, April 13, 2012
(view all comments by novacop923)
He has NO CLUE what he's talking about!
But since he's a gay man -- and, by implication, therefore "more sexually active" -- he's somehow more "qualified" to talk about Sexual Relations in an open forum ... which is great for him (sure beats TEMPING to pay the bills!) but not so great for the rest of us (i.e., everyone else living in the wake of the "cultural mores" he's shifted: encouraging cavalierness as a modus operandi).
I say this because:
(1.) I firmly believe it is all but IMPOSSIBLE to give "sex advice" in an open forum; advice about EVERYTHING ELSE, until you get there, sure ... but, sex?
On the one hand, something like a 12-point bulletin should cover the fundamentals, and on the other ... you REALLY DO HAVE TO START FROM SCRATCH EACH AND EVERY TIME!
Hence, his responses tend to fall into two (2) categories: "flippant" (i.e., "How'd that happen? Don't pull that crap with me! Of course YOU KNOW, silly!") and "pro forma" (i.e., "Well ... just SAY SO to the other person! It's easy! Find the time, occasion, way of putting it ... and integrate it into conversation! Q.E.D.! You're done!").
The possibility that he could be stepping all over the rawest of raw nerves is, of course, a CONSTANT possibility, but one he hasn't really had to acknowledge -- since, of course, that would be to admit he's doing a THERAPIST'S work, rather than following in the baloney-&hooey-trails that had been "blazed" for him by Dr. Ruth [wrinkled granny, thus "exempt" from being in the trenches herself] and Xaviera Hollander [a former prostitute & madam, who had "numbed" herself adequately enough to be "qualified"].
Look at any letter he gets -- week in, week out -- and try to identify the point at which: "Okay, you need to go back and address THIS, before you even articulate the rest of the question in a pseudo-anonymous letter to a 'Pop Counselor'" ... I can all-but GUARANTEE you can always find the "better question" point in each ... which is, of course, STILL not to say you'd know what the "solution" (or possible "solutions") would be, now, is it?
(2.) Secondly, the "pot kettle black" phenomenon which can afflict any person burdened with a human psyche (that means YOU and ME, too, kids!) invariably comes into play with his skittishness about exhibiting any enthusiasm for male sex w/women, and ... oh, what's that you say? Making comments about how he "doesn't particularly want to hear about cunnilingus, [he] just would like to know it's being done, like charity work in foreign countries" doesn't APPLY to him, since he's (stridently, publicly, and professionally) gay?
Yeah ... NO KIDDING, right? That's why the "schtick" doesn't ultimately, work; no "straight" guy would ever be "allowed" to make a living (at a nice cushy alternative-weekly office, of course; CERTAINLY NOT "cold-calling" cretins at the only job you can find!) giving "sex counseling" [c'mon, let's call a spade a spade] to "lesbo" gals ... which goes to show, right? [See: the "start completely from scratch" point made above; all ya'all not had the experience of finding it HARDER to just MEET people after graduating college, say? Yeah: welcome to REAL LIFE! Dan's EXEMPT: don't mind HIM, ya'all!]
Thus, his comments about Lynn Shelton's "Humpday" -- indicting "straight" guys for being skittish about being considered "bi" -- aren't just disingenuous or hypocritical, they're holding the rest of society (or, alternately, counter-cultural society) to a standard of "boundary loss" he exempts himself from.
(3.) What "straight" guy wouldn't like to have MORE sex, anyway? [Henry Rollins once made a typically-self-effacing, "grass is always greener" joke in one of monologues about how "if I was gay, I'd be g*****g l**d ALL THE TIME"!]
Of course, being born -- at ALL -- means you get the "problem set" you're born with; gay men may, indeed, be MEN, and therefore more quote-unquote "WILLING" as partners than "straight" guys may find women to be ... but that's not for NO REASON, correct? In FACT: that's for reasons upon reasons, converging & disparate, depending on the circumstance. [Yeah, that tells you a LOT, right? Sorry kids: that's ADULTHOOD!]
As such, the birth of these weird, "permission-giving" concepts such as "GGG" [which is, of course, nothing less than a way of saying: "I'm nice!" and, oddly, seems to mimic the more soul-crushing tendencies of the military, CIA & other such organizations in its transference of accountability into the neat "basket" of an acronym] have served a REAL NEED, alright: "cover" ... but only for those who TAKE it (and, uh, FALSELY, of course!)
IN SUM: Let's face it, everyone ... you can't be DEADLY SERIOUS and "blithe" at the same time! (Sorry, Dan! I know you "knock one out of the park" everytime you "step up at bat," but that's only because there's NO WAY -- given the way your column is "limned" -- that anyone could articulate (or, "pitch") it to you differently! That said, we'll leave aside the WEIRDER "issues" ... your very odd lack of "wariness," for example [having people write to you with the salutation "Hey, f----t!" is SO odd, and I'm sorta surprised nobody complained enough for the first four (4) years you were doing it [or whatever it was] and let it go THAT long ...