i'm spelling this out because i'm so tired of all the 27-year-olds with cockrings and viagra prescriptions i can't even fucking begin to tell you

[text]

why is sex like pizza? 

because when it’s good, it’s really, really good. and when it’s bad, it’s still pretty good.

or so the old joke goes. it's a good line, but it's also a big lie, and it’s one that lots of people buy into. truth is, there are few things more damaging to the gay male psyche than a steady diet of bad sex.

who the fuck am i to make such a pronouncement, you may ask? i'm just a guy who's walked the talk--i'm no sex expert with broad sweeping knowledge, nor do i pretend to be; on the contrary, my area of expertise is fairly narrow--but, trust me, it's deep.

and how do i define bad sex? oh, there’s all kinds of bad sex; we’ll get into that in future posts. tonight we're gonna talk about that much rarer commodity: good sex. far as i've been able to determine, the odds that sex between two guys will be good improve to the degree that there is

• mutual attraction. you're into each other

• mutual respect. neither of you is looking down on (or up to) the other

• sexual compatibility. the lid fits the pot

• a common goal. whether casual or serious, everybody's on the same page

• a pleasant aftertaste. the feeling you take with you from your last encounter will color the way you approach the next--remember, your baggage is accumulated one item at a time.
  

while it’s gonna be very rare you hit a home run in all the above categories (and let's face it--you wait for that to happen you'll probably never get laid), i'm willing to wager that, to the degree the above criteria are met, the sex has a much better chance of being good; to the degree they are not, the sex will probably be bad.

in other words, (a) if you're willing to hold out until it's right, you won't have sex with lots of different guys, but most of the sex you do have will be good; and (b) if you're willing to settle just to get off, you'll have buttloads of sex with lots of different guys, and lots of that sex will be bad.

and, bottom line, the more bad sex you have, the more likely it is you'll probably need cockrings and viagra by the time you're 27 (or 32 or 38 or 45, take your pick).

[next: the many faces of bad sex]

if nothing else good comes from this administration, maybe it's put the "pick dumb ones and they'll stay loyal" theory to rest once and for all

you wanna know what really chaps me about this whole mcclellan book thing?

is it, you ask, the fact that here's yet one more asshole from this administration whose first-person accounting of his own and others' incompetence and duplicity are being met not with the ostracism and disgrace which used to accompany such revelations, but rather with the lucrative book deals and speaking gigs with which america so richly rewards such people today?

or maybe because, with all his high-flown talk of his loyalty to the "truth" being greater than his loyalty to the president, he's pretending not to know that, as white house press secretary, it was nothing more or less than his goddam job to get out there and do what every white house press secretary before and after him has always done and always will do; namely, lie, spin and deflect the search for truth every single fucking day (and that his real sin was not that he did it, but that he did it so badly)?

or could it be because he's being given a forum on such national venues as good morning america and today to spout his self-serving drivel, and getting away pretty much unchallenged by folks who should by all rights--considering his self-admitted ill-treatment of same during his tenure as white house press secretary--be ripping him to little-bitty shreds?

nope, it's none of those things.

don't get me wrong--all of the foregoing is beyond egregious, but after almost eight years of the bush administration, i'm pretty much deadened to shit like that. what i feel here is something much more basic and visceral, maybe even irrational: utter and bottomless contempt for someone who, when left by his own innate inadequacy few options, elects to not only bite the hands that fed him so richly, but then attempts to wrap such craven chickenshit betrayal in the cloak of nobility and service to his country.

i mean, here you have a guy who, were it not for george bush and karl rove, would be toiling away in obscurity in some cubicle somewhere. instead, he--like so many others in this administration--was vaulted into a position of national prominence so far above his level of competence as to be almost incomprehensible.

and how does he repay his benefactors for that taste of the nectar of power that he would never in a million years have experienced otherwise? naturally, with treachery of the most base and cowardly kind.

i'm telling you, i wouldn't piss on this asshole if he was on fire.

[and for you partisans out there: had i been writing a blog back then, i'd have said pretty much the same thing when that little kiss-ass lickspittle george stephanopoulos threw former mentor bill clinton under the bus at the lowest point of his presidency for no other reason than to further his fledgling media career--happened a decade ago and still pisses me off.]

because it came up tonight (but it probably should've been my very first post)

from my reply to a friend whose recent IML experience was apparently somewhat less than stellar:

i'm one of those people who believes, based on lots of field experience, that fewer and fewer gay men are actually getting any true enjoyment from their sexuality anymore; as a consequence of all this "freedom" we've granted ourselves, over time it's almost impossible not to become overstimulated, oversaturated and thus ruined in some fundamental way. this is the basic axiom of guttermorality, btw; its first corollary being "piss is the new cum" (since most everybody can still manage that).

yeah, just call me the new larry kramer--without the originality, the audience or the passion.

or, for that matter, the talent.

the third--and last--post about this story (unless of course it's not)

[this was actually a comment to another blogger's post about what he sees as over-the-top hillary-bashing re her assassination remarks; because i make a point about this story i haven't seen made anywhere else (and because it's the only thing i've written in the last two goddam days), i'm making it a post of my own.]

here's the thing--before she pulled this latest rabbit outta her seemingly bottomless hat, this subject got no airtime. people might have discussed it around the water cooler at work, but any tv or radio talk-show host--or, for that matter, any caller--who even dared make an on-air reference to assassination in the context of this election could probably have expected a visit from the secret service.

but then hillary, a public figure, opened her big fat mouth and, in a very crass and deliberate way (remember, she said it twice), did for assassination pretty much exactly what her horndog husband inadvertently did for fellatio--i.e., transformed, in one fell swoop, what was once a taboo subject into a legitimate news story. now everybody's freely talking about it, and god only knows how many nutjobs are out there listening.

and that, i think, is what bothers most reasonable people about this situation.

oh, this is rich

so now al sharpton, that master of diplomatic restraint, has taken it upon himself to instruct hillary in the importance of responsibly and judiciously choosing one's words so as to avoid saying anything that might be construed as an incitement to violence.

because, yeah, he would know something about that.

i'm telling you, this is just getting better and better.