Yesterday, jurors in the John "Buttman" Stagliano obscenity trial got a 50-minute display of milk enemas. Today, prosecutors turned their focus to a different substance. This morning, jurors viewed a 36 minute scene from Storm Squirters 2: Target Practice, a film about women expelling impressive amounts of discharge from their vaginas—colloquially, "squirting."

The trajectory of the scene went something like this:

Porn performers Angela Stone and Richelle Ryan are just hanging out in a living room, commenting on the quality of each others' asses. "Have you ever squirted before?" Stone asks Ryan. Ryan has not. "Have you seen a girl squirt before?" Again, no. One thing leads to another. "I want to use you as target practice," Stone tells Ryan, as Ryan performs oral sex on her.

Stone sits on a chair and instructs Ryan to position herself on her knees. Stone states her intention to aim her vaginal secretion into Ryan's mouth. "I don't know if I can do it," Stone says. "I don't know if I can do it that far." She tells Ryan to crawl closer to her. She does. She tells Ryan to scoot a little back. She does. She tells Ryan to remove her top. She does. She tells Ryan to turn around and show her her ass. She does. She tells Ryan to turn back around. She does.

Stone screams very loudly and squirts a clear substance into Ryan's mouth. Ryan gargles. They furiously make out. Then, the naked guy shows up. That's Jay Lassiter. They all have sex together in various ways. Despite the ejaculatory role-reversal that Storm Squirters 2: Target Practice is predicated on, the scene ends with Lassiter ejaculating onto the faces and mouths of Stone and Ryan.

"You're everyone's target practice!" Ryan announces. Stone turns to the camera: "A lesson lived is a lesson learned," she says, for some reason. If there's any serious literary value in the film, that's gotta be it.

When the trial concludes, jurors will be forced to decide whether the acts filmed in Storm Squirters 2: Target Practice violate the District's standards for obscenity. Until then, they're being forced to watch hours of porn—in a public hearing—that they likely wouldn't have chosen for their own private viewing. As the scene played, a couple of the female jurors remove their headsets, relieving themselves of the frequent sounds of gargling, gushing, and the two women choking on Lassiter's penis. Apparently, this is not their cup of tea. But will the jurors' personal disinterest in target practice affect their decision about what erotic sporting activities other Washingtonians are allowed to watch in their own homes?

Photo via doreta-wm, Creative Commons Attribution License 2.0

The battle for ideological dominance in our nation’s capital’s collegiate sex columns continues. Are our local campus columnists on the forefront of radical sex writing, or are they bringing back the good old days of romantically forward women being dismissed as aggressive bitches?

This week, our college sex columnists get romantic: Why you should go down on your significant other this Sunday; who's allowed to date 18-year-olds; girls asking boys out is scary!

GWU: Say it with a blow job.

Sex Tip: In a Very Special Valentine's Day edition of her GW Hatchet sex column, Layla offers up some specialized advice: If you don't know how to say it, just say it in your GW Hatchet sex column. "With the guy I've been seeing recently, Red, we tend to skip foreplay and move straight to having sex. Which is totally fine, because as soon as I get him naked, that's all I want. But at the same time, there is something to be said for prolonging that anticipation just a bit longer. I'm still working on a way to say, 'Babe, let's slow down a bit and just touch each other.'"

Life Lesson: That, or say it with a blow job. "I think there's something incredibly hot about going down on a guy and hearing him moan with pleasure just from the way you're moving your mouth. Giving head can often be a lot more intimate than having sex—you can really focus on your partner and what gets him off. And that's what I think Valentine's Day is all about."

Progressive Meter: If preferring oral sex has any political implications, I'm not aware of them. EVEN.

—

UMD: Dating out of your age range.

Sex Tips: UMD Diamondback advice columnist Esti Frischling informs co-eds that Aaliyah was wrong.To a 23-year-old super senior dude looking to hook up with an 18-year-old freshman girl, Frishcling writes: "Let’s not fool ourselves with the ol’ 'age-is-just-a-number' bullshit. People who say that are 15-year-olds with daddy issues who like to date their professors or are statutory rapists with conscience issues."

Life Lesson: 23-year-olds can date 18-year-olds. But they don't have to. "As long as you don’t lie about your age, you are transgressing no moral issues that I’m aware of, which are most of them. If you’re still feeling concerned and you think these chicks are too young, try hitting up the downtown bars. Then you can be sure all the girls are at least 21."

Progressive Meter: I appreciate the super senior considering issues of maturity and experience when choosing his sex partners. EIGHT.

—

GWU Extra: When girls ask the boys.

Sex Tips: For the Hatchet's special Valentine's Day Issue, Lauren Hoenemeyer brings the New York Times "shortage of men" treatment to Foggy Bottom. GW's gender breakdown is 43 percent male, 57 percent female, leading some women on campus to commit what some students consider a "crime against nature." (The crime is asking a boy out, on a date). Hot tip: Some boys like it! "It's really romantic when a girl asks a guy out," freshman Jacob Zachs told Hoenemeyer. "Guys like it but girls don't like it. It takes the pressure off of us."

Life Lesson: But beware, ladies: Some college-aged men still hate women. "Sophomore Blake Eisenberg said that girls who ask guys out are 'too aggressive and too demanding.' He said, 'They should just let things happen, because they will happen if it's meant to be. They shouldn't force it. For it to work out in the end, for it to be a positive relationship, you need the guy to also like the girl.' Aaaand end trend piece!

Progressive Meter: Hoenemeyer balances her piece with two students in favor of the Sadie Hawkins tactic, and two against. But is that really a fair representation of attitudes on this subject? The two guys quoted in the article who oppose the practice actually think that a girl asking a boy if he would like to do something with her constitutes a "demand" that does not take into consideration that boy's feelings. If half of the GW campus really thinks this way, we're fucked. THREE.

Photo via George Eastman House

Last spring, I discovered the CockBib, an oral sex accessory for men who want a dryer blowjob. "The whole idea for cockbibs came to me right after I was pleased orally and realized,'Damn, I can’t just fall asleep, I need to get up and wash my balls,'" the device's inventor explained on his Web site, CockBibCrazy.com. "I had just been a victim of another sloppy blowjob."

As it turns out, CockBibCrazy's proprietor was not the first martyr to the sloppy blowjob. Though CockBibCrazy.com was registered on March 13, 2009, a different CockBib outfit, CockBib.com, was registered all the way back on Dec. 22, 2008. At CockBib.com, a duo called Jon and Shan market what they call "the original cockbib." When I wrote to CockBibCrazy for his thoughts on the "original" CockBib, he seemed unfazed by the competition. "I am sure you can see a big difference in the quality of our product and the time put into our site?" he wrote to me.

For once, CockBib guy was right. CockBib.com's CockBib designs are even weirder than dick accessories "Caution: May Cause Trauma" and "Pussy Killer." Let's check 'em out!

5. "When Swallowing Is ... Not an Option!" The informative CockBib.

4. "Don't Talk With Your Mouth Full!" With a name like "CockBib," the infantalization was inevitable.

3. "Daddy's Little Squirt." When your product works equally well as a CockBib and a baby bib, you know you're doing something very, very wrong.

2. "Bride Breathalizer": For the pre-wedding date rape.

1. "Road Love . . . It's What Makes A Subaru, A Subaru." Gross. My parents have a Subaru.

The Catholic University of America (CUA) this summer revised its student rules to clarify that the school condemns sexual assault more strongly than consensual sex. The change to the policy, which became official July 27, comes in the aftermath of litigation questioning the propriety and effectiveness of the university’s longtime regulations.

Prior to the change, the CUA campus code performed an awkward lumping operation when it came to sex: Its sexual misconduct clause outlawed “physical conduct of a sexual nature that is unwanted by either party and/or that is disruptive to the university community, such as any sexual expression that is inconsistent with the teaching and moral values of the Catholic church.”

The new rules are all about distinctions. The university has tossed the “Sexual Misconduct” clause in favor of one that clearly differentiates between consensual “Sexual Relationships,” which it calls “inconsistent” with the religious nature of the university, and “Sexual Assault,” which is “unacceptable behavior, will not be tolerated, and will be adjudicated to the fullest extent afforded to the university.” According to CUA’s new policy, prohibited “sexual relationships” include “sexual acts of any kind outside the confines of marriage.” (Less genitally-inclined displays of disruption, like men kissing, are still undefined.) Prohibited “sexual assault” is defined more progressively: “sexual contact without meaningful, explicit, ongoing consent.”

The school’s administration quietly published the revision in its online Code of Student Conduct last month, noting only that its “sexual offenses section [was] strengthened to clearly articulate unacceptable behavior.” CUA did not return a request for comment.

Why has CUA struggled to nail the wording on its sexual assault policy? While other schools strive to protect their students from predators and themselves from lawsuits, CUA has to juggle a third consideration: protecting its relationship with the Vatican.

As the national university of the Roman Catholic Church, CUA earns points with the Pope by outlawing sex among its students, on-campus and off. Keeping undergraduates’ hands to themselves is easier said than done, but the Holy See doesn’t come knocking for evidence of enforcement. Fucking in CUA dorm rooms is common, but the infraction rarely—if ever—rises to administrative review. During the 2006-2007 school year—the only year the university has reported figures on the infraction—CUA recorded zero violations.

Enforcing a “sexual assault” policy, on the other hand, is required under U.S. law. According to university watchdog group Security on Campus, Title IX “prohibits sexual harassment of college and university students whether the harasser is an employee or another student,” as sexual assault is considered “an extreme form of sexual harassment”—and qualifies as gender discrimination.

By creating a clear distinction between the two infractions—sex, which is unenforceable, and sexual assault, which must be strictly enforced—CUA may begin to move past the legal and moral mess that has marked its sex policies for years.

The controversy over those policies came to a head earlier this year, when two students involved in a contested sexual assault incident on the CUA campus later sued the university (Screw U, 5/7/09). The incident involved a female CUA student, a male CUA student, and three of his high school buddies, all of whom engaged in one very visible violation of the sexual misconduct policy in the spring of 2008: a late-night, open-door, thoroughly witnessed group-sex session in a CUA dormitory. The female student later reported the incident as a sexual assault; the male student, who was expelled, maintained that the incident was consensual. Both students cited Title IX in their complaints against the university. The female student alleged the university acted with “deliberate indifference” to her sexual assault claim; the male student claimed that the sex policy was administered inconsistently. (Both suits have since been settled out of court.)

Here’s where the university’s former sex policies failed. The boy’s suit claims that the university failed to give him a “fair and impartial disciplinary hearing” to make his case that the incident was consensual. As a result, the suit alleged, CUA effectively expelled him over a couple of lesser infractions—engaging in oral sex and consuming alcohol—while his female accuser received no punishment for the same offenses. In order to prove that he was unduly punished for his maleness, the boy’s lawyers invoked a CUA celebrity: Antonella Barba, a pop singer who made national news when she competed in the sixth season of American Idol in 2007.

At the height of her American Idol exposure, Barba was a CUA undergraduate. During the course of the competition, photographs of Barba in various stages of Catholic shame surfaced on the Internet. Most of the photos—like the one of her posing in a wet T-shirt and thong next to the World War II Memorial—are fit for Maxim but not necessarily prohibited by catechism. One photo, however, allegedly shows Barba—or a look-alike—performing oral sex on a man. CUA’s response to the matter amounted to an expression of sympathy for Barba and her family. She graduated from the university in 2008.

Even though the boy was expelled over a much more serious offense—allegedly engaging in oral sex without his sex partner’s consent—his lawsuit still built his discrimination case upon CUA’s failure to enforce the campus’s many consensual sexual infractions. The boy’s lawyers demanded that CUA deliver “all documents relating to any investigation, determination, discussions, complaints discipline, or the like concerning Antonella Barba, including, but not limited to, all documents relating to your decision not to expel her.” In most sexual assault policies, the differences between the boy’s case and Barba’s would be glaring. At CUA, the infractions were hardly discrete. According to the old policy, both instances of sexual misconduct were outlawed in the very same sentence, and no further definition of consent was provided.

CUA’s revised sexual assault policy helps to clarify the importance of that little nuance between the cases—consent. The university’s new sexual assault policy still prohibits premarital sex, but it also clearly acknowledges the importance of consent in these forbidden relationships. The separation of sex and assault will help the university prove that it is not “deliberately indifferent” to the possibility of on-campus assault—even as it deliberately avoids policing the consensual stuff. Previously, CUA prefaced its sexual assault policy with the following proposed strategy, which urged both victim and perpetrator to remain chaste: “The optimal approach and most appropriate solution to this issue is for all persons to develop and live by a value system that respects other persons’ bodily integrity and the sacredness of human sexuality.”

By eliminating that “solution,” CUA has opened its sexual assault policy to those victims who may have strayed from the catechism, consensually, in the past. The definition will both help the university discipline sexual assault offenders and confine its judgment on consensual dorm-fuckers to the religious realm.

Illustration by Doug Boehm

Today, Post media columnist Howard Kurtz tackled the popular outcry over the Washington City Paper's Marion Barry "You Put Me Out In Denver 'Cause I Wouldn't Suck Your Dick" cover line. Some readers, Kurtz wrote, found the headline's final "three-word phrase" vulgar, obscene, and even racist. The Post declined to print the phrase, but I'll give you a hint: it ain't "Out in Denver."

Kurtz went on to contextualize CP's stories with a recap of Barry's past highly-publicized sex scandals:

This is, after all, a former mayor who was busted for cocaine possession in 1990 with a woman not his wife—uttering the immortal phrase "Bitch set me up"—and two years later was found to have received oral sex from a female visitor at a Virginia prison (a conclusion he disputed). In the current flap, the Ward 8 lawmaker gave Watts-Brighthaupt a $60,000 council contract while they were dating, then was charged last weekend with stalking her after a fight, although charges have since been dropped.

But the Denver story is, by definition, not another Marion Barry sex scandal. It is a Marion Barry not-sex scandal. The story isn't a quasi-pornographic account of a Councilmember getting his dick sucked by a campaign staffer. It's about what he did to her when she refused to suck his dick.

Here's what Marion Barry did to a campaign staffer when she refused to suck his dick:

“You put me out in Denver ’cause I wouldn’t suck your dick,” Watts-Brighthaupt yelled at Barry, according to a tape recording of the conversation.

Watts-Brighthaupt was referring to an incident that had occurred about 10 months prior, at the Democratic National Convention. At the time, Watts-Brighthaupt was working on Barry’s ultimately successful re-election campaign and traveled to the Barack Obama-crowning affair. For reasons that remain murky, she ended up assigned to the councilmember’s hotel room in the Crowne Plaza hotel. Once behind closed doors, Barry allegedly asked Watts-Brighthaupt to perform oral sex on him. She refused, whereupon Barry threw her clothes out of the room and barred her from coming back in. She slept in the hotel’s parking garage, in a Cadillac Barry had rented.

No, this is not another story about Marion Barry trying to get some, bless his heart (as one commenter wrote, "At least he still has blood rushing through those veins"). This is a story about the misogynistic, abusive behavior of the councilmember from Ward 8. Watts-Brighthaupt's subsequent year-long on-again-off-again fling with Barry—the barefoot casino fights, the crazy voice-mails, the money promised to a woman suffering from the physical and financial strains of her cancer treatment, the arrest for stalking—speaks to a pattern of psychological abuse.

As we all know, an elected official receiving a blow job from a staffer qualifies as news to most media outlets. Shouldn't the way our elected officials treat women—and their employees—be newsworthy to us, as well?

Still think "suck your dick" is vulgar? Obscene? Indecent? Express that sentiment to Marion Barry, and you would be out on your ass, sleeping alone in a Denver parking garage in a rented Cadillac.

They came, they researched, they let us in on a "little secret". Now, "CockBibs," the first novelty item for keeping your genitals creepily dry, are officially available for sale. And the Inventor of the CockBib has reached out to the females to let them know that CockBibs are for us, too (and certainly not offensive to anyone!). A notice on the Web site reads:

***Attention*** We apologize for any misunderstanding in regards to our appreciation for women as it relates to them orally pleasing us men. We love and have the utmost respect for women. The CockBib is just our attempt at creating a fun and humorous novelty item. It is not our intent to offend or disrespect anyone. Thank You! :)

No, CockBib. Thank you.

Earlier this week, I introduced you to the world of the "CockBib," and the men who wear them to maintain ball sac dryness—and hilarity!—during oral sex.

I finally tracked down the Inventor of the CockBib after several CockBib fans (including one named, oddly enough, "Amanda Hess") posted very positive CockBib reviews on my blog, from his IP address. Below, the Inventor speaks out about how to parse the nonsensical CockBib, the virtues of ball dryness, and the female-friendly CockBibs he's rolling out next:

IF THE COCKBIB IS MEANT TO PROTECTs YOUR BALLS FROM WETNESS, WHY DO YOU WANT THE NUTS IN HER MOUTH? [Re: "It's Showtime: These Nuts in Ya Mouth, Take 1"]

Wearing a CockBib that says "These Nuts In Ya Mouth" is just pure comedy and though the CockBib can be utilized and is quite effective at keeping that part of a male dry, I would not have ever created the CockBib if I could not make it funny. The Idea of a CockBib is to make people laugh . . . Period.

WHAT DUDE WANTS TO KEEP HIS BALLS DRY ANYWAY?

In response to your question 'do you know many men who get annoyed when their balls get wet during blow jobs?' I will let you in on a little secret. Most men would not complain to their partner no matter how messy things got down there. Simply, because they don't want to lose that privilege.

Based on my research, most people will buy these because they are funny, not because they are unsatified with a bowjob. Ironically enough, I have received emails from women who say things like " This is great, I am always asking my boyfriend if the has a towel, can't wait to buy a few".

ARE ALL COCKBIBS PATENTLY OFFENSIVE?

I have a line of Cockbibs coming out aimed at women who would buy them as gag gfts for their partner. They will have saying like "You call that a D*ck"...LOL. I know that women talk about a man's size to their girlfriends, so I will create a CockBib from a womans point of view.

Well amanda, I have to go now. I have to think of some more offensive & non offensive phrases for my CockBibs. Oh, and please try not to slam us so hard next time. :)

And so, the Inventor returns to the drawing board, where he will employ his ball dryness research in his pursuit of the perfect blend of absorption . . . and humor. May I humbly submit my freelance CockBib concept, entitled, "It's Showtime! These Nuts In Ya Mouth . . . Take Two"?

The whole idea for cockbibs came to me right after I was pleased orally and realized, "Damn, I can't just fall asleep, I need to get up and wash my balls." I had just been a victim of another sloppy blowjob. I sat there wishing that I did not have to get up and go do the whole wipe down routine and thats when it hit me. I said "what if I had something to protect my balls, some sort of bib, a bib for my cock." . . . and so, cockbibs were born.

And so, a guy gets a bad blowjob and he responds by designing and marketing 38 different novelty ball-covers to hang on your penis during oral sex. Given that these things look like tiny portable glory holes, this post-oral pioneer takes care to note that he is "Happily Married to a Beautiful Woman." No word on how that "victim of another sloppy blowjob" comment went over.

In case you were wondering, there is a Yes You Can! CockBib. Some of the other CockBib designs, however, come off as a tad less progressive.

5. "Caution: May Cause Trauma." Yeah, I'll go ahead and heed that warning, and steer clear of the dismembered penis poking through the baby clothes, thank you very much.

4. "Caution: Dick Curves to the Right." Again: HEED THIS WARNING.

3. "Today's Special: Cock Meat Surprise." As in, "Surprise: That Hole in My Cock Bib Is For My Cock"?

2. "Pussy Killer." I wonder why this "Caution" theme is so central to the CockBib aesthetic!

1. "It's Showtime: These Nuts In Ya Mouth Take 1." Sigh. The WHOLE POINT of the CockBib is so your balls don't get wet, right? Fucking nonsensical CockBib!

Welcome back to "Sexist Beatdown," wherein the very abnormal Sady of Tiger Beatdown, and the merely abnormal Amanda, of the Sexist, chat about topics of interest to finer women. This week: Sex, is it normal or abnormal? How about when there is pee, children, and/or wheelchairs involved? Canadian young adults shall reveal all!

Last year, the Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality published a study asking 104 undergraduate college students—36 men, 68 women, 96.2 percent heterosexual, two of whom had engaged in anal sex within four weeks of taking the survey—whether certain sexual behaviors were “normal” or “abnormal.” Half the respondents were provided surveys had the sexual acts being performed by men; half of the surveys had females performing the acts. The sex acts mentioned ranged from the routine ("A man/woman having sex somewhere other than a bed") to the—let’s face it—abnormal ("A man/woman becoming aroused by watching children play in a playground"). Read the study here [PDF].

After a National Post story interpreted the findings to mean that "society accords men less 'sexual latitude' than women," and that a "new sexual double standard" was now at work against men, not women, in the bedroom. The Internet exploded: The battle of the sexes was again rehashed on the Daily Beast; Jezebel defended men against shame; somebody twittered that "Jezebel is the new patriarchy."

Frankly, we're not exactly buying any of this.

AMANDA: hi

SADY: hello! i am just perusing the great "who is a sex freak" study now. confession: i'm kind of bad at just reading raw statistics. did you read through it?

AMANDA: i did read through it. i skipped most of the intro.

SADY: as did i

AMANDA: but i basically get the findings

SADY: so, the operating theory behind this study is that men are judged more harshly than ladies for getting all freaky in the sack. here is an interesting fact: MOST OF THE PEOPLE WHO RESPONDED TO THE SURVEY WERE LADIES. so seriously, are we surprised that girls are maybe more understanding of girls getting off in weird ways?

AMANDA: that's a good point. But i think commentators—and the original news story—are overestimating the difference between perceptions of men and women here. and i think it's important to note what respondents were asked. they were asked whether something was "normal" or "abnormal,” not whether something was acceptable or unacceptable. so when i see a question like this one:

A man (woman) in a wheelchair performing oral sex on someone who is able-bodied

do I think that's normal? I've never done this, or heard a story about this happening, or seen it in porn. i think it's very abnormal. That just doesn't fucking happen all that often. That doesn't mean that it's wrong, it's just not really an average thing

SADY: yeah, it's unusual, but probably not to folks who are romantically involved with someone who's disabled. my favorite question is "a normal weight person having sex with a person who weighs 322 pounds." surprisingly, 32% of folks surveyed thought it was "abnormal" for a "normal weight" dude to have sex with a 322-pound lady, but only 25% thought it was "abnormal" for women to have sex with a 322-pound man! That's not freaky sex time, that's the plot of "King of Queens."

AMANDA: i know. and how specific the weight is! but that's exactly where i was going to go with this—a lot of our idea (or 104 Canadian college students' idea) of what is normal comes from what we see regularly on television or in porn. you're more likely to see a 3-way with two women and a man than two men and a woman—that's "more normal.” you're more likely to see a girl get peed on than the other way around—that's "more normal.” also, i can see why some men would want to say, you know, for example, it's totally normal for a woman to want to have anal sex, because i want to have anal sex with my girlfriend.

SADY: hah, right, and a lot of that (porn) IS based on a model of sex and gender wherein men are totally active and in control and hypersexual and women are only responsive and there to gratify the dudes. that's just the way these things go.
AMANDA: right, exactly. i think the idea that this study has any implications on the sexual double standard is misleading. a man can say he thinks it's normal for a girl to want to have a threesome, and a man may want to have a threesome with two girls, but does he want to date a girl who he knows has had a threesome? that's an entirely different survey.

SADY: that's the survey of my life, friend.

AMANDA: hahaha

SADY: i do think it's interesting, though, even though we admit that we're looking at this totally overtly normative version of sex, that there are two questions with HUGE disparities: one, it's considered way abnormal for dudes not to get turned on by nekkid ladies, and two, it's considered way abnormal for dudes to get turned on by wearing lady clothes. neither of those are AS abnormal for girls.

AMANDA: you're right about that. i did read somewhere that the vast majority of respondents were heterosexual, with only one gay male reporting

SADY: yeah, precisely... and all of the questions about partner sex were phrased in an overtly hetero way, the only question where you don't know the gender of the partner are the ones where somebody's getting peed on.

AMANDA: also, while everyone thought it was abnormal for men to get turned on by children playing, only 91.7 percent of respondents thought the same of women

SADY: UM?

AMANDA: i have no explanation for that one

SADY: yeah, well, it's also more "abnormal" for dudes to have rape fantasies than ladies.

AMANDA: i think this study would be more interesting if it were accompanied by one that surveyed people about their actual turn-ons. how many dudes get turned on by peeing vs. how many women think that is normal? now we'll see who's normal!

SADY: that would be exciting! there could be a whole undercurrent of pee-love in the American populace, and we wouldn't know about it. but who's going to answer those questions honestly? this all reminds me of the bonobo porn study from a while back.

AMANDA: i know, maybe we're not ready to rehash that just yet. it would be interesting to know, at least, how attitudes about what's "normal" affect your feelings for a person. "would you be more/less likely to date a man who liked to be peed on?" i'll answer that: i would date him, but not necessarily pee on him.

SADY: i would feel bad about dating that dude. i would be unable to pee on him and i would know that he was missing out. i think he should meet a nice girl who drinks a lot of beer and coffee, that's my answer.

AMANDA: no very abnormal feelings toward you though, man. also, what university can only find one gay person out of a hundred?

SADY: exactly. i mean, these are just questions about Generic Dude and Generic Lady and their many (hetero)sexy adventures. so are we surprised that we're coming up with this super-generic picture here?

AMANDA: you're right, there's no personal investment here at all. i bet most of them don't give a shit what a theoretical person does on or off a wheelchair

SADY: exactly. there's no history there at all. like, is the wheelchair dude or lady in question having sex with his/her spouse? girlfriend? MAILMAN? we don't know!

AMANDA: and do they get off on the disability, or do they just happen to be with a disabled person? inquiring bloggers want to know. in short, this study was not nearly sexy enough

SADY: too true. one thing i have learned from this study is that the 68 ladies who took it (as opposed to the 36 men) are REALLY not into (a) dudes not getting turned on by their nekkid parts, and (b) dudes masturbating while in a relationship. are we that insecure that dudes can't occasionally NOT have boners, or get boners on their own sometimes? there are plenty of boners to go around! in conclusion, boners.

AMANDA: boners

SADY: embrace your boners, people of the world! let no-one tell you they are abnormal!

AMANDA: boners.

Photo by venetia joubert sarah oosterveld