’s all.
May 24th, 2007 at 6:48 pm
what about Romer v. Evans? And discimination on the basis of sexual orientation, in federal public sector, is unlawful. I also think there are federal human rights laws that view gays and lesbians as a protected class.
And both physical and mental disabilities are covered by federal law.
May 24th, 2007 at 11:11 pm
Well, the word lesbian comes from Lesbos, which is a Greek island, so if you live there (or grew up there), you’re a Lesbian. Otherwise, lesbian. I have to check the rule, but my sense is that nationalities and regional identifiers (Asian, Latino) are capitalized; races are not (black man, white woman). “Race” is actually a pretty fuzzy term; we use racial descriptors to name groups that are not biologically linked. (For instance, we call people who are either African or West Indian in origin “black,” but the gene pools in those two groups apparently differ greatly.) Anyway, I don’t think “Asian” or “Latino” are racial terms so much as regional terms.
Anyway, you while your passport won’t admit you to lesbianism (unless you get a sex change and/or gender-identify as female–yeah, I live in Berkeley), your passport *will* admit you to Lesbos.
Which is apparently very beautiful. As for lesbianism . . . I’ve been there. It has its perks.